World Colonial

No, sometime around 2005. And it isn't cheap either. I have four or five of the wallets which cost about $400. Bought it directly from the company.

I own several Fisch Instrument wallets which perform the test you describe. Tests the width, diameter and weight. They also make a "ringer" instrument which purportedly tests the sound the metal gives off as additional authenticity confirmation. I do not own this device or ever used it. There must be a reason they thought it was necessary. My recollection is that it's purpose is to detect counterfeits with Tungsten, though I do not remember this specifically and don't know it's relative weight versus gold..

In times and conditions of extreme scarcity, the same comments could be made about any form of "money". Obviously, under these circumstances, no one with any common sense will exchange something with no utility value whatsoever ("money") for the basic essentials of survival. 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.

If my inference is correct that the typical hobbyist collector in the US has an annual budget or $300 to $500, probably do not care. They are presumably targeting buyers of gold NCLT and the dealers buying in quantity which is where the money is at. At some point, the supposedly unthinkable might happen where annual proof and mint sets may be discontinued entirely. Some or many current collectors may care (somewhat) now but many more won't later. When might "later" happen? Don't know but more likely if it doesn't make sense to strike any of the current denominations or coinage at all. This could be due to substantial decrease in cash usage or future inflation which makes the purchasing power of current coinage even more worthless than it is now.

Gold is historically overpriced versus the things people actually need to buy. Silver is within prior historical range. Financially, the primary benefit both have is that neither are someone else's liability and subject to direct counterparty exposure. Most "assets" are actually someone else's debt. Stocks (especially US) are ridiculously overpriced from the greatest bubble in the history of civilization. The company can also go bankrupt and is subject to expropriation, either partially or fully. Real estate depending upon the type has practical utility (grow food, natural resource extraction or to build shelter) but is also historically overpriced and subject to expropriation or vandalism. However, for those buying gold in particular in anticipation of a future financial "reset", they are going to have to be nimble and pay attention because ultimately decades from now, it's likely to lose noticeable proportion of its current purchasing power.

No, not really except for speculator flippers. The mintages are low compared to circulating coinage but not for any coin in comparable quality where all of these coins are more common than 99% ever struck. I don't see the 2001 Buffalo dollar as a good comparison. It was a one-off commemorative with a very popular design. There is nothing different with the coins in the list, just more of the same at inflated prices. The mintages will only be "low" versus prior years for the same series. But then, there isn't any evidence that actual hobbyist collectors (as opposed to financially motivated buyers) really prefer these series above nominal prices. Financially, I'd add the entire list as future financial losers, along with practically every 20th century and later US coin outside of specialization.

Haven't heard of counterfeits being a high risk on recent US Mint gold. Other than that, can't see that it would make any financial sense orf improve marketability other than if you can get a "70". Then it might make sense though depending upon what you have, these are really common also. I would check recent eBay prices first.

For proof sets specifically, I don't read very often of collectors buying the "older" sets as their primary interest. By "older", still referring to 1936 and later. The impression I have is that there is a lot less collecting of this coinage than previously primarily due to the internet and much larger volume of world NCLT. Also, seems that it's usually a sideline interest. This is also evident in the declining mintages. Seems to be mostly bought out of habit and with the increasing prices, one that will be easy to break and won't be missed.

It's my inference that the traditional US mint customer might have an annual budget of $300 to $500. They have priced out this collector, leaving predominantly financial speculators who can afford these inflated prices.

This is only one sale but a precursor to what I see later more generally. From what I read, the US price level has generally been flat or falling since at least 2008. Reading the sentiments of US buyers of the better US coinage (especially ATS), it's totally expected for someone else's widgets and "dreck" to do poorly but it should never happen to their "eye candy" with CAC sticker in better or "uber" grades. I keep on hearing someone "bought the coin and not the holder" and "buy the best you can afford" under the ridiculous inference that what are predominantly actually common or easy to buy coins should still sell for consistently (higher) inflated prices. I'm sticking with my inference that the buyer's of the more and most expensive (US) coinage don't usually actually like what they buy or collecting as much as commonly implied, except when they are least getting most or all of their money back. This is a very nice collection and so are many other coins selling for substantial premiums to slightly lower quality ones. It still doesn't change the fact that most of the time, there isn't much practical difference with much cheaper and usually readily available but slightly lower quality substitutes.

I agree that wealthy Chinese gravitate toward real estate. That's why Chinese in the aggregate purportedly own in the vicinity of 60+MM empty apartments. I doubt though that however many own physical gold abroad that they are storing it themselves in large volume. Personally, I'd probably store it in Switzerland.

I include all the examples in your post as "collectors" but based upon your definition, it's a lot lower. I don't think ANA membership is relevant in the internet age. So I wouldn't use that to estimate the collector base. There is no consensus definition of collector. Personally, I would consider a noticeable proportion of the buyers of the more expensive coinage more financial buyers but these people do support a higher price level which was the primary point of my comments. But using your definition, this additionally explains why out of my estimate of potentially 100+ "collectors" who can potentially afford this 1794 dollar why none of them bought it.

I'm going to clarify and qualify my last post. The 2019 Ultra Wealth Report estimates over 17,000 with a net worth of $250MM+. Subjectively, all of them should be able to "comfortably afford" this coin though I know it depends upon asset liquidity. Another approximately 40,000 have a net worth between $100MM and $250MM. Some proportion from this group (maybe one-third to one-half) can also "comfortably afford" this coin where it will still represent a relatively low proportion of their net worth. The report provides geographic segmentation but not by tier. We also don't know what proportion of this population are coin collectors. However, it should be somewhat higher than the general population in the US which is also higher than (practically) anywhere else. I have guesstimated 2MM "active" US collectors which is about 2/3 of 1%. So maybe 1% from this group or somewhat more but it's still potentially over one hundred. However, it's evident that even if this is accurate, almost none of these candidates are in the market for this one or the few other coins like it. They won't risk the financial exposure, collect something else, and/or the attributes which US collecting considers such a big deal (in terms of quality) aren't important enough to them. So to conclude, I think it's reasonable to assume quite a few more current collectors can afford this coin than many might think. If what I write is not directionally accurate, then the very wealthy have even less interest than I believe in coin collecting.

It depends upon anyone's assumption of how many US based collectors can "comfortably afford" these coins. For the 1794 dollar, I'd guess somewhere between five and 10 but have nothing to back it up. There are at least a few though (like Hansen and Tyrant) and apparently, they just didn't want it badly enough.

There is plenty to talk about, just not for the financial promoters. After I read the original post, I looked at the results. I would describe the sale of his collection as disproportionately weak across the board, unless I am told the estimates were unreasonably high. It wasn't just the three coins he kept but that practically all of the 29 lots failed to sell for the minimum estimate, frequently more like 80% or less. ATS in an earlier poll, I guessed the 1794 dollar would sell for $8MM to $10MM but was overly optimistic which is saying a lot for me. I thought there MIGHT be two collectors who can both afford and possibly want the coin enough to hit this price target. Unlike others, I knew with 99.99% certainty no non-collector would try to buy it for the reasons I provided here and there. At least 17,000 people who can presumably afford to buy it yet none of them did. As for a private treaty sale, the impression I have is that at this financial level, the owner will usually hold onto it long enough to avoid a loss. I don't recall what the others sold for. only the 1794 dollar. In a rising market, this strategy can work. However, from my limited review, the price level has mostly flat or falling since around 2008 even with the unprecedented asset bubble intact. If it ends, holding out will be a highly risky financial strategy.

Assuming the collector can afford to keep a coin, the best indication of their interest is the holding period. Many collectors own coins they don't really care about for long periods but selling a coin they can afford to otherwise keep usually indicates loss of interest. The 1913 LHN and 1804 dollar seem to be two. Both are rare yet aren't really that hard to buy, coming up for sale on average at least every few years. Contrast this with the 1861 CSA half or 1792 silver half Getz pattern which are usually owned for a long time. The reason? Collectors who aren't primarily motivated by money find the last two a lot more interesting.

I don't expect anyone to completely ignore money in their collecting. If anyone has ever read that in my posts, it's not what I meant. The letter referenced in the OP is expressing entirely different sentiments. Wall Street already attempted to "widgetize" US collecting in the late 1980's. My recollection is that Merrill Lynch created a LP which was liquidated several years later at substantial losses and Kidder Peabody (now defunct but then part of GE) planned one too. Regardless, it either failed or went nowhere. MS should be aware of this history, so I have no idea why he would write what he did other than as hyperbole. Second, it's been the dream of at least a segment of the professional numismatic community to attract those who buy expensive art, as this could send the prices of the most expensive coins to the moon. The 2019 Ultra Wealth Report estimates 57,000+ worth $100MM+ and 17,000+ worth $250MM+. It's evident from the geographic distribution of this population and the price level that only a minimal fraction (I'd guess somewhat more than 1%) are collectors but even where they are, almost never (literally) put any noticeable percentage of their net worth into their collection. In the context of this affluence, it's a rounding error. If even 500 had collections valued at $5MM+, that's at least $2.5B which should be concentrated in the most expensive US coinage. Maybe someone else sees this is in the price level but I sure don't. Neither of the two scenarios are ever going to happen where it will last more than temporarily. I'm confident it will never happen at all (except maybe in isolated segments such as gold coinage) but can't disprove a negative. No one else can give any credible reason why it will, only claim it by writing in the abstract. The reason a repeat of the 1980's TPG bubble won't last is because it would price real collectors out of (practically) everything they want to buy. If the second were feasible, a lot more of the wealthiest would be collectors right now at much higher prices. The reason they aren't is because they don't find collecting or this coinage anywhere near as interesting as the financial promoters claim and none of it is a competitive alternative "investment". (Mostly, they don't even know any of these coins exist.)

Quite nice and it also supports my opinion that Mexico from this period and later are mostly very common.

You can get an indication from the Heritage archives. It shows 723 sales which includes when Finland was part of Russia, a noticeable proportion since independence only dates to 1917. I didn't look at all 723 but practically every one over $1,000 is gold and not even one Republic non-circulation strike that isn't gold sold for over $1,000. Except where the mintage was really low, I don't believe this coinage is likely scarce very often (probably almost never since most 20th century European coins are very common). The price level probably limits what's offered for sale in countries where it isn't noticeably collected. This isn't unusual with other coinage either.

Volume wise, I think it's most of it or at minimum, a substantial minority. Here is where I think you are on to something. It's my opinion that the TPG business model is sustainable in it's current form only as long as prices are rising. In the US which presumably still accounts for most of the volume, the price level has been stagnant at best (in the aggregate) for over a decade. What does this mean? Possibly more resubmissions temporarily to "max out" grades but that has it's limits. That's been on-going to my knowledge but volume will drop off eventually. More importantly, eventually the grading fee plus shipping and insurance is going to eliminate the economic benefit of grading a noticeable proportion of all coinage, especially world coinage where TPG are undoubtedly counting on for most growth. The first time I submitted in 2005, "World Standard" was $27 and "World Economy" was $15, both with a 10% discount for Society membership. Now, it's at least $32 and $19 with no discount. There is a new "World Modern" tier but that's minimal volume and likely to stay that way. Postage costs have also increased significantly, as I found out a few years ago when selling on eBay for the first time in years. Other than Registry sets, there isn't much reason to submit low value coins, since the cost of grading increasingly exceeds any improved marketability.

Given the tone of the letter, the sender might just claim that he sent the right coins which were switched out when returned. Old version of eBay.

I wrote in haste and admit my error.

I misunderstood your post and thought yours was rude. Sorry for that.

Of course he is doing that. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. It is nothing but complete exaggeration and hyperbole. Other than creating another temporary bubble, the sentiments expressed in this letter are never going to happen.

Another opportunity for speculators.