World Colonial

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.

2 hours ago, ronnie stein said:

As far as Tomaska goes, yes, it's too hard to watch. You can only hope that some good comes from it. The people in their 30's and 40's, after they receive their purchase, maybe they finally research what they've bought, realize they've been had, and enter into the world of numismatics discovering a new hobby. They've learned an important lesson from the very start, 'don't believe everything you see and hear, be careful'. 

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.

3 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

NYC is a mess and while it does have a few cultural venues the high crime rate and costs of the area make it a less than desirable destination for family vacations.  

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.

53 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Those 3 sports museums are constantly being referenced by anybody who follows those sports.  You know where they are located.  I didn't know that the ANA had a museum or where it was located.

Also, if you are visiting NYC or Upstate NY (i.e., Niagara Falls), then Cooperstown is only a few hours drive away.  Not sure about the NFL and NBA HOFs.

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.

16 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I think the idea of co-locating the ANA museum with a mint facility is a fantastic idea. Shoot, even the Denver mint a hundred miles away would be better than where it is now. I think locating ANA headquarters in an intentionally out-of-the-way backwater town that's infrequently visited and maybe hard to get to is a terrible idea. This is supposed to be an organization servicing "American Numismatics" - it makes sense to locate it in a hub of American commerce or tourism. There are several major hubs - New York, DC, Atlanta, Denver, Chicago, LA.... I'm sure you could think of at least 10 different cities where there would be significantly higher traffic higher interest, higher attendance, and higher admission fees. Literally any town with a Mint or Fed Reserve Branch would make sense - a lot more sense than Colorado Springs. 

Now, New York already has the ANS, and DC has the NNC (if it ever gets a decent display of its own). I could argue you might not want to put it in one of those towns. But that still leaves a huge list of potential cities with major exposure where the ANA would have a better chance of being a major attraction and influence. 

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.

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

While that is often true, many of the truly great collections were actually assembled by dedicated numismatists who genuinely enjoyed the coins and contributed to the hobby. Newman comes to mind as a prominent example. Eliasberg was a collector, albeit an incredibly wealthy one. Bruce Morelan always comes off as a coin person who just happens to have truckloads of money - but his passion for the coins is always clear. You might disagree with some of the decisions he's made, but any interview with him and his passion for the coins really comes through. 

I make a clear distinction between "great" collections under more recent criteria and those of the past, as in prior to the mid-1970's.  

I don't assign any "greatness" to any collection where much, most or all of the distinction is mostly due to the quality for what are predominantly actually common coins.  Some collections of common coins I consider distinctive; some better early US federal type would be one.  This coinage has been expensive and highly perceived since before I was born and prior to widespread "investing" in US coinage.

3 hours ago, zadok said:

many of the listed individuals were driven by financial aspirations rather than pure hobby improvements

I agree but to many "collectors" is considered the equivalent of heresy.  Much of what passes for "collecting" in US "numismatics" is actually financialization.

25 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

The Met has a big endowment and can make a few phone calls and get plenty of wealthy Manhattanites to give $$$ at any time.  

What the ANA should be doing is contacting some wealthy coin collectors and asking them to create a legacy by endowing the organization, conference, talks, lectures, prizes, etc.  Wealthy people like the idea of their name living on forever.

It's win-win. 

I suspect the ANS is a lot more successful at raising money but maybe I just have a much higher opinion of the organization.  Since it is more relevant to advanced collectors, I also believe their membership (though presumably notably smaller) is a lot more affluent and geographically distributed.  

Back in 2004 when I temporarily lived in NYC, I looked into joining the ANS.  The corporate secretary of investment bank Bear Stearns was the board chairman (or equivalent role) and their reception dinners to my recollection were $500 per person.  The membership was affordable but the other activities were and are not.

I want the ANA to survive and succeed, but I care a lot more about the ANS.

31 minutes ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

However, judging by what is on display, there must be a significant stash of coins out of the public eye that may never find their way to an exhibit nor will be used for research (how much research is done using the museum's collection?). Assuming no strings attached I would sell these at auction, give it a lot of fanfare as a fund raising event.  

I understand this is very common of museums generally and not just for coins.  I went to the British Museum once, in February 1999.  A few coin displays but more recently, I read it has one of the largest collections in the world.  Don't know if it is true but if so, most of it is archived and never sees the light of day.

As for research, don't know if it's available at the ANA but is at the ANS.  I intend to visit for my area of interest eventually.

43 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I wonder how much the "Hawaii 5-0" episode is responsible for that. 

To me, this is a perfect example of how this coin and coin collecting would have been more prominent culturally at the time.  I wasn't living in the US when the series aired and have never seen the episode.  I doubt most under maybe age 50 know of this episode.

Similar line of reasoning more broadly.  Before I moved back to the US in 1975, I have read posts about department stores with coin sections.  I never saw one.  During the gaps in my collecting up to 1998, I would still buy or read coins books and coin magazines at Walden Books or B. Dalton Booksellers.  I'd also see coin folders.  Now, Barnes & Noble may still have a coin section but know nothing about it and their footprint and customer traffic has collapsed, even assuming someone is looking for it which they mostly aren't.  The number of B&M coin shops has also decreased, noticeably.

The point is, the internet has expanded the hobby's reach mostly for those who are consciously looking for it.  If you aren't one of these people, it's far less likely to be on your "radar" and might effectively be almost invisible.

33 minutes ago, 1917 said:

The ANA is able to lease the building for the money museum at a very low cost... that alone defeats most of the motivation to move. If they ever did bother to move, realisticly the only reasonable place to move would be near some other popular museums... sort of, hey, we're already here looking at museums, let's check this out type deal; beyond that, how would a different location really generate enough increased foot traffic to justify all the cost and effort of moving, particularly since the ANA has already "slimmed" down it's magazine (I noticed those like four-five columns going missing without notice, btw ANA), and used ad space to market various campaigns to raise funds, in addition to increase in asking for donations.

Agree

For what I would describe as a financially marginal organization, it probably doesn't make any sense.  Presumably requires increased donations to cover the cost difference which is far from a sure thing. 

Last time I was able to visit the Met in NYC (2006 to my recollection), there was a big renovation in process.  Even with a far from free admission fee, I presume they rely heavily on donations to stay open and this is one of the best and most famous museums in the world.

1 minute ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

If there are only 5 Liberty Head Nickels, and given that they sell for millions, I don't think they sell that often.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913_Liberty_Head_nickel

ANA has the McDermott and Walton specimens.

 

 

It sells a lot more often than any other (prominent) coins with a similar scarcity that I know.  Or even rare but still noticeably more available coins.  No, it's not every year but still seems to be about no more than five years between sales. 

Other actually rare coins with a very high collector preference are frequently held for decades and seldom become available but these are often in more "esoteric areas".  Take a look at the sales history for the CSA half dollar, 1850 Baldwin & Co "Horseman" $10 and 1792 silver Getz pattern half dollar. Or even 1854-S half eagle.

It's possible what you infer is accurate, as I really don't know what it takes for most collectors to take notice.  The 1913 LHN is about as close to a "headline" maker among more casual collectors since it's as close to famous as any coin can be.  Concurrently, I don't believe those who buy it really find it that interesting or else it would be harder to buy.  It also seems to be a lot less interesting to the type of collector who posts here or ATS.

All I know is, it takes a lot more for me to think it's a big deal than anyone else I have encountered on coin forums and no, it isn't just because of what I collect.

8 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

If they can sell any tangible assets, they absolutely should sell it and put the funds into a permanent endowment.

Agree

8 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Any rare coins sold in the future would create excitment as it changed hands, a bonus.  Maybe a stipulation could be that the coins could only be sold at the annual ANA Convention auction held by the ANA or an auction house (like Legends or GC at FUN).

What do they have that fits this description?  Don't see the 1804 dollar and 1913 LHN doing that, as these coins aren't really that hard to buy despite the rarity.  Both sell often enough that it's not really that much of a headline maker.

7 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

Staff can always be rehired; not to be overly blunt; if the ANA wants to increase the number of people that tour the museum the placement of the museum in a more vibrant and assessible location needs to be the priority not placing it in a small town because the guy that runs the ANA lives there.

I agree with you, but I doubt increasing visitor count is considered that important.  My assumption is the board doesn't care enough or hasn't been pressured to do it.  So they won't.  There is no profit motive, so it's usually the path of least resistance. 

They could also try a multi-option approach.  Display the more prominent parts of the collection at ANA and maybe other large national shows that don't compete with theirs.  Split the collection and relocate some of it to a location fitting your description.  However, this would probably negatively impact the budget.  They may be able to charge an admission fee (for non-members) but I doubt it could be high enough to cover their costs.  The rest of the collection could stay in Colorado Springs.

56 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

But if you show a slick ad with a coin worth $5 MILLION DOLLARS - COME SEE IT FOR FREE!!!!! then I have to think that some people are going to come see it just for the novelty. The idea of it is enough to get some people interested enough to come check the show out. 

Agree, to a point.  

Unfortunately, I don't believe it has the same weight it did in the past.  The 1804 dollar and 1913 LHN are IMO still the most prominent coins from anywhere, but not like before when collecting was a lot more pervasive in the general culture.  Most others no matter how supposedly "famous" to US collectors. almost no one who isn't a collector is likely to even know it exists. Or if they do, know or remember nothing about it.

I'd be curious to hear how the ANA tries to attract the non-collecting public to coin shows.  I see coin internet banner and pop-up ads, but that's because Google sees my searches.  I still don't recall seeing even one for a coin show though maybe I did.  Someone who doesn't go to coin related websites isn't likely to see any, doesn't read the numismatic press or coin forums, and reaching them through local media is a cr*apshoot.

It's the equivalent of a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it.

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I'd wager that single coin does more to attract people to shows than any YN program they can imagine - and it probably attracts people with more cash they might be willing to spend than your average 13 year old. 

 Agree it likely has a more immediate and definitely tangible financial impact.

45 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

You mean that there are 100 coins, of all grades, available for sale online, from dealers, coin shows, etc...RIGHT NOW.......right ?

Yes, at minimum.  Most likely more

45 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

But this coin may be considered unique because (1) you could consider each GRADE of the 1907 HR to be an individual coin by itself (or every 2-3 grade increments)...EFs....vs. AU's....vs. MS63's...vs. MS65's....vs MS67's..

Same could be said of any or at least many coins

46 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

how many 1-ounce gold coins, U.S. double eagles are there historically compared to the much larger mintage for lower-denomination copper, steel, nickel, and other coins ?

It comes down to the design being highly preferred and it's a large gold coin which attracts a lot of big budget buyers, many of whom are potentially buying it also for financial reasons.  Might be bought as a sub-type too but this is an assumption.

2 minutes ago, MN1 said:

Right off the bat I agree the series isn't interesting.  I always thought that.  The reverse is nothing special to me with the way the 13 stars were laid out and when I look at the obverse it's nothing more than a new life for the old Walking Liberty design.  

 

The reason I don't believe it holds any interest for longer term or "advanced" collectors is because there isn't much actual collecting to it.  Anyone with the money can buy the entire series in one day except for a low number of PCGS 70 if they want that holder which takes somewhat but not much longer.

With more recent US circulating coinage, it's all common as well but collectors have adopted multiple forms of specialization to make it more interesting to them.  It's very limited with the ASE.

3 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

I just did a count and I have had personal one-on-one conversations with 72 of those people listed, all of them live and in person.

Yes, but that's because you are active in a way which is only representative of a low fraction of the collector base.  I don't collect US anymore which is probably why I don't recognize many names.  I didn't perform a count but it's probably somewhere around half I never heard their name.

2 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I'll be honest, I consider myself to be a fairly knowledgeable collector. 

There were quite a few names on that list that I'd never heard of. 

And, there were quite a few names on that list who were only there because they were rich. 

They aren't influential. 

Influential people are people who've reshaped what we know or understand, how we think about a significant portion of the hobby, how we approach our knowledge. 

Many of us could argue John Albanese to be one of the most influential people alive in our hobby (started PCGS... started NGC... started CAC....)

But, you have to think that Tom Delorey, Skip Fazzari, and others around that time built the foundation that he erected his empire on.

RWB almost single-handedly changed the way we view numismatic research, and has helped pioneer an original-source-document approach to modern research. (You'd have to include Tompkins, Augsberger, and a few others in that discussion). I'd argue these are as influential as many of the others on this list (and, as mentioned, omissions such as Kraljevich are awful). 

Many of the people on this list are dealers.... how influential are they in changing the hobby? In that they publicize and advertise, and help shape demand as such, I suppose they are influential. But do they really belong on a list like this? Adkins, Rinkor, Tomaska.... they've each tried to drive demand for their segment. Is that enough to earn the top spots? 

Agree, decades from now, many on this list will be completely forgotten.

1 minute ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I know that at the ANA sponsored shows, they always bring highlights of the collection for display. 

Things like "1913 nickels" and "1804 dollars" always attract attention, even if they aren't desirable to some of us. These are headline-grabbing show-stoppers, like it or not, and that sort of publicity drives attendance and viewership. 

My prior questions had nothing to do with my preference, pro or con.

The example you are using is different in that it's targeted predominantly to existing collectors which I think is a better or at least more realistic use of the collection.

Those who aren't collectors aren't going out of their way to Colorado Springs in any meaningful numbers to see the collection.  I have no idea what the proportion of non-collector attendance is at major coin shows but I would describe total attendance as "modest" which means they aren't exactly going out of their way to see these coins either.

@GoldFinger1969 I'll giver you my answer to your question.

For the Saints, it can't be a lack of supply, as anyone with the money could probably buy at least 100 decent ones right now.  For the supply, it's the most expensive coin in the world bar none in the sense that no other coin has this many survivors selling for an equivalent price, that I know.

For the other two "key dates", I attribute it to  a "reputational premium" from when collecting was predominantly out of circulating change, up to maybe the late 60's.  However, take a look at the price trends since 1965 and you will see that the relative preference for the 09-S VDB has collapsed.  It isn't cheap for the supply but it's far more affordable to a much more affluent collector base now versus 1965.  The 16-D seems about stable from my review.

No if by this question you are asking if it should be worth substantially more.

Most of the supply isn't even owned by collectors or at least for collecting purposes.  It's predominantly owned by "silver stackers" in bulk and by collectors as a collectible form of silver at immaterial premiums.  There are nowhere near 5MM+ collectors who will ever want to pay any noticeable premium for it and of those who will, only as exists now as an MS-70.

The ASE is one of the most "popular" series measured by the size of the collector base, but this doesn't mean they like it that much at much higher prices.  It's competitive for the low budget collector because it's relatively cheap and extremely common which means anyone with the money can complete the series if they choose.

For collectors of more substantive means, it's almost certainly mostly a sideline (casual or secondary) collection, unless they are also mostly buying other NCLT.  For everyone else, the series isn't interesting enough as a collectible.

5MM+ isn't a low mintage.  It only appears low relative to circulating change.  It's the same error made by those who think mintages on modern US commemoratives are or seem low.  Given the sentiments I read on coin forums, it's probable that a noticeable proportion of the demand for these "low" mintage coins is by those who expect to sell it for more later, not because they really want it.  

How much is the estimated value of the collection?

For coins on loan, who is paying for insurance and any other costs?  The ANA or the owner?

How much of the collection is even on display?

How many visitors does it receive and how does this contribute to the ANA's mission, other than just exposing the public to collecting?  (I doubt the museum does much to either increase the collector base or membership.)

1 hour ago, Coinbuf said:

Would it not make more sense to move the museum to a more relevant tourist town. 

Unlikely unless the ANA would relocate with it.  My guess is that most if not all of the ANA staff wouldn't be in favor of moving so it will never happen.