World Colonial

9 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

To me, anybody buying into fractional has to do it for any non-financial benefits. 

Without having direct knowledge, this is my inference in other areas mentioned in  other posts, like race horses.  I can see that the owner(s) of the recent triple crown winner made out like bandits.  Most of the time, I'd say they lose money or lay an egg.

13 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Maybe you shrink the pool of investors and the coin(s) can be seen by one and all at a big coin show or something.

For big ticket prominent coins, I can see that it might have limited appeal where a very low numbers of buyers pool resources.  But by "prominent", I'm only referring to a very low number of coins and realistically almost exclusively US.  Most seven figure US coins (the vast majority) don't have sufficient appeal even among collectors.

17 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Fractionals combining their buying power might be able to have influence by going after high-end best-in-class coins that are sought by super-collectors for their registry sets.  

 

I see the primary candidates in the segments where most of the coins are already predominantly owned by non-collectors; common pre-1933 US generic gold and Morgan dollars.  Take a look at the TPG population counts and it should be evident that there aren't anywhere near enough actual collectors for all the 1904 double eagles, common Saints, or 1881-S Morgans. 

It would make sense to create a buyer pool to acquire hundreds or even thousands of these coins.  The coins are already relatively liquid (more liquid than any others except for NCLT).  Administrative overhead would also be lower.  The buyer would just have to be careful to avoid being defrauded by the custodian or administrator.

To this pool, some of the scarcer better dates could also be added.

11 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

IOTOH, it might not have appeal to coin collectors who are used to buying something and then having possession of it. 

 

This

Non-collectors (the few who ever actually do it) don't care about possession but real hobbyist collectors do, most even if not every single one.

Per your prior post, I'm only aware of two or a handful sharing ownership (usually dealers temporarily) and it's like you said, they aren't strangers.  I can't say that owning a 1% or similar interest won't appeal to any collector but it isn't many and don't believe the novelty effect would last long either.

4 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

The baseball card bubble was almost certainly a 1-time event caused by a confluence of 1-time events: baseball being the national pastime for almost a century (not anymore)....kids growing up on baseball (TV, Little League)....kids flipping the cards (me !).....mom throwing out our old baseball cards leading to scarcity. 

In short, there's hardly any interest today in baseball cards (as the video I posted showed).  But there's steady demand for coins via interest in precious metals, gold, silver, specific coin types, etc.

Saw some video while looking for the one I posted....it showed like 18 card stores in a 1-hour driving triangle of Orlando that were there 30 years ago and today are all gone.

Your first paragraph goes along with one of my primary points.  It's my position that the US TPG bubble in the late 1980's was also a "one shot" deal, just as occurred with South African coinage up to about 10 years ago shortly after TPG financialized that coin market.

No, history does not repeat itself exactly but contrary to what the financial promoters of the "hobby" want to everyone else believe, essentially nobody else cares about the price performance of coins, US or otherwise.  It's an illiquid tiny market which isn't competitive for any non-collectors assets.

Buying into this type of market when the person has no clue what they are doing is a  highly risky financial proposition and except by accident, almost guaranteed to lose them money.  Most collectors lose money over their lifetime, so what reason is there to believe the outcome will be any better for this option?

11 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

WC....FWIW....I believe Chevron's dividend is safe.  Good balance sheet. 

I think it is safe, for now. The reason I used CVX is because it's one of the few companies I know that both has a good balance sheet and is "reasonably" priced in today's manic market. 

As for your other question on whether there is any actual fractional coin ownership outside of what some or many us already know, good question.

I read numerous comments inferring (at minimum) it's feasible but haven't seen even one example of where it actually happened.  Not that one or a few even mean much of anything.

11 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I'm not so sure about this.

If a "bubble" does develop you may be right.  But you also may just develop a new form of competition for high-end coins that wasn't there previously.  You could have people creating what we used to call "blind pools" and today are called SPACs (Special Purpose Aquisition Companies) where a large number of people give $$$ to someone to invest.

I could see someone raising $1 MM or $2MM or even $5 MM for "The Saints Collective" and only buying high-end Saints and reporting back to his/her hundreds or thousands of investors.  Similar to the old Merrill Lynch/Kidder Peabody pooled funds that never materialized but still led to a stampede in 1988-90. 

This may run into CFTC, SEC, or other state/federal investment or commodity laws.

 

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.

24 minutes ago, zadok said:

...oxy-moronic statement...commodities r financial assets, all stocks r speculations n financial assets...im sure the irs n many financial institutions would strongly disagree with ur assessment...

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.

2 hours ago, gmarguli said:

There doesn't have to be a massive investment pool of coins for it to make sense. I think you'd be surprised to know how many small investment pools are out there. It also doesn't have to consist of mega-rarities. Do a search for private investments for accredited investors. 

As for why someone would invest, especially a non-collector? To make money. You can buy fractional ownership in a vineyards yield. In a collection of rare Whiskeys. Groups of paintings. There are tons of investments deals out there for accredited investors looking to dump $50K-$1M in alternative investments. Many of these pools have redemption restrictions. I may not drink wine or like whiskey, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't invest in it if I thought it was a good investment. 

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.

3 minutes ago, zadok said:

...regard the 1794 SP dollar...its not that there weren't non-collector investors that wouldn't buy it, it was more that those investors wouldn't buy it at the reserve price...

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.

2 minutes ago, zadok said:

...fractional investors are just that, they r investors n they make little to no pretense to be collectors, even if they invest in a collectible...they invest in hopes they get a profitable return on their investment...horses per se have long been syndicated by persons who never see the horse, just give me my share of the winnings if there r any n my share of the stud fees or foals if that applies...multi-million dollar paintings, potential scientific discoveries, mineral deposits and yes even some baseball r also syndicated or fractionalized...some coins have been purchased by conglomerates/syndicates but to a far lesser degree, perhaps because the resale market is not easily predictable n also very shallow, also because so few coins lend themselves to the lofty prices necessary to syndicate...r coins analogous to financial assets, absolutely...coins if bought with a investment consideration r no different than buying any other speculative asset...r such coins dead investments, absolutely not...they r just dormant the same as a painting or rare stamp, after all all shares of stock r dead investments as well, they just have an open market on which they r reflected on a near daily basis, same with gold, coins more or less have trends rather than a market...as for fractional investment assets, all stock shares r fractional investments; however, we now have fractional investments in individual shares of fractional investments (robinhood) we shall see how this turns out...fractional investments in coins isn't likely to be widespread n most likely not exceptionally profitable, the coin spectrum just doesn't support a broad market base, but there r a few coins that could lend themselves to that level of speculation, the participants most likely wont be collectors, they just want a return on their investment...much like gm who invests in assisted living homes, he doesn't want to own a table , a wall, a bed, a wheelchair or a flower bed, he just wants a portion of the proceeds n hopes he mite not need to live there n eat up all his proceeds...

...I guess if one wanted a living investment, one could invest in a Christmas tree farm, depending on which part of the world lives in...

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.

1 hour ago, Revenant said:

I mean, if there was some way for this to generate a profit I could totally see it. But...

At least with owning gold I can see the logic of an inflation hedge / store of value. I guess some people would argue that rare coins and collectables have the same attribute / appeal but I don't think history supports this. Beanie babies... didn't end well. Baseball cards … have already crashed before. Comic books? Crashed. Magic Cards... mostly crashed I think. Lego sets? They haven't crashed yet but I know where I'm NOT putting my money.

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?

9 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

You're absolutely 100% dead wrong. Coins are financial assets. Collectors derive pleasure from owning them which creates their value. However, collectors also expect them to hold their value or increase in value. No collector buys a coin expecting a loss. Investors don't care about the underlying asset, they just want it to go up in price, but they don't care what they buy. So of course investors will sell the fractional ownership in the coin as soon as they find a better use for the money. Does that surprise you? Is there any reason to think they wouldn't? That doesn't mean that this idea will fail. The coin market and the investment world is very different from 1989 when people went crazy bidding up everything without knowing what the fund was actually going to invest in. 

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.

1 minute ago, gmarguli said:

Fractional ownership is absolutely the wave of the future. It all makes perfect sense to allow people with less means, knowledge, or time to invest in areas they think will appreciate in value. It's here in stocks and real estate on the consumer level. It's available for other big ticket items like old master paintings to higher net worth individuals. I'm currently entertaining fractional ownership of elder care facilities. I think there is tremendous value and future demand in these facilities, but I don't want to invest $1M in a single one and have to spend time figuring out how to run it, so 50 people get together and put in 100K each and someone buys and runs 5 of them. Less risk with more properties, no time spent running the places, and the investors collect the dividends. 

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.

58 minutes ago, Revenant said:

About the only way I could see something like this working would be if it was kept by a third party custodian - who would probably collect a fee and keep it in a vault. This has the practical, financial implication of giving the asset a negative carry and the unfortunate effect of sticking the piece of history in a box, away from people who might enjoy it. As I said - joyless.

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.

40 minutes ago, Conder101 said:

I believe it is true, but the US National collection may give it a run for its money.  But most of the collection has to be in storage.  How could you reasonably expect to display 1.5 million items?

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.

3 hours ago, Conder101 said:

In the US, ACCUGRADE was the first company to use slabs in 1984, but SAGSE in South Africa preceded them by nearly a decade starting in 1975.  But few people ever saw SAGSE slabs because the only thing they slabbed and graded were Proof Krugerrands, with grading on a 105 point scale.

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

4 minutes ago, Fenntucky Mike said:

I don't know about that, will it increase selling prices, create buzz and bring people in, maybe? A coin "stock market"? Sole ownership of the top top stuff would go away, but does that make a difference?  

To tie in another thread, maybe this is what the ANA should do with there collection, sell off 40,000 shares but retain the majority stake and keep it in their possession.

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.

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Do we have any numbers on how many of these GSA Morgans have been graded by the TPGs ?  CC Morgans ?

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

Just now, VKurtB said:

This is as much (or more) a quality play as a quantity play. They have "social media" in place, but it's just so sad.

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.

1 hour ago, RWB said:

If the ANA museum coins and medals are sold off, how should the money be used?

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.

45 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Let's think a second or two why that may be - perhaps extraordinarily few slabbed examples of some common ultra-moderns? Which, if true, becomes the case for frequent updates as that changes. Regardless, Registries seem to be a "revenue enhancer" for both TPGS.

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.)

28 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Others? Yes. MORE important? Not so sure. I know how to "buy low and sell high". I collect as a contrarian to conventional wisdom. Whatever is "not hot" is my target. More to the point, whatever IS hot right now, I avoid like the plague.

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.

38 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Well, I'm biased having lived in the suburbs my entire life, but just off the top of my head in less than 1 minute I come up with:  Empire State Building, Freedom Tower, Statue of Liberty, Circle Line or Bear Mountain Boat Rides, taking in a Mets/Yankees/Knicks/Nets/Rangers/Devils/Islanders/Jets/Giants game, famous restaurants, Broadway plays, scenic drives in NJ, NY, and Long Island; MOMA and other museums including Natural History, Flushing/Corona 1964 World's Fair, etc.

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.

17 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Is it? I don't know because I don't follow it very closely at all. I always assumed it was both 1) changed every so often, and 2) based roughly on difficulty of acquisition. Am I wrong?

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.

5 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

I have to admit, making coin collecting a "competitive sport" is something that would absolutely never have occurred to me, and frankly, I still see it as kind of bizarre. 

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.