World Colonial

On 12/3/2020 at 1:35 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I don't understand how anybody can want unslabbed coins or unprotected currency.  Not only do you know have a professional estimate for the underlying grade, the coin or bill is not in a position to be properly handled and stored.

Do overseas people -- and some Americans -- really want to finger-up their coins...have friends touching them....risk damage to their coins/bills ?

Even if there weren't grades attached, I value the slabs and currency plastic holders.

 

 

 

From a collecting standpoint, it's a cultural preference on both sides.

US "collecting" has been financialized along with a few others, such as South Africa but this isn't true with most European coins.  I have high quality coins from the 1700's including a decent number I submitted myself which survived just fine outside of a slab.  Many others have coins older.  It isn't necessary, except for those who obsess over minor quality differences hardly anyone cared about before so many coins became so expensive.

As for this transaction, it makes no financial sense to me but then, we are talking about the greatest never ending mania ever.  I don't see how these new (prospective) buyers are going to grow the top line much with most coin prices stagnating.  If they attempt to raise grading fees meaningfully, it's going to reduce submissions probably noticeably.  With a flat or stagnating market, the value proposition to submit most coins is already bad enough.  Maybe in sports cards but not coins.

I didn't read all the posts but seems to me that the biggest opportunity is to find a way to cut costs and sell "non-core assets".  However, I don't believe this will make much difference either because the purchase price is too high for what they are actually buying..

This leaves financial engineering.  The company has very little debt, so they can leverage up by borrowing to pay themselves dividends and then at some point in the future try to IPO it or sell it.

18 hours ago, Just Bob said:

The Chilean coins that did sell, did well. Most went for more than the pre-auction estimate - a few for quite a bit more. With a $35K reserve, this one was going to require some deep pockets.

I wonder how large the collector base is for high-end Chilean coins.

For the coins  I buy and track most, my experience is that their estimates are usually low.

I thought the coins that did sell did well, but I don't track it that closely.  As for the size of the collector base, it can't be very large at all, maybe somewhat more than the coins I collect at most.  There is virtually no supply in any decent quality for most of these dates, the 1817 peso being the most common but still hardly common compared to the vast majority of US coins.  

Collectors can bid up the price but cannot buy what doesn't exist.

2 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Well, Heritage partnered with Roger Burdette to put out a 600-page book on Saints so there's that. 

I'm curious what a Goldberg or Stacks or Superior catalog might have especially pre-2000.  THOSE might have commentaries or insights that aren't online or in print.  Nothing blockbuster-wise, but interesting observations, auction or sales prices, etc.

Back in the 1980's, I had a subscription with Bowers & Merena to their catalogs and price lists, which included the Beebee collection.  I'm not going to claim to remember that much of it (don't have it anymore) but to my recollection, the auction descriptions didn't differ much from now by being better.

The main difference that I have seen in more recent years is that the auction descriptions for the most expensive coins are longer now, even when there is virtually nothing of substance to say about the coin which couldn't easily be said with a much briefer one.

Take a look at the descriptions in the Heritage sale of the Partrick collection.  One I read today is the 1792 AU-58 silver Getz pattern.  This description is long which makes sense, as it's a distinctive coin where a lot can be said of it.

How true is this of hardly any coin at a similar or higher value?  (There are many, not a few.)

My answer is virtually none.  It's disproportionately marketing, exactly as should be expected.  That's what the consigners want and are paying for.

If you want to check it out for yourself, you can do so at the Newman Numismatic Portal.  I only searched world coinage there, so you may see something different than I did.

3 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Well, I checked the HA FUN 2020 catalog that I have against the online commentary for the 1927-D Saint-Gaudens and it matched word-for-word....the only additional extra in the catalog was a picture of a letter from one of the owners of the coin in the 1940's.  I also checked the verbiage from a 1927-S Saint -- the same.

So it appears no additional insight or commentary from having the printed catalog.  Still, glad I have it and don't have to worry about anything lost online or downloading it myself.

It's economics as I presume you know.  It's not "value add" measured by sufficiently higher bids to make it worth the auction firm's time to pay someone to do it.  

The information is often available (can't say always or even usually depending upon the coin) but just left out.

2 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yes....complete collections of obscure coins or foreign or ancient coins...something where you won't find Red Books or others on them.  Or if someone dumps a huge amount of MSDs or Saints, that would be worth having since you'd probably get information on some of the coins not available in the current book series on them.

I wouldn't consider any US regular issue coin (at minimum) "obscure".  (Specialization such as die varieties and errors, yes depending upon the coin or series.)  There is probably a reference on it somewhere and if it is recent, certainly a lot better than most other coinage.

For US coinage, depends upon how much interest someone has.  Even though I haven't bought a single US coin in over 15 years and have no plans to do so, I still find Coin Facts an interesting source.  It's mostly interesting to me for the survival estimates (inaccurate as it has to be) and the itemized list of the believed to be highest quality examples which I can use as a basis of comparison for the coins I collect.  However, I have an interest in it generally but seldom where I will "dig into the weeds".

12 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Seems the catalogs are really useful for obscure or really niche coins.

Since my favorites are Saint-Gaudens, Liberty DE's, and Morgans....I have book options for more information on the series.

Yes, but mostly for prominent or somewhat complete collections in the specialty.  Otherwise, it's an odd coin here or there on infrequent occasions if the series is actually scarce..  I have seen two mostly complete collections for my primary series in the last year (only two in about 20 years) but literally almost all very low quality or damaged.  Neither included much I was interested in buying.  Most recently, I bought a coin I grade XF, but these two collections didn't even have that.

On 1/9/2021 at 7:40 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Keeping catalogs just for the sake of catalogs I get your point. 

The thickest book I have from the HA FUN conference features the sale of a 1927-D Saint-Gaudens so that is a catalog I will be keeping for a very long time.  Had information on that particular coin I had never seen anywhere, not even in Roger's Saints book.

Coins on world currency and other U.S. coins were not as impressive and of less interest to me but still had good information.  But I could see how you'd want to eventually discard older ones unless it had a unique coin or section. 

I recently bought the Swiss Bank Corporation (now Sincona) catalog of the Sellschopp colonial Peru (and Bolivia) collection.  It has images of coins I collect that aren't available anywhere else.  The primary reason I wanted to buy it is to identify what else is out there that I might be able to eventually buy.  I will also eventually buy the Norweb catalogs for these series for the same reason.

I don't collect it anymore, but I wouldn't mind having a hard copy of the Bakewell collection offered by DNW around 2015.  (I have a soft copy.)  Same for Spinks sale of Remick's collection from 2006.  I also kept my copies of Millenia and Aureo & Calico's annual "Selection 500"  The latter are hard cover.  They also have a few older sales in their archives I would like to have for the images, same reason I bought Sellschopp.

Otherwise, can't say there is any other I really care about.  There are a few actual reference books for areas I do not collect I would buy if available at a reasonable price (like the Getz patterns) but otherwise, the majority of coins in any widely collected area (practically all US and most European) are easy enough to find in online catalogs or read up in COIN Facts.

Only if it includes an area of interest, mostly the coins I collect.

When I moved back in 2011 across the country, I had an accumulation I mostly threw away,  Too bulky and not enough of interest justifying the space or effort to move it.

On 1/2/2021 at 11:39 AM, v/d Merwe said:

Yes it’s mostly South African Union Proof coins. They are minted pre 1960. These proofs always look different in hand compared to pictures for various reasons as you all know. Especially if there’s toning. In hand there will be no hairlines even under magnifying for those that I decide to submit for grading. 
Photo is for reference regarding Union proofs. 

I have submitted a number of these, though none in about a decade.  Even back then, the grades were all over the place.  Some really mediocre coins in grades up to PR-66 but better looking ones with lower numbers.  I'd attribute it to present but not noticeable (to the naked eye) hairlines.

I wouldn't bother submitting most of these coins, regardless of the potential grade.  Of the few I have left, I wish I had left it in the original presentation case.

15 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

Your statement is not only rude and callous it is completely incorrect.  Many collectors spend a vast amount of time to find and choose the coins they collect, that they happen to receive an award is not even remotely close to a participation trophy.  Not every collector that uses the registry is trying to assert how big an appendage he has or is driven by an award, seriously just an insanely stupid thing to say by painting all registry participants with such a broad brush.

Not here to please you.  I never said anyone's collection isn't worth collecting.

1 hour ago, scopru said:

 

And there it is in a nutshell.  I would say you care enough to dump on the whole registry system and its participants.   

Wasn't dumping on anything.  It's only US collectors and US culture that would ever think that completing a collection which can be bought in one day and which has no practical difference from numerous others is anything else.

5 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

While I do not recall this series as I dont own or buy them; the registry points are very closely tied to value.  There are other factors involved in the whole matrix that NGC uses to assign points but price (I believe this is biased on the price guide) is a large part of the equation.  Again I don't have the specifics but I would bet that the prices tanked and because those are such a large part of the calc the registry points fell off the cliff shortly after.

Despite what @World Colonial thinks the registry is not designed to give the lion's share of points only to "very common ultra-modern coins" on some arbitrary dart board style theory.  No, again points are largely driven by price and price is driven by marketplace demand.  Using your example as you noted those came out of the gates running and garnered lots of attention which drove the prices way up.  Once the marketplace absorbed the series and the hoopla died down so did the prices and the registry points came back into line with the normal market value.  This cycle happens with many new releases but it all has to do with market value not some tin foil hat conspiracy theory that is designed to reward modern coins. 

 

I was using the series as an example.  What you write makes sense since I presume that NGC or PCGS assign the points by formula.

Not that I care, since winning one of these awards isn't even an accomplishment.  It's the coin collecting equivalent of receiving a participation trophy just for showing up.

2 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Lots of Asians and other immigrants, though -- that traditional affinity for gold and/or silver helping here.

For generic type low premium gold and silver, yes.  For other US coinage, no.

7 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Gold and silver rising HAS to impact the bullion and quasi-bullion coins.  MS-62 common Saints are going to track bullion 1-to-1.....and MS-65 generic Saints that sells for a 15-25% premium normally will see the price rise based on bullion PLUS an expanding premium. 

I am aware of this.  The expanding premium is due to a temporary physical metal supply-demand imbalance.  Or, the higher volatility.

7 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Gold can appreciate in real or nominal dollars during deflation.  And right now....the CB's are looking to promote inflation.  As Marty Zweig once said, "Never fight the Fed."

Gold has never been more relatively overpriced in modern times, going back several centuries.  I'm not saying it won't become more overpriced.  I am saying that anyone who is holding a noticeable percentage of their net worth in it will have an above average risk of losing a noticeable proportion of their purchasing power, at some point I just don't know when.  It certainly isn't "cheap" even now.

Usually, an asset runs up in anticipation of the event due to psychology.  In this instance, I can see gold running up due to fear fr default (or "printing" as it did earlier).  If defaults, there are going to be many forced sellers among "metal bugs" and holders of the "paper" metal.

7 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Demographics and our hobby has many variables.  Coins that are not tied to a PM (gold, silver) like SLQ's or Franklins or Pennies or other stuff like that....it needs collectors.  Ultimately, you could have a Baseball Card Effect if nobody wants to focus on the low-end stuff.

Higher-end coins for rarity and those tied directly or somewhat to gold/silver....they have underlying support based on metallic content, though premiums can dissipate over time.

Look at the US Census Bureau forecasts.  The last one I saw goes out to 2060 though I didn't see interim detail.  Most US collectors are overwhelmingly Caucasian men.  There is no growth in this demographic (non-Hispanic white) but depending upon how anyone interprets this data, it may or will shrink. 

The groups where it will increase don't collect anywhere near to the same proportion and it isn't because of a lack of money either.  They just don't want to.  Where they do and will, they have much less affinity (if any at all) for the coins most US collectors buy now.  This doesn't mean the price level has to drop but there is no rationalizing this away.

7 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Gold and silver rising HAS to impact the bullion and quasi-bullion coins.  MS-62 common Saints are going to track bullion 1-to-1.....and MS-65 generic Saints that sells for a 15-25% premium normally will see the price rise based on bullion PLUS an expanding premium. 

I am aware of this.  The expanding premium is due to a temporary physical metal supply-demand imbalance.  Or, the higher volatility.

7 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Gold can appreciate in real or nominal dollars during deflation.  And right now....the CB's are looking to promote inflation.  As Marty Zweig once said, "Never fight the Fed."

Gold has never been more relatively overpriced in modern times, going back several centuries.  I'm not saying it won't become more overpriced.  I am saying that anyone who is holding a noticeable percentage of their net worth in it will have an above average risk of losing a noticeable proportion of their purchasing power, at some point I just don't know when.  It certainly isn't "cheap" even now.

Usually, an asset runs up in anticipation of the event due to psychology.  In this instance, I can see gold running up due to fear fr default (or "printing" as it did earlier).  If defaults, there are going to be many forced sellers among "metal bugs" and holders of the "paper" metal.

7 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Demographics and our hobby has many variables.  Coins that are not tied to a PM (gold, silver) like SLQ's or Franklins or Pennies or other stuff like that....it needs collectors.  Ultimately, you could have a Baseball Card Effect if nobody wants to focus on the low-end stuff.

Higher-end coins for rarity and those tied directly or somewhat to gold/silver....they have underlying support based on metallic content, though premiums can dissipate over time.

Look at the US Census Bureau forecasts.  The last one I saw goes out to 2060 though I didn't see interim detail.  Most US collectors are overwhelmingly Caucasian men.  There is no growth in this demographic (non-Hispanic white) but depending upon how anyone interprets this data, it may or will shrink. 

The groups where it will increase don't collect anywhere near to the same proportion and it isn't because of a lack of money either.  They just don't want to.  Where they do and will, they have much less affinity (if any at all) for the coins most US collectors buy now.  This doesn't mean the price level has to drop but there is no rationalizing this away.

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Agreed.....the spillover to bullion substitues like generic Morgans or Saints...and then the spillover to quasi-bullion MS-65 or MS-64 coins that sell at modest premiums to bullion (15-25%) will be fascinating.

And of course....the pure numismatics that sell for multiples of the underlying metal price like ultra-rare conditions or the 1907 High Relief or rare Morgans toned or DMPLed, etc.

Depends upon how far out anyone wants to project and what coins they have in mind.

To my knowledge, the current run up in gold has done virtually nothing for US coins prices in the aggregate and has never had much (if any) correlation with coinage from elsewhere.  Silver has run up noticeably since March but is only about 20% higher than May 2008.  Not sure either has had much impact even on generics with higher premiums either.

I don't believe this metals move is going to be that big now.  I see major asset deflation first. 

Decades from now, it's also my opinion that any run up will be more than offset by most US collectors becoming poorer or much poorer and demographic trends where a noticeably lower proportion will collect US coinage.  The collector base may or may not shrink but even if it doesn't, they mostly won't be paying current prices in "real money", much less far more.

3 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

We're in a world of ZIRP -- Zero Interest Rate Policies -- and the effect on long-duration assets (like growth stocks that don't pay dividends) is apparent after March and C-19.

I DO believe we may see more interest in PM's and by extension coins....but I don't think we will see nor do I WANT to see what happened in 1988-90.  The $$$ today are so large that just 1 or 2 gazillionaires could disrupt the market if they went full-bore with Big $$$ and tried to accumulate their dream collection in 2 years or whatever. 

At some point, huge bull market in gold and silver.  If anything is going to bring bigger money in, it's that.

3 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Dividend yield, 40% of S&P 500 total returns since 1926, will probably outdistance bond returns so the yield on them isn't to be discounted lightly.

For a comparision of valuation metrics, click here and check out Pages 5, 10, and 21 (other valuation metrics were replaced by Covid-19 stuff this quarter; they should return eventually):

https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/gim/adv/insights/guide-to-the-markets/viewer

 

Page 5 in this presentation uses the forward P/E.  As weak as historical earnings are as a valuation measure, this one is even worse.

The other two don't tell me whether US stocks are relatively cheap or expensive.  I agree "value" is cheap compared to "growth" but that's substantially due to the latter including so many bubble stocks and cash burn machines selling at insane valuations.

The reason current conditions don't seem insane to hardly anyone now is because it's lasted so long and we're living through it.  The behavior even in the worst prior manias is tame compared to the insanity since the late 90's.  As one example, Kindlerberg's book claims that during the South Sea Bubble (1718-1720) someone raised 5,000 GBP with an IPO titled "An undertaking of great advantage but no one to know what it is".

That's not even close to what should be worthless companies (mostly in the US) that collectively will never make a dime "worth" at least hundreds of billions if not up to several trillion right now.

53 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

The Japanese stock market sold at stratospheric multiples (60x earnings).  No U.S. stock indices sell at those levels.

Stocks are NOT cheap but they are not a bubble in the aggregate.  The FAANGs and work-at-home stocks have discounted alot of 2022 and 2023 success in the here and now.

Stocks are not as expensive as they were in 2000.  Lots of stocks in that index and not in the index had NO EARNINGS and were being valued on eyeballs and page views.

Earnings is not a good measure of value and the only reason P/E has any correlation is because the "P" is the market.  It's a very poor one since it is more of an accounting number than anything tangible.  You can't spend earnings and it changes based upon arbitrary accounting standards which are liberally applied in many instances.  Many "earnings" reported in the press are just made up based upon some alternative measure.

The point I was making is that the US stock market is an outlier, on an island in deep outer space all by itself.  It's a mistake to believe the performance in practically every other stock market since 1999 or 2007 can't or won't be replicated here.  Forget about losing money, most people's finances are so marginal, there future living standards will decline just by a repeat of 2000-2011 where the return over this period was about zero.

Going by other measures such as dividend yield, price to sales, and market cap to GDP, US stocks are either near peak value or above it.

The primary difference between the US stock market and all others isn't fundamental, it's inflated psychology.  The fake economy here also exists elsewhere for the same or similar reasons with less "success" but this doesn't explain the difference.

45 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Agreed....the distinction is arbitrary and sometimes a matter of semantics.   Here's why I say speculation:  when you INVEST, you let time work for you.  Stocks go up over time...bonds compound interest over time.  Let the holding period increase, and it's VERY HARD to lose money buying quality even if you buy at the wrong time (i.e., right before a bear market).

With SPECULATION....you are not letting time work for you.  You may have a short-time horizon and coins (like PMs) simply fluctuate too much in the short-term.  But even if your holding period is LONG TERM, if you bought at the wrong time (during a bubble, for instance) you might never get even.  That is certainly the case with folks who bought at the 1988-90 Coin Bubble peak.  Conversely, if you bought stocks right before the 1987 Crash or 2001-02 Bear Market or even 2008-09 Financial Crisis -- you made up your losses and then some.

The actual explanation for your description is the current financial mania.  What you are describing is applicable to only a few asset classes.

US stocks are in an unprecedented mania, the same mania which was in place at the 2000 dot.com and 2007 pre-GFC peaks.  Most debt is also still in the same mania.  Some real estate remains in the same mania still inflated by artificially cheap debt and lax credit standards.

Most everything else?  It peaked years or even decades ago.  Remember Japanese stocks?  This is hardly a minor asset class.  It's huge.  Yen denominated buyers have made little if any money in 31 years and probably lost money adjusted for purchasing power.  USD buyers might have made money due to the FX rate change (about 160 to 100) but still lost purchasing power.

I summarized this in a prior post.  Most Americans don't know it because they are only aware of the primary US stock indices or the big name large caps.  They also don't want to believe it's a mania because of the implications it has on their future living standards.

US coins as measured by the PCGS 3000 peaked around 1990 and to my knowledge, most have been losing value since 2008.  I regularly hear different claims for other coinage but don't believe it's more than a minority.

I agree with you in one key aspect though.  At least if you buy financially sound companies with good cash flows and decent business prospects, you get "paid to wait" with a dividend. 

With some expensive coin in TPG holder with a high number label, it can crash and never recover, easily.  Most of these coins certainly aren't interesting enough to be bought as collectibles at anywhere near current or recent value based upon its' credentials which is why collectors will only buy it with the expectation of getting most of their money back.

22 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

U.S. Savings Bonds pay interest but when one factors in the inflation rate -- or so I recall hearing years ago, they make for a poor investment choice. By your definition, every last one of us is a coin collector whether our tangible assets appreciate in value, or do not.  (Tough call made tougher by that head-pounding emoji! 😉)

I have concluded that people use the term "investment" to rationalize financial decisions they would unlikely otherwise never make.  It's much easier to convince yourself to buy something (anything) when you tell yourself it's an "investment" instead of speculation or expensive consumption.

Think of the supposed "investments" most people usually make and then assess the practical difference to either speculation or consumption.  There almost never is any.

With coins specifically, if you are a collector, any coin purchase is a combination consumption expense and financial speculation.  If you are a dealer buying it for inventory, it's no different than any other business outlay and it's more of an investment.

To anticipate any potential disagreement (since I know many or most do), practically anything will "appreciate" if the currency is debased enough.  Back in the early 1990's when I visited Brazil, inflation was running 30% to 40% per month.  Anyone there could have "made" money by buying practically anything.

11 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Tangible assets are NOT investments even if they can/do appreciate over time.  They don't pay dividends or interest, they are susceptible to numerous exteranl influences (PM prices, supply & demand, evaporation of premiums, changing tastes, etc.).

As an extremely ILLIQUID asset class, our hobby can NOT accomodate large inflows of money, as was seen by the mere rumour (I'm not sure if the $$$ ever flowed in, have to double-check) of Wall Street $$$ in 1988-90.

Under the most widely used definition of investment, there is no difference with speculation.  Even the dictionary definition is arbitrary and does not clearly distinguish between the two.

Under the commonly used definition, coins are lousy investments for the reasons you state.

54 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Latin America generally, I suppose. A magnificent collection of important Guatemalan pieces won Best in Show at a recent ANA convention. The exhibitor was himself, Guatemalan, and spoke only broken English.

Many Latin America but I cannot say how many.  I don't follow Brazil but I see a lot of high quality coinage from there without even trying.  Hard to say though whether a specific date denomination combination is common over a 400+ year period.

Guatemalan colonial coinage is usually scarcer than those I primarily buy, but that's presumably mostly due to the much lower mintages.  For pillar minors, we are talking as much as 50 -100:1.  For later coinage (maybe after 1850), much of it doesn't seem to be scarce but I don't know about many individual dates.

The most widely collected earlier series though are at minimum hard to buy in any decent grades and many dates rare or scarce:  most cobs outside the 8s, many pillars, portraits, Mexico Cap & Ray, Lion & Castle quarter real, Chile Volcano.

In some instances, I suspect there is noticeable supply locally for the republic coinage but it's mostly in low or very low quality.  As an example, Chile and Peru seem to be a lot more common than Bolivia.  Otherwise, though US and European collectors probably bought most of the better stuff decades ago.

52 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

One of the more curious observations made in Mark Salzberg's letter (not yet two month's old at post-time) comes within its closing lines:

"We are only in the earliest stages of the convergence of the collecting and investing worlds, and there are still incredible opportunities for growth." (Emphasis mine.)

Whether you can appreciate the humor in this depends on when you were born and how long you've been collecting.

Yes, you can call it humorous.  I call it ridiculous.

I didn't remember the specific verbiage you extracted but to make this statement after US "collecting" has been substantially financialized decades earlier is ironic to say the least.  I started collecting in 1975 which was at most a few years after it started.

There are no "incredible opportunities" for "growth".  Not unless collecting turns into "widget" trading.

What this letter and anyone who agrees with it totally misses isn't just the practical impossibility of perpetually buying coins as "widgets", but that the current price level only exists because of the much bigger and broader financial asset and credit mania.  I have seen almost zero acknowledgment of this simple fact in any coin discussion. When this mania finally ends and it will "eventually", not only will there be no "growth", the price level is heading for a crash landing, if not in nominal prices then when measured by purchasing power.

11 hours ago, VKurtB said:

My point is that I believe the true “survival rate” of many coins is far far greater than the numismatic community believes. The “community” believes a whole bunch of things that are simply factually untrue, such as that almost all slabable coins already have been. Nonsense.

Believing that is hubris on stilts. It boils down to “if we (the Royal ‘we’) haven’t seen it, it doesn’t exist”. Hogwash. Come to rural Pennsylvania and see some of our ubiquitous offline coin auctions. There are utterly MASSIVE numbers of even high end coins not in plastic to this very day. In a single weekend last winter, a saw a raw 1856 flying eagle cent AND an MS65 1916-D dime, also raw, for sale 20 miles apart, both between Reading and Harrisburg, PA. And yes, professional numismatists, including from major firms, verified both.

TPGS population reports are not just fiction, they should be birdcage linings. They are useless for anything else.

I agree with you when it comes to most US coinage (probably like 95%), but not necessarily others.  It just depends upon which coins anyone has in mind.  You provided two examples, but no US coin like either is even scarce.  Both are also worth noticeable amounts which increases the probability of survival.

The population reports are usually not representative, for a variety of reasons.  In the US, it's due to the owner's preference and the value.  Outside the US, most collectors don't like TPG.

With the coins I collect now, I attribute the scarcity primarily to a lack of local collecting (then and now) and geographic isolation.  There were effectively no local collectors, the coins mostly circulated locally and for a long time, and there was limited travel where the coins could have gone anywhere else.

I also don't just use my personal experience (as most do) to validate my inferences.  I compare my series to one which is better known, in this case the equivalent Liberty Seated denominations.  The estimates may be low in some instances, but enough of the coins are worth enough money where absent hoards, very few of the scarcer dates are likely to be a lot more common where it will make it that much easier to eventually buy it.  If a large multiple actually exist in basal or very low condition, yes the coins are literally available but it isn't relevant to most collectors anyway.

Another input I use is appearances in "name" collections.  In my series, Sellshopp and Patterson are examples.  If a coin is missing or only included in an average or very low quality, it's a very good indication it's actually rare.  Affluent collectors can usually use the dealer network to track down what they want if it's available.  The two examples I gave are pre-internet but still a good just not infallible indication.