World Colonial

5 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I saw it advertised at FUN -- February or March, right ?

April to my recollection.  Maybe twice per year, can't remember.

I don't see much future for smaller ones, though it obviously depends upon the quality of dealer turnout.  I can see collectors wanting to view coins directly, but to a point only.  It's not like most most dealers have compelling inventory to make it worth going out of their way. 

Also for the monthly ones, probably mostly the same inventory most of the time.  I went to the monthly Atlanta a few times, maybe 30 years ago.  35 tables to my recollection with not worth much buying, and this was before I gave up buying US.

13 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Larger regional shows near lots of collectors seem to be doing OK in recent years.  The "cheapo" monthly or quarterly shows are losing attendees and dealers but the larger regionals along the East Coast especially seem to be doing OK.

I would like to go to the Dalton (GA) show at least once but just never prioritized it.  It's a large regional one.

10 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I would think with online availability the need to travel as much as in the past makes less sense.  I could easily see myself 25 years ago attending 2-4 shows a year regularly.  But for now, 1 is enough aside from trying out a new venue.

I don't think it makes sense either, but I don't collect the coins most do.  I attended the February ANA in Atlanta (I live there), covered all the tables of interest to me in about two hours the first day (took a vacation day to do it) and bought one coin.  It's a "keeper" for sure for what I collect but there was no point in returning again.  I intentionally got there at the opening the first day to improve my chances of finding something and consider myself fortunate to get it.  Usually, I can only find coins for my one of my sideline collections and I'm not about to travel for that.

For the overwhelming percentage of collectors, it makes no sense to travel at all given their collecting budget unless they make it a vacation.  Some do it to visit with collectors they know but I'm not spending one cent on that either.  My vacation  money is already committed elsewhere and my coin money is for coins, not traveling to coin shows.

4 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Good point....my understanding was that CS was a strong #4 to the other Big 3 shows.....and that recently, CS has seen dealer and attendance drops.  True ?

Anecdotally even before COVID, it's my impression that attendance is down because there are too many coin shows.

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Speaking as someone who is 100% a collector and does it as a hobby for enjoyment, I have no problem with part of their efforts and $$$ being spent to promote the business side alongside the hobby itself.  I think they kind of go hand in hand, right ? 

They can do that by accepting paid advertising and sponsorships which they already do.

I was only speculating, as I don't know specifics.  Current collecting culture in the US cannot be totally separated from the business side, as the price level cannot be sustained without it.   Concurrently, I don't believe that many dealers and their customers really like collecting that much either, or else there wouldn't be so much exaggeration on collecting aspects which are insignificant.

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

A very huge amount of the ANA’s portfolio is in rare coins themselves. I previously knew they owned one of the 1913 Liberty nickels, but now I understand they own two of them. 2 of 5. They own at least one 1804 dollar, and several more ultra-rarities. Some very rare coins have been stolen by light fingered past museum staffers. Recoveries of some have been made, not all. There is talk that the Langbord Double Eagles may be distributed, and if they are, the ANA might be an obvious home for one. The ANA owns one of the unparalleled collections of the world. Most are also restricted gifts, which must be held for very long times. 

Sounds like they need to learn the meaning of internal controls if they don't and implement better ones if inadequate..

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Not sure what you mean by that, but as I posted above...if she had seen this day coming and had wanted a foundation or endowment set up to help during times like we are currently experiencing, more power to her.  I'm jumping here....I'm not sure what she is upset about and I'm not sure what you mean by "industry financial shill" in regards to likely bad financial shape at the ANA.

I know a club I belong to has talked and talked about a foundation for YEARS.  We're finally doing it this year -- now we just need the $$$.  

I'm talking about using the ANA to promote collecting as a business while mostly or entirely ignoring the hobby aspects which is what collecting is supposed to be about.  If collector hobbyists aren't going to support the ANA, then if it's going to last, it's going to get taken over by the financial promoters. 

I am partially speculating here, as I am not a member and could be completely wrong about it.

My assumption is that most of the endowment is previously donated collections.  I'd be surprised if it has much of a cash endowment but haven't looked at the financials and could be wrong about that also.

2 hours ago, Tyrock said:

She wrote "I fear a few elected officials and appointees have used the current COVID-19 pandemic as a convenient excuse to essentially cripple and dismantle the Association, with utter disregard for its legacy of education and guidance." Those are very strong words from Ms. Gregory. The little I know is that the new ANA president said that the ANA's finances are in very bad shape and I believe he also made a controversial statement that the ANA's Board of Governors should not be elected from the general membership. Anyone know why Ms. Gregory would make this statement?

No, particularly since I am not a member.

But combine "disregard of education and guidance" with "finances are in very bad shape" sounds like the potential to go in the direction of becoming an industry financial shill.  That's what most important to both the buyers and sellers of the most expensive and prominent US coins anyway,  I also suspect it's what the "hobby's" financial promoters also want out of the ANA too.

No, I am not just a cynic.

3 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

Unfortunately, most surveys are done to confirm the direction that an organization already wants to go. They don't care about the wants of a customer.

With the US Mint, the result of their monopoly.  Keep on doing more of the same until it results in complete failure.

Assuming it is even genuine, it will have to be identified from the design, legend and assayers.  This will provide a date range, not a specific date.  I don't have access to my copy of Sedwick's "Practical Book of Cobs" but someone else here might.

7 hours ago, VKurtB said:

The only answers are radical cost reductions or increased prices.

The current situation is what happens with perpetual inflation while the customer's income mostly stagnates.  It's a similar problem with the TPG business model where they have to increase grading fees even as the price level stagnates which makes it uneconomical to submit a greater proportion of coins.

There is a third option you left out.  They can discontinue a product or the product line entirely.

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

I picked up some early semi-key Washington quarters at below normal U.S. coin show prices. There was one guy whose specialty was Seated U.S., for which I was ill prepared to shop. There were three dealers who had huge boxes of world coins and sets in OGP boxes. The Bloomsbury is not a huge show by U. S. standards. Maybe a 40 dealer bourse.

Sounds like the same types of coins sold by dealers in the "budget" section of the conventions I have attended (ANA, Long Beach).  The cut-off was $300 last I remember.  I can see some of these coins being collected outside the US, at a discount to the US price per your example.

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

I’ve been to a foreign coin fair, the Bloomsbury in London, England. Yes, most material was U. K., but the second most common country was the U.S. Then came pre-euro France, and then Swiss coins. There was more Eastern Bloc material than one would expect. Many, many sets of many countries. I bought a 1966 U.S. Special Mint Set there with three fully cameo coins in it.

What was the price range for the US coins you saw?  What kinds of coins?

44 minutes ago, olympicsos said:

The only thing I have bought from the US Mint over the years are items that I think I can flip for profit. 

I think this is representative of a noticeable proportion, now and previously.  

It's also why even when mintages are supposedly "low", it's far more than the actual collector base who really want it.  Even among those not buying it for profit, it's noticeably either a sideline collection or bought out of habit.

8 hours ago, Conder101 said:

There are US collectors who collect sets from other countries, but they are only a very small number compared to the number of US collectors that buy US sets.  Likewise the number of collectors in other countries that buy US sets is small  compared to those buying their own countries sets.

I'd say the collecting of US proof sets by those living elsewhere is right near zero.  If there is any evidence of "meaningful" collecting of US coinage elsewhere at all, I have never seen it. 

I haven't performed a comprehensive search but what I see is mostly generic pre-1933 gold and circulated mostly ungraded coins in auctions.  The collector material is worth respectable money on occasion but it appears to have been acquired a long time ago when coins were much cheaper.  I don't look at dealer inventory or eBay listings for low priced items.

I agree with you that collectors disproportionately prefer and collect their own coinage.  Concurrently, US proof sets are going to be an even worse value proposition for collectors anywhere else.

I wouldn't bother with die varieties.  I'd be really surprised if the number who bother with it is even noticeable.  The series is too large and expensive to collect in this format.

1 hour ago, McDuffee Collection said:

Thanks much for the feedback!!   i appreciate it.  That was my gut too but I see so many graded it made me wonder

Some for registry sets but most probably from bulk submitters, dealers and telemarketers.

37 minutes ago, bsshog40 said:

Yea but as many years as I been collecting and reading coin forums, I've never seen or heard of a mass population of people that buy other countries mint sets. I know there are a few but those numbers wouldn't even come close to U.S. individuals and companies that buy US mint sets. They most likely would never match sales of the US Mint. Good possibility of why their sets cost more. And I would also bet that their mintage numbers are no where close to US mintages either. 

I have only looked selectively at mintages but not for anything recent.  I'd guess the gap has decreased noticeably as US annual sales have collapsed over the last several decades but it's still huge.

US annual sets are a lousy value, even before this price increase.  Mints don't control all their costs but that doesn't change the value proposition to the collector who doesn't care about that.

If you want to see better value, take a look at mintages and prices of older world sets.  I own a few.  One is the Canada dual dated (1953-2003) Golden Jubilee with the Mary Gillick portrait struck in silver.  It's very common with 30,000 but can be bought for about $75 and comes in a nice presentation case.  Don't own it but the Canada 1911-2011 set commemorating the centenary of the 1911 SP dollar sells for about $200 in a wooden case.  It's silver, has the popular King George V design and a mintage of 6,000.  I also own a gem 1974 South Africa short set (8 coins).  I paid about $300 for it because it's graded (mostly PCGS), all but one are CAM or DCAM and six are 67 or 68.  A raw set in the original case but still nice is maybe about $30.  Mintage is 8000.

"Low mintage" for a US set is like 1950 and earlier.  The US is one of the few countries that struck proof sets regularly but where others did, the mintages in the 20th century during this period are frequently in the hundreds or less.  There aren't very many really common ones.  Britain is one exception since these were only struck intermittently, like the 1953 which I recall as being 40,000.  However, the proportion surviving in better quality seems to be relatively low and really nice sets aren't cheap.

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

So I ask the forum, who likes $93.50 for a base metal proof set? Are you willing to swim in that pool? The point is that these products cost money to make, SERIOUS money. We have been spoiled.

I'd still rather buy the Swiss set with a mintage of 2500 at double the price.  Not only will the value hold up better but the designs are also superior to most collectors.  The quality difference is just an added bonus.

25 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

All of what you write here is true, and it offers a chance for a socio-economic experiment. Yes, even at these astonishing prices, the U.S. sets will likely still outsell some other nations' sets. So now we get to see what matters over time. Will lower mintages of foreign sets prevail, or will the "I'll wait to buy it on the secondary market" demand keep U.S. prices high? We can't know for sure, but I believe it's been proven that demand is still king.

No doubt US Mint products will outsell others even with much higher mintages at the same price .

But in the secondary market longer term, I equally do not believe that 2020 issues (and presumably later years) will hold even the same proportionate value versus recent years.  I don't see any evidence that the buyers (notice I didn't say just collectors) really like it that much.

Let the death spiral you described begin.

14 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

They ARE astonishing, but not out of line when compared with the pricing at other major World Mints. They're pretty much in line. We've gotten spoiled by being subsidized forever up until now.

I agree with your reply to my post, on the economics.

I don't follow the pricing of any new releases, US or otherwise.  But what I will say is that to remain competitive, the US Mint cannot generally charge (roughly) equivalent prices because the mintages are so much higher. 

There are more collectors of US coinage, but I don't believe the difference in the base is proportionate though I haven't checked this either except very selectively.  To my knowledge though, mintages for the more preferred NCLT like Britannia and Libertad proofs are (or were) less than 10,000 (a lot less on occasion) while for ASE a "key date" like the 2019-S ERP (a gimmick coin not even bought by all ASE collectors) is 30,000 and the regular proof is hundreds of thousands.  It might be somewhat more favorable for annual proof and mint sets but I doubt much.

Other than financially, I don't really care.  I either like the coin or I don't and will pay a price I am comfortable with based upon how much I like it.

5 hours ago, Zebo said:

It's all in the timing. 

Exactly

Relative value is always changing but the difference in the last 10+ years is that due to unprecedented reckless speculation and overvaluation in every major asset class from the greatest mania in the history of civilization, practically everyone is forced to either participate in a financial casino or financially bleed to death from NIRP, ZIRP and currency debasement.

12 hours ago, RWB said:

RE: "This exaggeration doesn't change the fact that gold (or silver) has traditionally been the best store of value relative to anything else.  In the current environment, it's not as liquid as "hard currency" folding money but that's temporary situation."

Traditional comment. Not actually true. Ask any old-time banker about keeping gold as a required reserve - they hated it, and dumped it as quickly as possible. Gold simply sits. It does nothing, contributes nothing, earns nothing, and profits no one except the middleman who is quick to flip it. Bullion sellers/buyers do not hold it - they dump it as fast as possible. If it's such as good "store of value" then they should want to hold a lot and preserve "value."  DeBeers and Alrosa (the Russian cartel) hold diamonds to inflate price - to "store value" by restricting trade. There is no organized analog for gold. Commercial users buy at negotiated prices - not the "spot market." Hoarders merely relinquish interest, capital gain and potential financial gain from free capital, buy sticking the stuff in mattress holes or the in the fake ice cream box in a home freezer.

"Store of Value" is the grinding tune played in an expensive game of musical chairs.

Of course bankers hated it, because they love fractional reserve lending and the lack of financial discipline that goes with it.  They also love deposit insurance now because it also institutionalizes unsafe and unsound banking practices which to this point has allowed banks to get away with excessive leverage and lending to deadbeat borrowers who would never get a loan in an economic system with stable money. 

Perpetual inflation allows banks to lend to deadbeats who get bailed by cheating savers out of their savings.  These deadbeats who couldn't get loans in the past didn't miraculously become credit worthy borrowers because current bankers are so much smarter.

Bullion speculators are exactly that, speculators.  They don't care how they make their profits.

The ones who care are mostly average middle class individuals who are trying to preserve what they have, not participate in the modern casino we call a financial system.

I'm not a "metal bug".  I equally know that this fiat ponzi financial system we have is destined for a catastrophic system failure once confidence evaporates due to moral hazard mostly created by government policy.

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I beg to differ.  I believe there are other metals that mimick the weight and density of gold that you just can't weigh them when dealing with "good" counterfeiters.

These "rolling waves" are difficult to produce as is the hologram-like picture.  I'd want to see them in-hand but they seem to be the equivalent of the hidden strips in our currency introduced 20 years ago.

My inference also.  I have not read up on it but it's my understanding that modern counterfeits use tungsten to fool the Fisch wallets which is why they came out with the "ringer".  Different sound for different metals apparently.  I still intend to buy this "ringer" but have not got around to it.

High metal prices bring out more and better criminals.  Not aware it's a problem for silver yet but it could or will be if the dreams of the metal bugs ever come true.