World Colonial

13 hours ago, brg5658 said:

Are you referring to the 2019 £2000 2-kilo (64.3 oz troy) Una and the Lion?  With a mintage of only 4 pieces, I’m quite sure there is nothing all that special about a COA#1.
 

I think you are confusing this with the smaller issued gold pieces. It’s not a bargain at the price noted, but it is nowhere near the most absurd or overpriced numismatic item I’ve seen. 

Might be it but I did not know it had a mintage of four.  I did not look it up, only that I saw it was a 2019 and a 5 Sovereign.

Most overpriced coin ever (not even close) is the South Africa 2008 Mandela 90th BD 5R NGC MS-69 purportedly sold by the South African Coin Company for the equivalent of $338,000.

Most of the coins are distinctive though a few quite overpriced as far as I am concerned, except compared to the closest comparable US coinage.

The one coin which is most overpriced is the 2019 5S.  The price is absurd and I presume due to the COA #1.  I'd rate it as one of the most overpriced and worst numismatic values in the world, literally.

11 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Certainly, some types of coins (gold, silver) are difficult to accumulate many of the years and mintmarks.  Other coins, less so.  Pretty much as it was 40 years ago and 60 years ago.

If the buyer had a lot money, it doesn't seem to me that buying any US coin was much more difficult in the past than now, unless it's for specialization or specific quality.  For the actually rarer more expensive coins, I suspect most of these could have been tracked down through dealer contacts.

The Hansen mega thread on the PCGS forum has certainly once again showed that buying practically any US regular issue coin (MS or proof) isn't difficult at all.  In less than five years, he is only missing a very low proportion.

With non-US coinage, it's more difficult for the scarcity but this is substantially due to the lower price level.  If the coins were worth more, few would be hard to buy either assuming the coin exists to be bought.  

4 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Silver ran up so much more in 1979-80 because of the Hunt Squeeze.  It quadrupled in 5 months whereas gold merely doubled.

You are absolutely right about silver -- and virutally ALL PM"s -- being lousy investments.  That's one reason why I don't "invest" in silver but rather "speculate" in silver coins and commemoratives.  I pay more, but I get something I enjoy looking at as opposed to the same old ASEs or a silver bar.  If silver doubles or triples or quadruples from today's levels, I'll probably make money on them.  If not, I don't really care.

 

Being a metal advocate is the equivalent of financial religion to some.  I was that way for a short time in the 80's in my early 20's.  Eventually, I figured out I wasn't going to get rich with the limited amount of silver I could buy and then later concluded the hyperinflation scenario many of them expect is a lower probability event too.

I don't believe it is particularly expensive now but don't believe it is cheap either.  If anyone has evidence to show it, I am all ears to hear it.  I have never seen such evidence, only that it's cheap compared to gold (which is significantly overpriced historically) and supposedly artificially suppressed going on 30+ years.

If it falls as far as I believe in the future, I will look to buy it in quantity then, as I expect it to be the last opportunity to buy it cheap for some time.  However, if I am sorry I didn't buy anything recently, it's CVX in the high 50's or low 60's last year.  The yield is still above average but don't think it is cheap anymore.

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

You'd have to check the LME and CME stockpiles for that.  I'm not an expert.

Two different stockpiles.  Those held by the commodity exchange are one and those held by private individuals are another.

21 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

duplicate post

9 hours ago, VKurtB said:

But “stockpiles of silver are shrinking” is an outright lie. They are expanding rapidly. Every ASE you buy ADDS TO the stockpile; it doesn’t subtract from it. 

It's shrinking if someone assumes those who buy it will never sell which they will at some price, higher or lower.  (Maybe voluntarily or maybe not which is what I believe is coming later since there is no reason to believe most silver bugs are affluent.)  That's what metal advocates implicitly imply or claim.

Fact is, most who speculate in paper silver (SLV and futures) don't actually want the physical metal.  It's no different to them than buying anything else.  They just want to sell it for more later.

I believe in owning some of  the metals as a hedge and form of insurance but not in having an outsized proportion in it all of the time, as there is a huge opportunity cost to that.

Even ignoring the 1979-1980 mania and price run up to 2011, it's been a poor long term hold.  If you bought it in 1999/2001 @ $3.50 and sold it in May 2008 @ $21 or bought it in October 2008 @ $8.39 and sold it in 2011, you made a lot of money.  Other than that, holding it longer term hasn't been a winning proposition.

13 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[I do not believe your average collector realizes how heavy a cubic foot of water or silver or gold are.]  I don't know how big your suitcase is, or whether it comes with wheels, but gold comes in at well over half a ton.

I never said I could fill it up.

13 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I was too young at the time to focus on investing, but I doubt that supply was going to be a bullish prop for the price, since the high price would incentivize production and CAPX.  I'm also not surprised it lost that much after a bubble-spike from $12 in September 1979 to January 1980.

I still consider silver a speculation.  Here's a recent BARRON'S abbreviated (need to pay) link to the solar and 5G case for silver:

https://www.barrons.com/articles/silver-prices-are-set-to-benefit-from-surge-in-solar-panels-and-5g-51606474800

 

Prices were not high in the 80's except during the mania.  I don't remember the prices throughout the entire decade but don't believe it was much above $10 about 90% of the time.  (Close to or somewhat higher than now adjusted for price changes.)

I bought a few hundred ounces in 1984 or 1985 for $7.65, including fabrication premium which was 60 cents at the time.

7 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Owning metals in a true financial calamity is like taking several accordions with you to hunt deer. In both cases, you need weapons and ammunition much more.

In a global financial calamity, there will be few or no safe havens.  However, having your assets geographically diversified is still a prudent strategy for those who can afford it and have some idea of what they are doing.

5 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

In financially turbulent times, both silver and gold tend to be a focus for raising cash.  So I'm not advocating either (esp. silver, less so gold) as a protection for a market crash like we had in March 2020.

Yes, that's why both crashed into October in 2008, after holding up until May.  Initially viewed as a "safe haven" and then had to be sold when the margin calls came and job losses occurred.

In any future financial crisis, the result is likely to be similar, at least initially.  There is far too much debt in the financial system and too many people are either actually too financially marginal (think many or most "metal bugs") or too leveraged who will lack the solvency and liquidity necessary to hold onto their stash, assuming they even want to do it.

5 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

The bullish case for silver rests on increased semiconductor and chip production, plus more industrial usage.  Think palladium over the last 30 years or so.

To my recollection, the mining supply deficit was one of the primary bull arguments during the 80's, 90's or both.  It didn't make any difference.  Silver still lost about 93% of it's early 1980 manic peak by 1999/2001 in NOMINAL terms.

Not quite as familiar with the specifics of palladium other than to say it's much rarer but traditionally not an "investment" metal.  I thought about buying small quantities of it back around 2004 or 2005 when spot was about $140 but did not because it was only available in bar form and considered the premiums far too high.  Obviously, I wish I had.

3 hours ago, RWB said:

 Is coin collecting now more egalitarian, or do we deceive ourselves?

Partly depends upon definition of "collector".  I have frequently estimated up to 2MM US collectors with the concurrent assumption that the majority have annual budgets of $500 or less.  It's a guess but it should be evident that most collectors are of relatively modest means.  So in this sense, presumably more egalitarian.

Concurrently, the participation rate by the most affluent is either modest or very modest and certainly not remotely commensurate with their affluence but this has overwhelmingly been true to my knowledge in the past as well.

It's more accurate to claim that art is the hobby of kings, if it can be called a hobby, because that's what the wealthy actually prefer, then and now.

4 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

It's amazing that people don't understand that JP Morgan is a custodian and clearing house and they have long and short positions on behalf of clients.  They themselves don't own the underlying positions.  The regulators wouldn't allow it.

And yet, people continue to believe it. 

Agree with both your posts but will just answer here.

The inferred motive to suppress silver prices doesn't exist.  What I would like to know is, how does anyone who believes it explain the current price of gold?

If there has been a concerted effort to suppress gold as some of the same people believe, it has failed miserably, as no one can claim that it is relatively cheap versus hardly anything.  Maybe services such as doctor or attorney fees but literally almost no physical goods except overpriced art, collectibles and real estate.  

Gold is a lot more important metal today and in the recent past.  It's still a key central bank reserve asset and the market size is relatively material.  Silver meets neither criteria, as it has no role special role in the financial system anymore and the market size isn't significant.

I also don't believe hardly any genuinely wealthy people own it either at all (as an "investment") but definitely not as a meaningful percentage of their wealth.  It's less liquid (much higher spreads for physical) and it's more expensive to store.  It's lower unit value makes owning it in coin form more useful for barter, but it's value is an impediment to store.

If I choose, I can carry all of my taxable savings in gold in a briefcase.  Conversely, I cannot remotely carry the equivalent value in silver.  I can store it in a vault or at home but in an emergency, may not have access to it which substantially defeats one of the purposes of owning it.

I think everyone should own some of one or both but the typical metal advocate almost certainly isn't wealthy enough to own meaningful amounts of either.  Under most circumstances that I see, they will better off with it than without it but owning it isn't going to meaningfully change their financial prospects, much less rescue them from the financial disaster some of the believe will occur. 

I also expect many of them to become forced sellers and likely at unfavorable prices when economic conditions deteriorate substantially.  The best explanation why it did not happen much or more in late 2008 is because the financial stress was temporary.

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Well, judging by GME's move today and the move in the AH, they should at least be raising some cash for SLV. 

Don't get me wrong. I am interested in owning both. 

To my knowledge, silver is only significantly relatively underpriced versus gold but not generally.  On one occasion, I attempted to look into it but only found limited data.  As an example, to my recollection, silver is somewhat cheap now versus a barrel of oil (roughly 2-1 now versus somewhat less in February, 1976 when silver was $5.25) but not meaningfully so.

Gold is at a multi-century relatively overvaluation versus at minimum other commodities. However, this doesn't mean that silver should be selling for a lot more just because the ratio doesn't conform to the arbitrary 16-1 set by governments during the gold standard and gold exchange standard era.  After the US government fixed the price of gold at $35 in 1933, the ratio was over 100 with silver selling around 25c.

Prices change all the time and there is nothing in economics requiring relative prices to conform to anyone's belief.

The most distinctive to me is the Rome 3 solidi.

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yes, Taubman owned Sotheby's....and when it was bought it was for about $2-$3 billion or 3-4x the purchase price for CU.

Excellent point.  But the smaller purchase price for CU must mean there is growth SOMEWHERE in the company.  I think it's in collectibles and sports memorabilia where stuff is pricey and it's easier to grow the top line by getting fat rates on a smaller number of expensive items rather than grow baseball card grading and/or coin certification.

You buy something from a Marvel movie and it is $50,000 that's $500 - $2,000 probably right there.

Taubman paid 3-4X but a much more reasonable price for what he bought.  I don't remember when but it wasn't during a full blown asset mania like now.

As to your second comment, I agree there is some opportunity but still not to any meaningful scale in the types of items I infer from your post.  The margins can certainly be higher (charge a premium price) but the volume is likely to remain very low.

I don't believe enough items are interesting enough to enough people where this will last either.  I know you used Marvel only as an example.  The franchise has staying power (especially under Disney) but specific items are likely to fall out of favor regularly.  Far less liquid than most coins near equivalent value where no one knows what it is really worth.  The franchise can remain in favor but doesn't mean a particular item won't crash in price anyway.

My prediction is that any attempt to increase the scale by authenticating noticeably higher volume will weaken prices a lot by diluting the novelty factor.

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Both are private.  Sotheby's was public at one time I believe, but you can't have a business like that -- with lumpy quarterly and annual results -- at the whims of the public market.

Plus, there is confidential information that is key to securing future sales and revenue streams...you can't give that information out and not put yourself at a competitive disadvantage or tee off your own clients.

I believe it was Alfred Taubman who owned one of the two at one time.  I suspect it was at least partly a status trophy.  This private equity firm that bought or is buying CLCT could also buy one an auction firm taking it private.

The primary point I was trying to make is that the limited history of this type of company (these two and CLT) doesn't provide any reason to believe it will ever have any scale.  The art market is multiples in size to mass produced collectibles yet it also has no scale, financially.  No reason to buy it for growth because it's always going to be a limited niche market financially.

11 hours ago, bernard55 said:

I think you have to separate a short-term 'billionaire' / PE scenario from a sustainable long-term market scenario.  CU/PSA will get a lot of people psyched up to invest in cards, values will go up and then the floor will eventually drop out... if nothing comes behind it the run will be short.. if something does it might continue. Cohen sees CU the same way Zillow and OpenDoor (iBuyers) see mortgage, title insurance etc.. essentially bolt on value to maximize margin and MORE importantly valuation. 

but to turn the coin market into a growth market... there is a need for an entity that is legit on quantifying price.  eBay or a group that consolidates auction data could do that... NGS/PCGS/CDN etc.. are not credible in this capacity because they are not close to the transaction. The eBay/auction companies also have the picture datasets that ML/AI can consume for grading/authenticity/fingerprint purposes.  this real time access to market data would normalize the market and that alone would bring alternative investment types into the market.  might lower us prices for a while... 

The price of collectibles is ultimately determined by collectors, not anyone else. @GoldFinger1969and I have discussed this in prior threads and for the most part, I think we are in agreement.

Trying to turn any collectibles market into an asset class isn't sustainable longer term because it's an asset with no utility to anyone else and it produces no income stream.  Some people claim the same thing about metals but even aside from the industrial purposes, gold is held as a reserve asset and silver has a long history of being used as money and is viewed this way still in some parts of the world.

Despite what proponents of this preference claim or desire, hardly any of these collectibles have anywhere near broad enough appeal to anyone outside of those who collect it to buy and hold it longer term as a collectible, except maybe when it isn't losing value or at relatively nominal prices.  This applies to any coin where the value is primarily contingent upon the TPG label or a CAC sticker.

It's somewhat different with unique items such as art but then, these items are in a different league entirely from coins and other mass produced collectibles.

If I was going to get into the collectibles business, I'd far prefer to own an auction company like Heritage than a TPG.  The challenge even with this though is that to my knowledge owning shares of Sotheby's and Christie's hasn't been very profitable longer term.  To my knowledge, the financial performance of both has been mediocre.  

2 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

This would have me running in the opposite direction from any person or firm who believes this:

"...Trading cards are easily the most liquid of all tangible assets, and this factor is continuing to drive attention towards them, especially new wealth” 

That's because they confuse an asset mania and speculation with wealth and collecting.

In a prior post you mentioned the 80's sports card bubble.  I remember it somewhat.  A co-worker of mine (early 20's like me at the time) bought boxes of the stuff purely for speculation and he was hardly alone.  Most of these cards (and later ones) must be incredibly common, except in some arbitrary grade like many coins where a large number exist essentially as made.  :"Investing" in this stuff is like buying "widgets".

I used to be an avid sports fan in all the major team sports (now just college football and world cup of soccer), so I "get it" for collectibles with actual substance, like some older sports cards or player and team sourced items. 

As with coins, a mass produced piece of cardboard with a high survival rate essentially as made selling for inflated prices doesn't have the appeal to sell for "high" prices long term absent current financial bubble conditions.  A business model based upon this premise doesn't exactly sound like a winning proposition to me but then, it isn't my money.

2 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Remember....all it takes is a small % of 20ish or 30ish tech billionaires to move a small % into what they liked as kids 15 or 20 or 30 years ago and it can move the market.  We see it in art all the time.

Imaginge if just 1 or 2 more billionaires said they wanted to emulate Bob Simpson and accumulate Saints.  You'd have panic buying at the rare and ultra-rare high end it would filter down to semi-scarce coins, too.

This subject has come up numerous times before and we have discussed it.

This is overwhelmingly abstract theory, as it doesn't happen in practice at any material financial level, A TPG label on a coin and on practically any sports card isn't sufficiently compelling to get someone who isn't a collector to pay noticeably higher prices as they have no motivation to do it.  It's somewhat more realistic on Saints (per our prior discussions) since this is an "investment" substitute for gold bullion but nothing more.  At least 30,000+ with the financial capability to buy the 1794 SP dollar at the Stacks auction yet no one did.

Unlike coins, I'll grant you it might or appears to apply to a few sports cards (maybe due to legitimate nostalgia) but still not many.  An example might be the Mickey Mantle rookie card, as it isn't remotely close to being scarce given the hugely inflated price.

9 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

And yet RSN values are in the toilet.  I don't get it.  Broadcast rights for the teams per se are still going up so I don't know why the RSN values are dropping.  Have to get a sell-side report from one of my old contacts.

My explanation for it is the perception that the medium (cable TV) is a dying business but the content is (supposedly) very valuable as one of the few to generate interest with a predictable (large) audience.

This doesn't make any sense to me either, not just because of the money being paid for the sports rights, but because at least in some instances (which I will not name), the target demographic audience being marketed to is disproportionately broke anyway.

3 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

That's been the gameplan in the past, but they paid an all-time high price.  They didn't buy this on a decline or buy a busted company.  And the non-core asset may be the PCGS coin division.

We'll have to see.  Maybe they see growth in all their areas including coins, who knows.  But the HOT areas seem to be cards and collectibles (non-coin).

I think we agree but this is why I see it as part of the mania.  Many of these transactions (most in my opinion) don't make any sense, unless the mania continues and gets even bigger.

With sports teams, it's my inference that really wealthy people who can afford it are willing to do it partly for nonfinancial reasons; for status to increase their social standing in the community.  Someone may be willing to lose money (even if they do not) because they get something else out of it.

This is a private equity firm right?  If it is, it's presumably not some private buyer who loves sports so much they had to buy a grading and authentication company.  I consider this an awful value proposition, except under the assumption of selling it later under the greater fool theory.  As an operating business, the purchase price makes no sense.

1 minute ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

WC, it appears to be a baseball/collectibles play, not a coin play per se.

Heck, even MeTV has a "Collector's Corner" show that airs with famous entertainment and comic book and other collections.  Alot of this stuff (costumes, etc.) has to be authenticated to realize value.

Yes, that's the only angle that makes sense and I did sneak in one comment to that effect though most of my post was on coins.

I am not particularly knowledgeable on this market but if the "classic" market isn't vibrant, don't see that this is going to last either.  Anything modern in these collectibles is going to be a lot more common or very common,  This is an inference but I am dubious that hardly anyone spending noticeable sums really likes the collectibles oyu described much, except if they aren't losing money.  It's another contrivance.

37 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

The whole baseball card revival seems to be in new and fad cards....holographic cards, special signed cards, premium cards given away in boxes or raffles....etc.  It does NOT seem to have lifted prices for all the stuff me and my cousins were buying in the 1980's and 1990's:  the old stars (Brett, Gibson, Seaver, Ryan, Mays, Mantle, etc.)...or the then-current ones (Griffey, etc.).  But maybe I'm wrong and those have been lifted in price, too.

Also seems to have moved into the sports that have not suffered baseball's general decline (hockey, basketball, e-Sports).  Football seems to have its fans play the gaming apps.

There is also a massive sports bubble.  Look at franchise values, media contracts and salaries.  It's predominantly based upon cheap money  - again - where club owners can pay ridiculous prices for franchises because of the stock mania, media companies pay ridiculous rights fees by selling advertising at hugely inflated prices because corporate ad buyers can afford to waste money and a similar theme with ticket prices.