World Colonial

12 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

My own experience is that as a person who bought occasional gold and silver bullion from the U.S. Mint and/or LCS....eventually I got into other gold (Saints) and silver (Morgans, commemoratives) coins.

I had never even heard of Saint-Gaudens coins I think until the 2009 UHR.  Ironic, because a family member who was buying gold for close to 20 years while I did financial work for them was in fact buying Saints from Blanchard, probably mentioned it to me (the specific type), but I never put 2 and 2 together and followed up.

My inference is that your example isn't unusual.  With many mints selling NCLT and bullion, those inclined to buy gold and silver bullion will transition to collector buying the series you mentioned.

They may also hold these coins for years or decades for philosophical reasons, something they would never do for any coin with a noticeable numismatic premium.

This isn't because they believe gold, silver or these coin substitutes are necessarily fantastic investments, but because they see it as the best lowest risk option to preserve their purchasing power and living standards.

5 minutes ago, RWB said:

TPG data are fundamentally biased and flawed. They are of little use except to confuse.

True, but I don't believe that wrong for the most common coinage which is listed by the tens or hundreds of thousands: 1904 double eagles, some Saints, really common Morgan and Peace dollars up to MS-66.  The price spreads between the grades with the highest populations and the probability of an upgrade usually either make it pointless or of limited financial benefit.  There is limited motivation to resubmit an 1881-S MS-65 Morgan dollar or a 1904 MS-63 DE.

36 minutes ago, RWB said:

Overall, I don't believe that "coin collecting" is really about money. Once a person transitions to acquisition for monetary reasons, they become merely speculators. That's a rather broad statement but seems to fit 19th and 20th century collecting patterns.

I agree with you but with the added qualification that it varies with the types of coins being bought.

Going by the TPG population data, "widget" coins like common pre-1933 gold and Morgan dollars must either be predominantly owned by non-collectors or by collectors in multiple for financial reasons.  There aren't anywhere near enough collectors for the supply and no one needs more than one or at most a few examples for their collection.  Similar idea for most NCLT which seems to be bought as a metal substitute.

Low priced coins such as those collected in the US in the 1960's are recreational purchases; an alternative form of consumption.  Since collectors are more affluent now versus the past, I'd guess that the price point where this applies is noticeably higher, depending upon what is being bought.

For everything else, since (expensive) coins usually aren't competitive "investments", I don't believe collectors are usually buying it strictly for financial reasons.  Concurrently, they would usually never buy it without the expectation of getting most, all or more of their money back.

When the coin is actually difficult to buy and especially has a higher preference, collectors will be far more willing to "stretch" at a price which includes years of potential appreciation.  That's what I do on occasion and have read the same sentiments many times.

There is no point in doing that for most higher grade US coinage because it isn't actually scarce and can be bought any time or near future.  It also isn't usually interesting enough where they won't usually settle for a slightly (or even much) lower quality and (much) cheaper substitute or just buy something unrelated.

How the above applies is collector specific predominantly driven by their financial circumstances, risk tolerance and attitude toward collecting.

2 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yes, it's just that at the time this article was written (2017) it was 27 or 28 years past the Coin Bubble peak and in the past Scott Travers talked about moving on from coins that had gotten slammed.  It's possible he just likes this particular one.  I was just surprised an actual hardcore collector/dealer was still holding something from the Coin Bubble 27 years later (I assume it was purchased then, because I can't see that price paid and the subsequent decline from buying it anytime after the 1990's).

I don't believe that either he or hardly anyone else really likes this type of coin anywhere near as much as inferred or claimed by US "collecting".  That's why I pointed to much cheaper substitutes.  Anyone can buy this type of coin any day of the week which is why I ignore all the hype expressing contrary sentiments.   They can buy it later whenever they want for less if it loses value.

While I have not read all his books or articles, he sure writes about the financial aspect a lot for someone who is supposedly so interested in collecting.  (I post about it because of the underlying buyer behavior, since there is little or nothing actually interesting about the coin being discussed most of the time.)  This isn't a criticism of him specifically, it's a common reflection of particularly US buyers of most expensive US coinage.

12 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

What makes it stranger is that the coin at $6K probably is UP from recent lows and the post-Bubble crash yet it is stil down over 80%.  That's a REAL SHELLACKING that is probably in the extremis.  I would think that trophy or high-end ultra-rares would go down less just because they have deep-pocketed buyers willing to pony up at a certain level, unlike Morgans that can go down 75% and the price can't move up because there are thousands at the grade level available.

I don't find it surprising since I don't see the coin as I infer from your post, though I do believe it it's how many (maybe most) US based collectors see it.  This is my opinion of most supposedly "trophy" US coinage where most of the distinction reflected in the price is actually from the TPG holder label.  Sure, the coin is nice but I can buy a comparable substitute for a fraction of the price or something else far more interesting for the same or a lot less if bought as a collectible.

There are other (US) coins fitting the description you provided, but this isn't one because it wasn't competitive versus the alternatives anywhere near peak price.

There are a lot of directions this thread could take.

If your question from the title of this thread is measured by the price level, this is a very imprecise metric.  I understand why people do it, but it doesn't really provide an accurate reflection of the state of collecting as a hobby.

The example from the article is primarily reflective of financially motivated buying and so are most other purchases anywhere near or above this price, especially for US coinage.  For all but a handful of buyers, there are plenty of comparable substitutes (either in slightly lower quality or another date/MM) at much lower prices.

To anticipate a possible reply, the distinction I am trying to make is that while no one may buy an expensive coin believing or intending to lose money, presumably they will be more willing to risk it for the low proportion of coins with higher collector appeal.

The only reason this coin sold for $34,000 previously is because it was bought during an unprecedented speculative environment.

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Can't find that article, but another coin quote from the Travers article:

"...the no-motto 1858 Liberty Seated quarter. On May 26, 1989, the Bluesheet listed this coin at $14,900 in MS-65 as certified by either PCGS or NGC. The Insider’s Guide to U.S. Coin Values lists the same coin’s value in 1993 at less than half that amount–just $7,000."

It's this one though you will have to read much of the article to get to it.  https://coinweek.com/opinion/at-the-ana-many-attempts-to-bridge-the-coin-collecting-divide/

39 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I did have the Travers article, link is here:

https://www.usgoldexpert.com/articles/selling-those-investment-coins/

The one I saw was by Charles Morgan in Coin Week where they referred to or quoted him.  It's in the OP in a thread on this forum a few years ago.

I did read part of the link.  If anyone held a losing positions for a bubble coin they had then, there is good chance they are still deeply underwater now.  I don't buy coins as "investments" but if I did, I'd still cut my losses when I conclude I was wrong.  That's what I do with anything else.  In the past when I haven't, I usually ended up losing even more.

1 minute ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Holding tangible assets like art or baseball cards or coins would probably result in bid-ask spread multiples higher than anything you see now.  I could see a 5-7% spread between the Bid and Ask to compensate the market makers and/or holders of the assets to make a market in the underlying ownership.

I agree with you, assuming anyone would even make a market in such an instrument at all.  If anyone would, other than the hypothetical generic US pre-1933 gold/Morgan dollar fund, it's not going to be any financial services firm (hardly) anyone knows.  Likely, it would be some metal dealer or firm in the coin business.

Look at the spread in bullion coin silver like ASEs since late March.  It's down noticeably from the peak but still a lot more than this now (well over 10%) and this is for an asset that is traditionally easy to sell.  I believe the spread would be much larger, since it should be a lot less liquid.

27 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Do you have any knowledge about No Motto Liberty Seated Half Dollars that was referenced above ?  

Some NM LSHD went from $39,000 down to about $13,000 acording to the article.  I am totally unfamiliar with the coin and pricing.

No, not this coin or even the series specifically.  Only that I have seen similar reports for numerous coins over the years across different series.

There was another thread here several years ago linking a Coin Week article where apparently, dealer Scott Travers still had a Barber quarter in a similar grade he bought at (or near) this time that used to be worth over $30,000 more recently worth about $6,000.  This is my recollection though I may not have the exact specifics.  The article mentioned the coin but didn't comment on the grade.

8 minutes ago, 1917 said:

this smells of fractional stock ownership... I'm not joking, it's literally now possible to buy a small sliver of a stock... a stock of stock, if you will

Yes, I have read that. I presume it's primarily directed at stocks such as Amazon and BRKB which trade for thousands since low or no fee commission stock trading has reduced or eliminated most if not all of the motivation for stock splits.  Either that, or companies finally woke up and realized it's a waste of money to attract this type of stock buyer.

This indicates that the existing long term financial mania has plumbed new depths.

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Is the No Motto Liberty Seated MS-66 for a generic common year (no date was given) ?  I couldn't look up a price without a date.  If grading is easier today, then maybe it pays to also get a price for an MS-67.  Would show less of a price drop I presume.

To my knowledge, yes.

This also highlights the difficulty of pricing the fund and valuing any fractional interest.  Probably need to use a combination of CCE and Greysheet for generics and CAC for everything else.  There isn't a standing third party bid for anything else anywhere else that I know.  This limitation would potentially noticeably limit what the fund could or at least would likely own.

Otherwise, there would be constant "slippage" in both directions every time a fractional interest transferred.

To the prior posts on the Teletype System, I saw it at one dealership in 1977 or 1978, World Numismatics in metro Atlanta.  It sounded like a dot matrix or similar printer which it probably used.

My understanding is that it was the predecessor to the CCE but not sure what coins were covered, since certification was limited and this was prior to NGC or PCGS..

48 minutes ago, Revenant said:

This thing with the fractional card owner ship (or with coins) seems like it would be a lot less liquid than a Gold ETF and far more speculative.

I don't own gold ETFs though - I opt for gold mining stocks and physical metal.

 

I infer you are attempting to be nice about it but there is no "seems" in the equation.  It's theoretically "possible" one of these fractional arrangements "could be" as liquid as GLD but no actual reason to believe it and no actual evidence that it would be. 

GLD is a multi-bullion dollar ETF (77.1B as of today's close) tracking one of the more liquid assets in the world (somewhat less recently).  As I write this post, I see a bid of $178.30 and an "ask" of $178.35.  There isn't a reason to believe any fractional collectible instrument will ever trade for a remotely comparable spread or at anywhere near an equivalent buy-sell commission ($0 for listed ETF's where I have my account) either. 

Except maybe the one exception I provided holding pre-1933 US generic gold and common Morgan dollars, no such instrument would have any realistic possibility of trading on an exchange.  It would never meet exchange listing requirements and no firm of any significance would likely act as a market maker for it either.

What this combination means is that it would have higher recurring management fees + higher transaction costs + higher buy-sell spread if it had one.  Not just a little higher but a lot, both proportionately and absolutely.

As for volatility, GLD has a 52-week range of $136-$194.  This isn't exactly stable but potentially a lot less volatile than any coin fund.  The only reason I can see it would not be is that the coins held may sell so infrequently that no one really knows what it's worth at any point in time.  This isn't unusual for other funds (real estate or bonds as examples) either.

Another risk with a coin fund is that if bought at a (substantial) premium to NAV, everyone would take a hit upon liquidation, even assuming it was accurately valued.  This isn't an inconsequential factor given that higher than average expenses would require it to either intermittently sell more shares or regularly pick winners it would periodically sell to have cash on hand.  Even in a decent market, there is no guarantee either option would be available.

If anyone wants a coin themed investment, wait for a favorable entry point to buy CLCT.  Or if someone has the connections, buy into a successful coin dealership.  Both should or will more consistently make money than the vast majority of coins.

31 minutes ago, CRAWTOMATIC said:

In a way, isn't that what a gold ETF is?

Structurally, yes it is but this doesn't indicate anything about who will buy a similar paper substitute (coin or otherwise) and hold it.  The difference is psychological and cultural.

On 11/2/2020 at 1:01 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

This was from an article in 1993 so it's 4 years later than the prices he quotes but you get an idea of the wreckage:

"One of the basic realities is the undeniable fact that most coins are worth considerably less today, in the spring of 1993, than they were four years ago, as the market approached its last big peak in May of 1989.

A check of the Certified Coin Dealer Newsletter, or Bluesheet, confirms this all too graphically.  On May 26, 1989, the Bluesheet assigned a value of $555 to an 1880-S Morgan silver dollar certified as Mint State-65 by the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation of America (NGC). Today, that same coin is valued at only about $75.

On May 26, 1989, the Bluesheet value for a no-motto Liberty Seated half dollar graded MS-66 by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) was a whopping $39,000. Today, that coin is listed for only about one-third that amount.

o On May 26, 1989, the Bluesheet assigned a value of $4,060 to a Saint-Gaudens double eagle graded MS-65 by NGC.  Today, its value has dropped precipitously. My book, The Insider’s Guide to U.S. Coin Values, lists it at only $1,200."

This episode is also evident in the PCGS 3000 and component indexes, even now where prices have not fully recovered for many of the target coins.  Some of it is presumably due to "gradeflation" where a prior MS-65 may now be an MS-66 but even accounting for this, many and maybe most of these coins are still big losers, certainly adjusted for purchasing power which is what actually matters to individuals (as opposed to institutions).

10 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Agreed....you have to buy these because you LOVE COINS and/or you aren't really banking on appreciation (obviously, no interest or dividends).

In my opinion, you have to ask yourself:  if the coin investment loses 90%, will I suffer material harm ?  If the answer is YES, then you can't do it.

The primary point I was trying to make here was that it's easy enough to assume a different reality by attributing motives to people they obviously don't have or don't demonstrate.  That's what I see from posts which disagree with me, both here and with claims that non-collectors want to buy any mega-priced coin.  They literally almost never do because if they did, they would be doing it now.

It's credible that a low to very low number of existing collectors might find this arrangement appealing because they are already collectors.

It's credible that non-collectors might also be interested in buying metal substitutes (pre-1933 gold and Morgan dollars) as it's evident from the population data that most of this coinage isn't owned as a collectible.

A third option I didn't mention before is institutions.  There is a lot of dumb money buying all sorts of garbage, both now and in the recent past.   This is the only realistic possibility where anyone would buy coins as "widgets" while ignoring the behavior of actual collectors.  A fund manager may do it because it isn't their money if they believe they won't get fired and it won't put them at a competitive disadvantage by underperforming their benchmark.

Other than these three reasons, there isn't any realistic reason to believe this is going anywhere.  Maybe a handful to low number of funds will exist but there is no reason to believe it's going to make any long term difference to the price level of hardly any coins which is the entire purpose for doing this in the first place.

10 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Depending on how it is marketed...and to WHOM....and how many investors....accredited or not....you might have heavy 1-time and recurring annual fees.  Is this a bunch of loosely-connected coin collectors or the public at large ?  What if it is just family members ?  Are you advertising ?

OTOH, if you know 20 wealthy people and you just do it amongst yourselves, nothing to involve the state or federal regulators.

Clearly, ML and KP were looking to create mass-marketed investment pools with hundreds if not thousands of investors.

True.  If it's a small circle of individuals who know each other, the primary difference I see is formalizing what is a current informal arrangement.

If it's going to be treated like a fund, I don't see how it could be much less than the numbers I gave, as there would be no motive for any financial professional or financial services firm to bother with it.  Earlier posts referred to a fund as small as $1MM.

Is it likely that such a fund (even noticeably larger) would have annual expenses of 50 to 100 bp?  For a $1MM fund, seems hard to believe it could be done with professional management for $5K a year.

With marketing, whatever the format, it would be a drag on returns.  Except under what I would describe as highly optimistic expectations, anything similar to the Stanley Gibbons brochure would make it even less appealing.

The trade-off here would be between lower returns from increased fees and varying levels of liquidity.  

10 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

My understanding was those funds NEVER came into being, it was their pending likelihood that drove up prices bigtime in 1989 and/or 1990.  I may even have an old article on it saved somewhere.

Not 100% sure either way.  I later read that one was liquidated at a loss.  But yes, you are 100% correct that someone else "front ran" these funds to run up the prices of the (potential) target coins.

If this is ever attempted on any meaningful scale, it will happen again.  There is no scale in "investment" eligible coinage, except in the context of a low number of somewhat affluent individuals.

There isn't even a unified coin market, even within US coinage since collectors don't collect this way.  Within the collector base, some coins have broader appeal than others and will be bought at a believed to be favorable price but it's not the same.

20 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think the partnership format has appeal only to folks who have interest in high-end ultra-rare coins.  I don't think you'd create one of these partnerships to pool assets to buy generic 1924 Saints.  You want a 1927-D or a 1931-S or a 1932.

For the non-collector, I believe pooling funds would work best for "widget" coins such as pre-1933 gold (not the 1933 Saint) and Morgan dollars, as these are the coins I infer from the population data that they are buying for the largest aggregate $$$ anyway.

Not sure it would accomplish what i surmise, but if it did I could see that it would have the most appeal financially.  The total amount "invested" still wouldn't be meaningful (maybe a few hundred million).as anything noticeably more would run up the price of the component holdings and make it uncompetitive with alternative metal options.

For the collector, I think you are right.  However, I still think this has very limited appeal, as most of the most expensive US coins are only condition rare and not prominent.

31 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

WC...what makes you think "investors" are buying pre-1933 gold ?  Have you seen articles or heard from dealers to that effect ?  I take it you consider these flows more akin to SPECULATION than a long-term "investment", am I correct ?

Apparently, I wasn't clear.  I was referring to common US gold dated before 1933, as opposed to modern NCLT.

34 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yes, and this is because if you want prices to hold up and/or appreciate you have to have STRONG HANDS as we say in the trade.  That means folks who have a COMPELLING reason to hold the investment.

A partnership with 50 people in it only to make $$$ who will bail at the first headline saying "Coin Prices Plummetting" is not what you want.  You want folks who are in it for the long haul and/or won't be shaken out to sell into a decline for panic-like reasons.

I agree.  Regardless of the format, I don't see any practical difference in the outcome with the prior LP from Merrill Lynch and Kidder Peabody if it has any scale at all (even in collecting terms) and isn't primarily directed to collectors.

If it's a professionally managed fund, I'd guess the annual costs would be at least 2% of the fund's net assets, maybe somewhat less.  If it's a real small fund, maybe noticeably higher, both depending upon whether it must comply with securities regulations.

Look at the substandard performance reflected in the US coin price level since at least 2008.  Sure, it can be better in the future but it's a much tougher sell to the non-collector now versus then.  The CVX comparison was only an example but no rationalization can get around an 8% to 10% annual yield differential out of the gate.  The "hobby's" financial promoters can pretend this doesn't matter but no knowledgeable financially motivated buyer is going to believe it.

This poor performance also occurred during two big run-ups in gold and one in silver and the loosest credit conditions in history, the latter being the real cause behind the increase in all asset classes over the last 4+ decades.

Buying it for mindless diversification (diversification for the sake of diversification) doesn't necessarily improve risk-adjusted returns either.  I'd argue it increases your risk since it's a potentially more volatile asset.

1 hour ago, gmarguli said:

I think that you intentionally don't want to understand it. 

Either the investment pool is static or a manager makes asset changes. The investors don't touch the underlying assets and don't care. 

1. Investment pool is started. $5M pool with 100 shares at $50K
2. Manager buys assets on open market.
3. A set minimum amount of time passes.
4. Manager sells the assets on the open market.
5. Manager divides up proceeds among the 100 shares. 
6. Pool is closed.

At no point does an investor need to make a market or trade or even have any knowledge in the underlying asset. 

These investment pools are not traded on the open market. Their value is not tracked and published daily like a stock. They are closed. Once someone invests, they are locked into the investment for X number of years. That's why these are only available to accredited investors who have the means to hold on for the longer term and can understand the risks.

I understand your point but it doesn't change anything I wrote.  The mechanics of the instrument don't change the fact that the coins in this fund have to sell for perpetually higher prices as "widgets" since it is obvious that prices cannot exceed the financial capacity or willingness to pay of real collectors who are the only ones buying it as a collectible.  

In my subsequent posts, I clarified that maybe those who are buying coins for "investment" now (primarily generic pre-1933 gold and Morgan dollars) would instead use this format but that's more like switching money from the left to right pocket..

None of what you wrote is going to make this option more competitive versus the better alternatives. (like CVX now in my example) to motivate them to buy it if they understand what they are doing.

Your post still don't explain why anyone who would want to buy it.  What you have been trying to tell me isn't any different than what you wrote before about the plausibility of some Chinese buyer wanting the 1794 SP dollar.  If this is credible, when and how often has it happened and why would this format make much if any difference?  Where is the evidence that the prospective returns will be better even as the liquidity is much worse?

It isn't a matter of absolutes but probabilities and the available evidence supports my claim, not yours.  .  To support my claim, I don't to disprove that somehow, somewhere in the world, a handful or very low number of buyers might randomly decide to agree with you. 

In the real world, there is no evidence that hardly anyone is going to act as you imply.  This type of arrangement will last only until it prices out real collectors.

3 hours ago, ColonialCoinsUK said:

A few years ago, here in the UK, Stanley Gibbons tried this for rare stamps and coins - having not heard anything for a while I guess it hasn't been very successful.

The report covers "investments of passion" but is more directed to Stamps.  I only read part and it is a lot less biased than some claims I read elsewhere.  However, it still cannot avoid the fact that the ultimate end-user is the hobbyist collector and for it to be sustainable, non-collectors have to be willing to perpetually trade coins as "widgets" at perpetually higher prices.  There is no basis to believe this whatsoever.

Given their target market, I don't see how it could or can succeed.  The "Product"  Development" page states the minimum is 15,000 GBP with at least 1,000 GBP upfront and 100 GBP monthly thereafter.  There is no money in that for the sponsor which can concurrently make it worthwhile for the customer.  This is evident in the table where they highlight the profit sharing.  The buyer gets 30% of the profits if selling within the first year and 80% after five years while taking all the risks.  If there are no profits as is hardly uncommon, it isn't clear to me how Stanley Gibbons would make more money than as a dealer or auction firm, unless it's at acquisition through higher fees.

There is a reason full service brokerage firms dump their smaller accounts into a common pool or limit them to online trading.  Full service as implied in this brochure is too expensive to bother with run-of-the-mill middle class customers.

The best option for coins would either be a pooled account traded like a fund but it would be subject to securities regulations which would result in a noticeable annual negative yield.  Or, a low number of participants who already (mostly) know each other buying individual coins of interest to them.  Under either option, there is no reason to believe that it is superior to the alternatives, for both the reasons I gave and included in this brochure.

6 hours ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

No clue whether fractional ownership of collectibles will "sell" or be sustainable, but I would bet against it. The only sure winners will be the owners and whoever manages the instruments, and possibly owners of similar collectibles. But only for a short time IMO. As a collector I would have no interest, would rather go to Vegas. Important works of art on the other hand have broader appeal. I might take a piece of a nice Monet.    

The problem with this concept starts by extrapolating  acceptance in another area to coins.  

A very low proportion of US "collectors" might have interest in a very low number of the most prominent US coins depending upon the arrangement but there isn't necessarily any reason to even believe it here.  

As for non-collectors, it's equivalent to the same claims for buying the most prominent coins outright.  Since there is no shortage of potential affluent buyers, it's obvious it's only because these people have no interest.  Most non-collectors have never heard of practically any (if any at all) of these coins but even if they had, why would they want it other than because someone else thinks they should?

There is no credible motive for any non-collector to opt for this arrangement, whether it ever happens or not.  No coin is competitive versus the alternatives as an "investment", even though on very infrequent occasions some uninformed buyer might make more money.  It has absolutely no status value either to these people which some of the others (such as race horses) do. 

Only collectors derive any satisfaction from coin ownership.  That's the defining characteristic between coin collectors and those who aren't. 

They certainly don't from the attributes discussed on US coin forums which have a disproportionate impact on the price of even most of the most expensive coins, such as the quality reflected in the TPG grade, as no actually prominent object is dependent upon such an arbitrary and minor attribute for its appeal.  This only applies to mass produced collectibles.

On 10/29/2020 at 12:51 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The GSA Morgans were relatively less so more people could own them but you probably had many people who didn't own any other coins who sent in for a GSA.  Many I suspect knew about the 1904-O riches a decade earlier.

In the 1970's and 1980's, there were telemarketing firms selling 'rare" US coins (generic pre1-933 gold, Morgan and Peace dollars by the roll) as "investments" to non-collectors.  One was the publisher of the "newsletter" Capital Gains which advertised this type of coinage in every issue at inflated prices.  The "newsletter" was ok (very repetitive) but I never bought anything from them. 

I don't know if this type of sales approach is used today.  Today, it's my inference that bullion dealers like APMEX and eBay have displaced them.  Also, both now and then, that most of the more common Morgan (and Peace) dollars are owned primarily for financial reasons, probably by non-collectors buying it as a substitute for bullion.

On 10/29/2020 at 12:51 PM, Conder101 said:

Three of them are.  Two dates only had a single specimen in the hoard, and I think one had either 1 or 2.  In other words only a single full set of GSA CC dollars could be put together in the GSA holders.

I was referring to the coins, not the GSA holder.  I infer from the TPG population data that some of the holders are "rare".

The one way trip from the bank to the change jar is primarily a function of the non-existent purchasing power in current denominations, even among those who pay regularly with cash.  I normally pay for everything by CC to get the points or rebates but I still carry up to several hundred in folding money.  I don't like to be without (hardly) any currency like most seem to now. 

Concurrently, I never carry any change and try to avoid receiving it back because it doesn't buy anything.  Other than paying Florida tolls since I don't live there, I recall maybe a handful of times in the last five or ten years where I had to pay in cash and received change back.