World Colonial

Not picking on you but once again, your response is just abstract theorizing. That's what I have read in every single response by anyone who considers it plausible. It's evident that non-collectors are motivated to make money off coins if they believe they can do it, but this isn't the real question. The actual question is, why would they believe it and why would they choose to do it with coins instead of something else? That's why I used CVX as a counterexample, one I presume you agree with from our prior post exchanges. It's evident to anyone who will look at the relative prospects impartially that this is a much better option. We can't know the outcome in advance, but at current prices with an approximate annual cash flow yield differential of at least 8%, there isn't a reason to believe a single non-collector would choose any coin fractional ownership arrangement over it if they have any clue at all what they are doing. The only people who are realistically motivated to buy a fractional ownership interest in US coins are current or prospective US coin collectors, not anyone else. I state US coin collectors because there is no reason to believe any collector outside the US would do it either. This is the reality, even if this hairbrained scheme ever gains more than minimal traction in the future and follows the pattern in the other examples cited here. And yes, in your example, I think it would be subject to securities regulations which would only increase the carrying costs and noticeably.

I never said commodities are financial assets. Where did you get that? As most people define it, there is no difference between "investment" and speculation. I can elaborate further if necessary. I was writing about scale and liquidity preference which matters. As one example, I can buy oil major Chevron which has a current yield of 7.5%. I believe the price will decline further, the dividend will be cut, it's in an out of favor industry and in a asset class (US stocks) which I consider absurdly overpriced. I would still buy it strictly for "investment" over any coin worth any meaningful price and so would practically every non-collector, if choosing between the two. In the interim assuming the dividend isn't cut (which neither of us actually knows anymore than the future price of either), anyone can collect the 7.5% and trade it with zero commission at a spread of one or a few cents. The tax treatment is also far more favorable due to capital gains rules especially if you buy it in a Roth. Depending upon the person's liquidity preference, they can also sit in cash to time their purchase. Yes, I know no can time the market but everyone still does it even under "buy and hold". There is only good timing and bad timing but it cannot be avoided, even if not actively trading. The coin? It carries a negative yield due to variable carrying costs. It's also much less liquid to sell, whether outright or fractional ownership. If the fractional ownership makes it subject to securities regulations, the carrying costs won't be insignificant. This is more likely for any attempt to sell "mega-priced" coins or a "coin portfolio" to non-qualified investors. Claiming any coin is a better alternative over CVX is a complete "cr*pshoot". It could turn out to be better, eventually. But I don't think hardly any impartial buyer would think so. Mostly coin collectors who would choose it anyway.

I'm familiar. with some of what you included. The question I have is, since you are telling me so many affluent people already are familiar with fractional ownership in other areas, why aren't they doing it with coins now? I'm aware this is possible. None of this ultimately gets around the fact that the ultimate end user for coins is the coin collector. I see absolute no basis to claim that non-collector "investors" are going to perpetually trade coins (fractional ownership or otherwise) with each other at constantly higher prices as "widgets" while collector hobbyist buyers mostly or entirely sit and watch from the sidelines. If you are telling me this is already happening, my response is the one I gave before. What this thread (not just you) is describing is just one more aspect of the full blown mania which has been going on for over 20 years. (It started in the early 80's shortly after coins were firat widely bought as "investments". Most people have no clue it's a mania because they think it's "normal".) Given the absurd financial behavior we see in other areas, I'm certainly not going to tell you it will never happen. I am going to tell you that if it does, it will only last as long as the bigger bubble which makes it possible.

Obviously they would buy it at a low enough price if they thought they could make money from it. The whole point of my comments here is that they didn't believe it was a competitive "investment". Most of them don't even know this particular coin exists but that's beside the point. Presumably, practically all of them know coin collecting exists but just don't care. They aren't interested in collecting and don't believe it's a better option for their money. If they thought otherwise, they would investigate their options (whether this coin or another one) and the price level would be much higher. It isn't because almost none of these people have any noticeable financial commitment to coin buying.

The reason I called coins "dead" investments is because it has no utility other than to a collector. Same as any other collectible. Obviously, I am aware that coin buyers have and can make money off of coins. This is self-evident. With "mainstream" asset classes or an operating business, the owner can make a return other than appreciation: dividends, interest, rents and royalties. Even commodities have some use to somebody. It's used in industry or consumed by an end user. People who don't favor gold love to quote Warren Buffet. Well, if Warren Buffet were to express an opinion on coins and used the same reasoning, he'd conclude it's an even worse investment than gold.

Coins have a bigger appeal than the examples you listed but it makes no sense to think its any kind of real alternative to larger more liquid asset markets. It's also easy to write in the abstract that it's feasible, yet where is the actual evidence to support it, except in very isolated instances by existing US collectors? There has been nothing stopping anyone from doing it to this point, as there is nothing revolutionary with this idea. If it's so financially appealing, why don't many more do it now?

So I keep hearing on coin forums or occasionally in the numismatic press. Based upon your own description, why would anyone other than a "collector" want to "invest" in such a puny, illiquid market when so many better options exist? There is no scale of significance to coins, even US. Whatever scale exists is disproportionately in generic pre-1933 gold and Morgan dollars, not in the coins implied by this thread. I can't prove this won't happen but the evidence demonstrates if it ever does, it will be by existing US collectors, not anyone else. I read many posts before the auction of the 1794 SP dollar claiming some non-collector "might" want it, including from you. Potentially at least 57,000 (those with a net worth >$100MM) could buy it outright, yet none of them did. They didn't buy this coin the prior two sales either, or the last three times an 1804 dollar came up for sale, or the Pogue 1822 and 1854 half eagles. That's zero for 250,000 to 500,000 statistically just for these eight lots and even worse going back decades. Yet it's still supposed to be credible that these people want to buy coins. I presume there are few examples where this happens but it's effectively a lottery probability event with no predictive value. The only one I recall offhand is the Brasher Doubloon profiled in a recent Robb Report.

There is no analogy between coins and financial assets. Or any business unless you are referring to a coin dealership, TPG or auction firm. There is no analogy because only hobbyist collectors derive any utility from coin ownership. Supposed coin "investors" don't derive any and will sell as soon as they tire of a dead asset or find better uses for their money. There isn't much if any overlap with masters painting either that I see. This is also a dead asset but at least someone might get an intangible benefit from it per my other post. Is there any evidence coin collectors care about this? As for non-collectors, we already have prior experience, the late 1980's US TPG bubble. There is no practical difference between fractional ownership and the limited partnerships which Merrill Lynch and Kidder Peabody planned/launched which imploded a few years later. What reason is there to believe this will be any more successful? This foolishness is only credible due to the unprecedented level of speculation made possible by loose monetary policy which drives "yield seeking" and the lowest credit standards in the history of civilization. It's lasted a lot longer than I ever thought possible but when it ends, this reckless speculation will end with it.

Agreed and this is the whole point. As you wrote in your post below the response to mine, there is no analogy between any collectible and horses and horse racing. The owner of the fractional interest in race horse presumably has the potential (if not actuality) of participating in the cultural and social aspects of ownership. I have no idea how profitable such an "investment" usually turns out, but the fractional owner still might get to attend all the social events that go with it, such as access to premium seating at the event and when it happens, photo ops at the award ceremony. This is only an example, but obviously no such parallel exists with coin or other mass collectible ownership because it has zero appeal to anyone except a collector in the field where it can even exist. What this means in practice is that the horse race "investor" may still be willing to lose money on their "investment" by getting something else out of it elsewhere, whether financially or socially. Same principle applies to NASCAR race teams, sports teams, beauty pageants, sponsorship of the arts...I think you get the idea. Without this secondary benefit, it's only sustainable as long as prices are rising. Once this ends, everyone else bails out, leaving only hobbyist collectors and maybe "bargain hunters" hoping for a windfall. It would make a lot more sense with art paintings than collectibles, as the "investment" is a lot greater and some of the intangible benefits might still apply.

Best US institutional collections to my knowledge are the Smithsonian first, I'd probably rank the ANS second and the ANA third. Less familiar with the ANA since I don't know if it is cataloged on-line. Also, I would give more weight to a collection that is presumably more comprehensive but still with many of the more prominent rarities for what it includes. I think of the ANA as much better than ANS for US coinage but not even close for world and ancients. But I might also be wrong about that, as the ANS had a 40+ year start. As for the British museum versus Smithsonian, no idea which is larger or "better". In the past, I considered the Smithsonian best, but once again suspect it's not as comprehensive for world and ancients.

I bet almost no collector in South Africa knows this. I did not, until now.

None of this has anything to do with collecting. Anyone it brings into "collecting" will abandon it, just as the "collectors" who participated in the late 1980's TPG bubble when it collapsed. Same thing with the South African speculation when the price peak occurred around YE 2011. It took a few years but these buyers also left, many of them bag holders. It won't be any different next time.

Same theme as the recent thread started by the moderator. This has nothing to do with collecting and everything to do with trading collectibles as 'widgets" and "investments". I was offered the opportunity to do this once, by a South African collector who purportedly knew someone in the UK owning a 1931 South Africa mint set. It never went anywhere but I suspect it would have taken somewhere around $150,000 to buy it, as they later tried to unsuccessfully trade a vacation home in Durban, South Africa for it. Aside from not collecting at this level and not buying coins as "investments", it wasn't clear to me who would maintain custody. If I had pursued it, the set would have to be split up. The only thing (literally) making this type of speculation mentality feasible is the biggest credit mania in the history of civilization. This foolishness will end when it's over, whenever that happens.

It depends upon someone's definition of competing and with it, "winning". I'd describe placing first in many sets as the equivalent of receiving a participation trophy just for showing up. Of course, since this practice occurs elsewhere in US culture today, I can see why it's appealing to many collectors. With many US series, it's easy enough to just buy the ranking, With many others, there is no practical difference between the "best" sets and numerous others; up to thousands or even tens of thousands. With world coinage, "winning" usually means almost no one else is even competing. Just request a new set and win it by default when few or no one else participates. Personally, if I were inclined to participate competitively for what I collect, I'd never be interested in "winning" since I presume there are at least a few genuinely better collections than mine which will never participate. Where is the satisfaction in that? Decades ago when the highest quality coins measured by TPG grade frequently weren't worth much of anything, the price spreads for all others was much narrower than it is now and the price level was much lower, few if any cared about what are disproportionately minor quality differences for common coins. If or when the current financialization becomes less important and the price level declines to predominantly reflect collecting as a recreational activity, collectors mostly won't care, again.

It's identified in the population data to my recollection.

I infer a lot of collectors would agree with this recommendation. Question to me is, who is the primary intended audience and how to reach them exactly? I hear the ANA has around 25,000 members but that's a small fraction of the US collector base, depending upon the definition. The point is, presumably every active collector is aware the ANA exists, though maybe many aren't aware of the value proposition or reason to join. I am aware of it, it just isn't really relevant to my collecting. I'm also not a member of a local club which I assume has a higher membership overlap. I'm not a member because I'm not really interested in the coins most US collectors collect either and that's presumably the focus of any club where I live. I suppose I should try it once before jumping to conclusions but it's not a priority.

The ideal choice would be to do what @GoldFinger1969recommended, set up an endowment. But I agree with the prior post that sufficient examples should be kept for the seminars. Problem with this is that's it's unlikely to be substantial enough to generate any noticeable income, especially by taking "prudent" risks in today's casino financial markets. A better option would be to find a way to get permission to liquidate that private company stock if they can do it. As to how it should be used, I presume they have polled the membership to get an idea what's important to them. Or, have their own internally drafted strategic plan but maybe that's too much too expect. I'd start with that.

It's not just the low number graded, though this is a factor. Last I checked (years ago), the points awarded were totally disproportionate to anything remotely "reasonable". This leaves the obvious motivation to encourage submissions so that these participants can accumulate points to rank higher than those who have far scarcer coins overwhelmingly preferred by most collectors. (There is or was an overall ranking for total registry points across all sets.) Interesting and not a criticism. I find it interesting because I infer you have a lot more interest in the coin as the coin than most I encounter on coin forums. Yet supposedly, some of these others who buy coins in expensive plastic are more interested in the coin than the price or the holder. I don't think so. Me, I never became a collector to make money. I did so with my South Africa collection (a lot for most collectors) by pure accident but dumped most of it during the bubble because I wasn't interested in paying much higher prices and didn't like it enough to lose the windfall. I just wished I had dumped most everything I have now but kept it with the intent to buy what I sold back later. I never did. What I collect now, I'd never buy if I were financially motivated. Not trying to lose money but the main thing I mind is not getting what I paid for, as in buying "details" coins ungraded mostly due to arbitrary TPG standards of "market acceptability" since I can't inspect any of the coins I buy directly first. I would prefer to leave my collection as a heirloom asset, but don't have anyone who wants it for what it is, at least now. I also expect most coins of any noticeable value to be big losers when the current financial mania ends, which it will eventually.

Maybe DC competes well with NYC for attractions among US cities but I don't think anywhere else does. I know your list wasn't intended to be complete, but you left off the Brooklyn Museum and the botanical gardens right next door as two more. Both are really good. Also, one stop outside Manhattan on the North Metro line from Grand Central is Tarrytown where I visited the Rockefeller estate, Kykuit in 2003. It's managed/owned by the NY Historical Society and not sure most New Yorkers even know it is there. It's at the highest point in the Hudson River Valley (purportedly) and the view is incredible. The house isn't that impressive for someone as rich as them but the grounds sure are. 4500 or 7500 acres for the entire estate at the time, tree canopy covering both sides of the road to it from the ticket outlet by bus. Loved it.

It seems to be from the limited review I have done. Maybe it makes sense within a series but it's designed to give maximum weight to very common ultra-modern coins.

I find it bizarre because the 1) point system is arbitrary 2) there are competing registries which both award winners where by common sense only one set can be "best" 3) there is no practical difference between most of the highest ranked sets for most US series 4) there are so many sets to compete in it dilutes any sense of accomplishment and 5) particularly outside of US coinage, the best sets almost never compete anyway. But yes, it does make some or many feel better about their collecting.

More likely they are done buying coins for good. This is the potential harm financializing collecting causes. It's what I also saw in South African "collecting" up until the 2011 price peak except it wasn't predominantly by telemarketers but by those selling on their version of eBay and engaging in hype on their coin forum. They claimed they were promoting "collecting" but it's evident they were only interesting in maximizing a potential windfall as soon as possible.

NYC has more than a few cultural venues, it's just that most people have never heard of most. I agree with you the cost makes it less than ideal for family vacations but don't see crime as a problem as long as the person uses common sense. I was there last December for two weeks (for work) but first time since 2006. Used to go a lot up until then. Spent months to more than half the year every year (mostly in downtown Manhattan) between 1999 and 2005 and really liked it. (I was on an expense account, not my own dime except during 2004.) However, I wouldn't put the ANA museum there because of the cost and it's home to the ANS.

The NFL Hall Of Fame is located in Canton, OH. I don't know about the NBA. The College Football HOF moved to Atlanta from South Bend, IN several years ago, presumably for a similar reason but I have never been there even though it's the only sport I closely follow and live about 10 miles away. It's situated near Centennial Olympic Park, CNN Center, the Atlanta Aquarium, World of Coca-Cola and a few other attractions. I have no idea how many visit any of these. All I can tell you is that I see no parallel for any of them with any stand-alone museum for coins. All of these sports have a much broader cultural appeal and in many instances are more interesting even to coin collectors. It's not like the NNC which is part of a much bigger attraction; the Smithsonian. If the NNC were moved somewhere else by itself to a less visited destination, the visitor count would also collapse. This isn't a knock on coins or any of these collections, it's just reality.

You have some good points. I'd locate it more centrally, like Dallas or Chicago due to the market size and airport facilities. Ultimately though, I don't think most collectors really care about the ANA because it's not relevant to their collecting. When they think of the hobby or their participation in it, it doesn't even cross their mind. Can the ANA improve or play a bigger role? Sure, I think it can and should attempt to do so if that's what its members want. But in the internet age, it's easier than ever to have a completely satisfactory collecting experience without it.