World Colonial

None of these coins are rare or even scarce.  It all depends upon how badly you want one in this box, as that's what you are paying extra to obtain.

As to whether the premium will hold, I don't follow it.  I recall seeing data from the hoard at some point and some of the dates are low ("box rare") if it's what you want. 

As time marches on, I wouldn't count on those who don't remember when it was released caring either way.  I remember seeing these soon after I started collecting (late 70's) and thought it was kind of neat at the time.  Now, I just see it as another form of marketing.

Seems to be a US centric survey.  I don't recognize any name from anywhere else.  Apparently, no one from anywhere else is worthy to make the list.

Second observation, a few seem to be included simply because they have a large wallet.  I'd be interested to know the criteria and how the people on this list meet it.

As an example, John Albanese founded both NGC and CAC.  TPG and CAC are more connected to the financial side of "collecting" but undoubtedly, he has had an impact on how coins are bought and sold.

2 hours ago, VKurtB said:

I don't see why this should be so. Switzerland eliminated the 1 rap and 2 rappen without creating a new denomination, and even the 5 rappen barely circulates. Canada created the Loonie and Two-nie LONNNNG before eliminating the cent. Look at a modern Canadian mint set. It looks like someone cut out a cent.

I agree with you. 

All I was saying is that I interpreted the OP to be in the context of eliminating all coinage entirely.  It's possible I misunderstood.

3 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Wow, didn't know that, thanks PF.

10,000 coins today is nothing.  I bet PCGS and NGC do that in a week.

There was no NCLT.  Take that out and both probably still do more but the difference will be less.

9 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

The U.S. Mint, and its product line today, bears little resemblance to the facility of yesteryear.  It makes one wonder to whom exactly are their product lines produced to appeal to?  And, it goes without saying, the pricing scheme employed is totally devoid of any sense of supply and demand. 

Outside of the "regular" proof ASE, with the bullion type coins, the target market is almost certainly predominantly financially motivated buyers. Not something I can prove but anecdotally, there seems to be a pattern where those who buy it as their primary interest don't buy much else.

As far as pricing, if compared to collector coin mint products from elsewhere, I agree.  There are far more collectors in the US but there is no reason to believe US collectors really like it that much.  The US Mint can get away with it though because:

1) Most US collectors almost certainly don't even know how much mint products elsewhere cost or the mintage

2)  They don't care anyway because they only collect US coins

3) They believe "low" or lower mintages (which are still actually not low) will enable them to sell it for more later. 

This last item has come up numerous times in this thread.  Financially, obviously lower mintages are better but only at a competitive price.  Proof and mint set mintages have crashed by something like 80% from the peak decades ago but still aren't remotely low and there is no reason to believe that anywhere near enough collectors want these products as a collectible even at the current issue price, never mind more. 

No difference for practically any "low" mintage commemorative where it ranges up to around 50,000 for the clad and silver and a few thousands for the gold.  Since almost no one would buy this coinage and it doesn't exist in lower quality, the relevant comparison isn't the mintage, but survivors in comparable quality.  By this standard, all of it remains common.

18 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

No company, not matter how big or how much market share, stays on top forever. 

I think that it is highly likely that another company comes along within the next 20 years and displaces one or both of them. Technology will replace the human grader at some point. Right now it is the eye appeal factor that computers cannot nail down. Once this problem is solved, we'll have a company that has a computer that can assign an accurate and stable grade to a coin within a couple of seconds. 

The success of a grading service isn't just determined by "accuracy" of grading, since it's only an opinion.  The most important factor is how much the coins in a particular TPG holder are valued by the market.  If someone with sufficient stature is prominently associated with this prospective future service (as in JA with CAC), what you describe is realistic.  Otherwise, the most valuable coins will just get cracked out or crossed to another holder, if it's submitted at all.

3 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

You wanted the ANA to get into the business and commerical side by grading coins ?

Too late for that, even assuming the board wanted to do it.  That ship sailed long ago.  The only way NGC or PCGS are going to be dislodged from their market leading incumbent position is through their own ineptitude.  Otherwise, no one has any motive to change the status quo.

2 hours ago, RWB said:

RE: "I don't see that Congressional action makes any difference.  I also don't see that the ANA will have significantly more influence even if changes its' priorities."

A Federal charter adds immensely to an organization's potential for meaningful influence. This would be very helpful in prosecuting counterfeiters, establishing enforceable standards to protect consumers, and veracity of commercial promotional statements (a bit like the UL Seal).

The present ANA does nothing, so it is hardly the force it was a couple of generations ago when exposure of fakes, HPA, and independent authentication were meaningful ANA projects.

How does this charter provide this potential?  I haven't read it and don't have familiarity with federal charters generally..  

The reason I ask is because I don't believe the more recent generations of collectors (Gen-Y and Gen-Z) generally are impressed with a federal charter (even if aware of it and know what it is) or give it any credence.  Maybe those around my age (I'm 55) and older think it means something (I don't) but can't answer that either.

3 minutes ago, olympicsos said:

I don't think replacing a $1 bill with a $1 coin will ever happen in the US. People like their paper money more than coins and there are studies that show that the $1 bill actually has recently become cost efficient than the $1 coin. 

I hope not.  I still carry more cash around with me than most but not a single coin.  I don't pay with coins and try to avoid receiving it back in change.  It has no purchasing power but even with higher denominations, not interested in the additional weight.

3 hours ago, RWB said:

Physics-Fan3.14 hit an important point: Most do not actively enter and remain in the hobby until they have a settled adult life. Children and teens no longer have the resource of collecting from circulation, and that reduces the reward-pleasure-repeat cycle that existed before the mid-1960s. 

More competing recreational alternatives for their time and money versus the 1960's.  Even if it were possible to reintroduce silver coinage into circulation, I don't see any reason to believe that folder and album collecting would regain it's prior appeal.  Collecting as a recreational activity just isn't as competitive as it used to be.

3 hours ago, RWB said:

ANA leadership and management do not seem to understand this, or incorporate new ideas into targeted education. They also fail to understand that ANA was once a leader in hobby policy, but has rendered itself impotent by abrogating collector authority to commercial entities.

The internet has reduced the ANA's relevance to collectors.  I haven't ever seen much if any comment on it, but I assume that membership and it's relevance is also at least somewhat correlated to active participation in (local) coin clubs.

If this true, how does club membership now compare to the past?  I infer some clubs (EAC, Bust Half Nut, Liberty Seated Collectors Society, CONECA) which focus on a targeted segment are doing well.  Generalist clubs not as much though it varies by location and leadership.  I thought about attending a meeting at the Metropolitan Coin Club of Atlanta but never made it a priority.  Obviously, it isn't important enough or I would do it.

3 hours ago, RWB said:

Congress is not going to charter any more ANA-type organizations. So ANA can either take charge or drift into oblivion.

I don't see that Congressional action makes any difference.  I also don't see that the ANA will have significantly more influence even if changes its' priorities. 

With the internet and modern communication, anyone can have a totally satisfactory collecting experience their entire life while still ignoring it.  It also has less relevance to the increasing number of US collectors who do not focus on US coinage.  For me, I could benefit from the course on counterfeit detection but doubt much else, including the grading course.  The library might have some reference material of interest to me, but much or most of it might end up in the NNP later anyway.

1 hour ago, olympicsos said:

But those who use the US Dollar as a reserve currency are mainly holding paper dollars and not coins. No one really likes handling coins here, and no one is handling coins abroad either. You can get rid of the penny, nickel and dime from circulation and round everything to the nearest Quarter since its really the Quarter that is the workhorse coin and inflation will still make the other denominations even more useless as time goes on. There's no other Western country where I see coins on the ground because no one cares too much about them. 

My interpretation of the OP was discontinuing coinage altogether.    I don't see that happening, except in a cashless society.

It's other posts such as yours bringing up removing one or more denominations.  If coinage is going to remain, it's more likely the lowest denominations would be removed while new ones are introduced to replace the lowest value currency notes.  That's what has happened elsewhere to this point.

The main obstacle to a cashless society in the US is first, the dollar's reserve currency status.  By value, most FRN are held outside the US and the US Treasury and FRB at least will think very carefully before making this radical change.  Concurrently though, there are political proponents to do it to combat "money laundering" by tracking all financial transactions and making it easier to implement NIRP if "necessary".

Second, the unbanked which will presumably be "solved" by the use of smartphones as occurs or is in process in the developing world.

All other considerations impacting future coinage production are either irrelevant or immaterial.

13 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

If ANA is AGGRESSIVELY defending my rights as a coin collector and numismatist and going after anti-bullion, anti-collecting laws.....then I am HAPPY to pay up and pay for quality. 

I know lobbying and legal takes $$$.  You don't have to match Silicon Valley paychecks and maybe employees working for ANA are or were coin collectors who will take a "hometown discount."  But you won't get quality for $25/hour....you have to pay some nice 6-figure salaries.

JMHO.

You raise a good point but it takes some serious money to lobby effectively.  There is that Minnesota law but haven't heard of anything else that will impact enough US collectors.  Heard of some stupid proposals with the potential to negatively impact ancient and other "heritage" coins but doubt US collectors are sufficiently motivated to join the ANA in sufficient numbers at much higher dues to pay for it.

4 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

Maybe they should refuse donations of coins if the person donating requires that they not be sold. Flat out, if you can't trust the ANA to do what's in the best interest of the ANA with your donation, then you can keep your donation. 

My guess is many or most would choose to give coin donations elsewhere, like the ANS which I infer is a better run organization.  My assumption is that these bequest restrictions can be ignored anyway in emergencies, actual or not.  I'm not familiar with the specifics.

4 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

You can insure it's used for specific benefits.  Our local astronomy club is starting up a foundation which will benefit the public greatly.

Don't knock administrative overhead and payroll.  They ARE important.  I'm not talking about a super-fat salary, paid up country club memberships, and free cars and other gluttonous perks.  But I can tell you that for many of us in our Club it is a 2nd job that we volunteer for  -- PT for most, FT for 1 or 2 -- to do the work in the club.  Quite frankly, we probably NEED 1 paid FT person and maybe 2-3 other PT people to efficiently run the club.  Just to effectively do social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) you need someone dedicated at the job who can manuever around those sites and do it CONSISTENTLY every few days.  You can't go weeks or months (or years !) between posts as we have in the past.

At best, having paid staff makes an organization more efficient.  At the extreme, it can make the difference between a small, non-profit club surviving for the next generation.

And this virus has certainly shown that many businesses and non-profits can't survive a steep economic contraction in activity.  You have to have a rainy day fund to tide you over.  You can cut FT and PT staff during those times, but you need the foundation to be paying them in the first place.

I'm not disagreeing with you that some overhead is necessary.  In the past, 20% was the number I heard as efficient.  More recently, I have heard it is 30%.  If both are accurate, I'd attribute it to inflation especially for employee benefits.  I'm just not willing to pay for it, ANA or any other one.

50 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

There will be some deaccessions from the collection, though. There have already been some. There is redundant material in there, and not just a little bit.

Philosophical question: If the ANA owns 2 of the 5 1913 Liberty nickels, do you sell one when you are allowed to by the bequeath?

I see no need for any institutional collection to own duplicates, especially of expensive coins.  I believe it's better for coins to be owned by collectors.  In the past, I consider it virtually certain that many coins existing today that are otherwise seldom available would not be available if it had not been donated.  (I believe this to be true of my primary interest at the ANS.)  I don't see this as much of a consideration now.

45 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

OK, great job....so it seems they are short $800,000, at least in 2018.

If the collection could be sold, that would really be helpful -- for all we know, the coins or other property is not reflected at true market value.  Regardless, $37 MM would provide about $1.6 MM in annual endowment income which would certainly help.  As coins, this part of their assets can't generate any annual income as best I can tell.

If the Other Investments is the financial assets -- stocks, bonds, other investments -- that should be providing about $1 MM right now.

It's possible that non-financial assets (coins) can NOT be sold if they were bequeathed, I don't know.  You would also think that the ANA should be in a position to get a nice donation either while living or upon death from a member or wealthy coin collector who would like to bequeath a legacy.  But you have to ASK as the ANA and/or coins are not at the top of most people's donation list, even wealthy people with plenty of $$$.

Maybe someone at the ANA should spend a few hours working on this.  

 

My understanding is that some art might (key word) be loaned to generate revenue but I cannot give you any specific examples.  The MET in NY used to regularly have temporary travelling exhibits with an additional admission but I don't know if they had to pay to "rent" it.  The fee might have been to cover costs, such as insurance.  Regardless, I see no possibility that the ANA's (or any other coin) collection is a candidate to replicate this, even if I am correct.

I have thought about donating my core collection to the ANS if no one in my family wants it and I don't need the money later.  I doubt this will happen though, as I am more interested in buying their duplicates if offered for sale.  ATS I read that this may selectively occur at some point and I suspect it may be due to a cash crunch.

I'd never in a million years leave a cent of other assets to any non-profit, coin related or not.  It would get wasted on administrative overhead or payroll.  I know those who work there need to make a living and plan for the future like we do, I'm just never going to contribute to it.  All my assets are going to immediate family and a handful of others important to me.

51 minutes ago, Conder101 said:

I was under the impression the replacement for CICF lasted about two years and died.  Am I wrong?  Is it still going on?

You may be correct.  If the show is gone, I did not know it.

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

Ahh yes, feeding oneself, and depending where you're coming from, getting there. Because of being in Harrisburg or Lancaster, Amtrak was always the obvious answer there. And food is "an attitude". My attitude was cheaper.

I'm definitely an economizer, with most things.  But I am even stingier with my vacation time.  During my working career, I have almost exclusively used it to visit family because if I had not, I wouldn't see them much.  Until 2011, it was mostly to visit family and friends in Atlanta before I moved back.  After 2011 until COVID, it was to visit my family outside the US.  Taking the day off to go to opening day at the February ANA is as much as I will likely ever do.

5 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Early January is typically the cheapest time for New York hotels. Check out the aggregators like Priceline and others.

I have plenty of hotel points.  It's the other expenses and using my vacation days which is why I have never gone.

40 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Surely you aren't contending that the current state of affairs is in any way similar to the 1930's, or ARE YOU? York County, Maine or New Rochelle seems to be a whole extra level of abuse over and above the status quo.

Matter of degree to me.  Some difference but not substantive. 

The earlier modern commemoratives I thought covered "worthy" events but practically none more recently.  I also agree with your inference that many classic commemoratives never should have been struck.  It's just since collectors are used to seeing it in the Red Book over their entire collecting experience, they don't tend to think of these coins equally.

If most modern commemoratives had never been issued, I don't see it as any loss and it isn't because I don't buy it.  It's because I consider what's being commemorated trivial, irrelevant or just plain stupid.  There is no need to issue commemoratives every year if there is nothing "significant" enough for it.  Earlier you mentioned the Olympic coins.  1984, 1996 and 2002 I think is fine because the US hosted it.  I don't think it should have been issued for any others.  Leave this to the host country.

Over issuance cheapens the whole series and I'm not claiming this due to the price performance in the secondary market.  If fewer were issued for events actually worth commemorating, I believe it would make the series more interesting to more collectors.  I am also aware that anyone can avoid coins they don't like but many are still set collectors and won't do that.

58 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Yes, this. Pay attention! This has happened before and it will happen again.

Want some evidence? Check out the Atlanta Olympic coins and the other post-Olympic 1996 commems. Watch these recent commem clad halves. The mintages are getting "sick low" on many of them.

There are a lot of low mintage modern commemoratives, though most are gold and not affordable to the average collector.  It's evident it results from overproduction of uninteresting themes with mediocre artistry resulting in coins only a relatively low number want as a collectible as opposed to buying it for speculation.  The mintages are low, but the survival isn't for the quality.  Depending upon the price, I suppose it has more financial potential than earning close to 0% in a bank account or with a bond but that's not saying much.

Financially, the problem with too many low mintage coins in the same series is that any one coin gets lost in obscurity.  It's evident that the US Mint is going to continue to produce this mediocrity indefinitely until someone with the ability to kill the program entirely ends it, just as in 1954. 

We're already at the point where completing the series is very uncompetitive for the target buyer.  It's more competitive for those who started much earlier but not otherwise.  It's either too expensive to "catch up" or there are far better coins for the same money.

47 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

If you are staying multiple days, can always stay in the outer boroughs or suburbs and save $$$.

True, but I have over 1MM Marriott points, so hotel is not an issue and would definitely choose to stay near venue.  I'm not interested in commuting any further with coins on me.  If I ever go, it would almost certainly be for one day or at most two nights.  I may be totally wrong but I don't believe even this show has much for my core collection. 

The most likely reason I would extend a trip to a second day is for a visit to the ANS.  For an administrative fee ($50 I believe), the collection is available for inspection.  I have exchanged messages with one of the ANS staff members ATS on this option.  I intended to do this last December but could never get away from work.  I also intended to go earlier this year but my work trip was canceled due to COVID.

21 minutes ago, Zebo said:

I've had a couple of counterfeits that were extremely well made. They used the same or slightly higher gold content on a very rare date. Both fooled two seasoned dealers. I was fooled by The first one, but was pretty convinced that the second was a counterfeit (98% sure) but wanted it anyhow to use as an excellent example. Others that I have seen had added or removed mint marks, alters dates or the like - not to mention the obvious ones using base metals as a substitute.

 

Two different motives here.

Since tungsten is a much cheaper metal, counterfeiters are motivated to fake a broader range of gold coins, primarily bullion NCLT such as the subject coin of this thread.

With high premium numismatic gold, seems it's much easier to use gold or alter a genuine coin per your examples.  I'm not saying a modern counterfeit of this type can't use a different metal, only that it seems it is less likely to occur.

NYINC is another show I would like to go to, along with the replacement for the CICF

I used to go to NY a lot for work, but never early January.  Not worth the trip at my expense given my annual collecting budget, in the vicinity of $5,000 depending upon what I can find.  I can use hotel points but still don't want to spend what it costs to go given what I will likely find for my core collection.