World Colonial

5 hours ago, RichieRich2020 said:

Well just to elaborate a little on the comment In which someone boldly indicated that Roosevelt dimes are not that sought after or valuable to SERIOUS COLLECTORS with deep pockets . I thought it would be a good idea to point out that just recently as last year . A modern 1975 proof Roosevelt dime that is simply missing the S mint mark sold at auction for an astounding $516,000. And yes you did hear that correctly ... I said it sold for an astounding $ 516,000 Which is OVER A HALF MILLION DOLLARS FOR A MODERN BORING ROOSEVELT DIME ... And I won't even include all the other modern Roosevelt dimes that have actually sold for thousands of dollars simply because of a boring mint error or because they have full bands or a high grade which im sure some coin experts with decades of experience would probably also deemed to be very insignificant or not sought after by deep pocket collectors . In otherwords . You see the point I'm trying to make is . If you do a little more research on what modern error dimes have actually sold for on the market you would clearly see that your evaluation or assessment on what deep pocket collectors are willing to pay for ONE OF A KIND DIMES is wrong because to me call me crazy but the market is telling me that their might actually be a collector out their who values ONE OF A KIND modern dimes slot more then others .... but if YOU don't really think so as you suggested and you have some very nice graded dimes of your own that you think arent that sought after or valuable... then please do me a tiny favor and let me take them all off your hands for a few bucks and I promise you that I'll make sure they all find a good home

I am the one who made the comments you referred to and what I stated is 100% correct.  I am aware of this coin (1975 "No S") and others like it (since I mentioned it first) but none of these coins have any equivalence to yours.  

You are biased and cannot accept opinions contrary to your personal preference.  Opinions I might add, which are a lot better supported than yours.  I explained here why coins such as the "No S" proofs are worth this kind of money.  How are you going to get yours recognized to get it added to the Red Book and registry sets because that's literally about the only way what you want is going to happen?  The alternative is a random buyer who has no motive to pay what you think it should be worth which is about as likely as being struck by lightning on a clear day.

Do you have any idea of the low preference for the FDR dime as a series?  Yesterday (again) I looked at the Heritage archives.  Heritage has sold over 53,000 US coins valued at $10,000 or more.

How many are FDR dimes? 42, the vast majority are 1968 "No S" proofs, 41 are proofs and one is a 1964 SMS.

Do you now see why I wrote what I did?  What I wrote isn't an opinion but a fact you can verify for yourself. 

A low number of US collectors (certainly isn't anyone else) buy these coins.  I'm not even sure most of them collect the FDR dime as a series given its basement level preference.  A noticeable proportion might be buying it for appreciation or for the 68, buy the more expensive US moderns generally.  This last statement is an inference (not "fact") since it's evident the number of bigger budget collectors of the FDR dime is very low. 

Regardless, the Heritage data proves it's an immaterial number and there is no basis to believe that, other than for speculation or the one in a million random buyer, any other collector wants these coins, never mind yours at the price you think it should be worth. 

The reason they don't is because this kind of scarcity isn't meaningful to them, the more expensive FDR dimes aren't competitive to them as a collectible, and they won't pay what you think your coin is worth because they have no reason to believe they can recover their money at resale.

In almost 15 years participating on coin forums, I have seen (and contradicted) numerous opinions from those who have inflated views of what they own or collect.  Most of the time, these people are "drive by" posters who come to financially promote what they have as you have done.  But in all the examples I have seen, yours has the least merit.

I wouldn't think they are close to Chapter 11 either.  But if they are, they can always request a bailout.  Everyone else seems to be asking for one.

Just now, VKurtB said:

The ANS and the ANA are two different organizations. The ANS is in New York. The ANA is in Colorado Springs.

I know that.  I was making an analogy that if the ANS can sell some of their holdings, so can the ANA.

4 hours ago, Just Bob said:

No, I don't think it is unrealistic at all. A serious collector who does not have Roosevelt dimes in their collection may not like Roosevelts, or Moderns in general, and may choose not to have any in their collection, regardless of the finish on the coin.  A collector of Trade Dollars or gold Double Eagles or Maria Theresa Thalers or Greek Staters (all buyers whom one would expect to have deep pockets) would probably not be interested in this coin at all. Even someone who is putting together an Eliasberg style set would probably pass on this coin, instead opting for a normal high grade example. The fact that you see this coin as special does not mean that every collector would.

Not only is it unrealistic, the inference to which you responded is ridiculous.  Even if the OP's coin by some miracle is what he claims, to 99.99%+ of the collector base it's both uninteresting and undistinguished.

First, outside of maybe the more recent series (starting with State Quarters), I'd rate the FDR dime as the US series with the absolute lowest preference.  It's either this one or the SBA dollar.  Outside of specialization practiced by US collectors (which I won't get into now), it's an extremely common series which anyone can complete in one day in practically any quality, except when some narrow or arbitrary criteria is applied.  It's also a small coin with a design that most collectors don't really like and we are talking about a clad coin here which is generally less preferred than the silver.

Second, this type of scarcity isn't meaningful to hardly anyone, even an FDR dime collector.  It's unsubstantiated to believe that anyone who doesn't collect the series would want this coin at the absurdly inflated price the OP apparently thinks it should be worth.  I infer that this occurs with the "No S" proofs but that's probably because these are listed in the Red Book and included in registry sets.  More importantly, these coins have a history of high prices which presumably leads these buyers to believe they recover their purchase price, most of it at least.  Probably some speculator buyers here also.  Who wants to be first to pay an outsized inflated price for this coin?  Is the OP going to do it and if not, why would anyone else?

Bottom line is that there are far more interesting coins (as in hundreds or thousands depending upon what the OP thinks it should be worth) for the same money that practically everyone who can afford to pay his price would rather buy.

It seems to me that would be very premature.  Don't they have a substantial collection from prior donations which can be sold?

On the PCGS forum, a contributor who works for the ANS mentioned that this organization might be looking to sell duplicates.  If I understood correctly, don't know the reason but a revenue shortfall is a likely contributing factor though I doubt they are in dire financial straits.

3 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

While obviously well intended, your suggestion gives credence to a coin that is undeserving and would subject Wondercoin to an immense waste of time.

True, I don't believe this coin is what the OP poster claims.  This entire thread is a waste of time since nothing anyone writes here is going to change this person's mind.

I also don't believe Wondercoin would want to look at it for all the reasons given here.  The inference I was trying to make is that even if this specialist dealer told him it isn't what he claims, he still wouldn't believe it.  Everyone else is wrong except for him.

10 hours ago, JKK said:

If you truly believed it was something special, you'd already have sent it in and not cared what anyone here thought. Ergo, you do not. And that's okay, because you are correct. It's a damaged coin. Until you send it in and prove otherwise, it's all just hot air.

There is no US modern (subjectively post 1964) even close to being worth millions.  The idea that this coin potentially is even if as claimed makes no sense.  Even if it was as claimed (which it isn't), It's as "significant" as an error or die variety.  Plenty of rare or unique in both overwhelmingly worth nominal amounts if any premium at all because no one cares.

Here is my suggestion.  He can contact Wondercoin who posts on the PCGS forum and get his opinion.  He's one of the few who actually has customers for this coin, if it was what the OP claimed.  He recently sold one of the two known 1975 "No S" dimes for $516,000.

7 hours ago, Zebo said:

Bingo - it is nothing until you have it authenticated - except to you of course (or another owner of it). So roll the dice - if authenticated - it will add nothing to your belief, but it will convince others. If not - then your dream is shattered and no one else gains anything other than some happy electrons flowing across the screen.

The closest equivalent I could find in the combined NGC and PCGS population data is for the 1964 which has a combined count of 25 (two and 23).  There are also recognized 1964 for other denominations.  Not sure of the documentary evidence to support the striking but presume others here do and there seem to be enough to corroborate that the coins were struck as claimed.

Otherwise, out of hundreds of thousands, there isn't a single FDR dime from any other date recorded in the population data as a "SP".

2 hours ago, kbbpll said:

There's a (supposedly) Strickland 1795 dollar in there too, not sure if that's considered "elite". The auction description calls it "partially prooflike", which made me chuckle a little, given past discussions on here. Simpson has owned it for less than five years (Pogue, 09/2015, $705,000).

I'm cashing in all my assets for a down payment on the 1894-S.

No 1795 dollar is elite by my standards.  I'll consider a few of the best 1794 dollars to be so because the coin is at least somewhat scarce and has one of the highest profiles in US coinage but the 1795 is common.  It's only "grade rare" or rare as a variety, which isn't unusual at all.

The 1894-S dime I presume is a consensus elite coin.  It's been one of the highest profile US coins since it was discovered.  Coins like this 1795 dollar have current perception as a result of the financialization of the "hobby".  This is evident in prior prices before coins were widely bought as "investments" starting in the 1970's.  "Partially prooflike" = marketing. 

The only reason I used the term elite is under the assumption that the OP was using verbiage from Heritage.  Looking at the lots, I wouldn't describe what I saw to be "some of the most significant U.S. coins spanning the 18^th century to the 20^th century" except with the few examples I gave.  It's an exaggeration if applied more broadly that that.

18 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

I have read that he is going through a nasty divorce and assets must be sold.  I found it interesting that with his close relationship to Legend that he chose Heritage, got a better deal perhaps?

This would be a good reason.  Agree he probably got better terms.  Don't know who is better at getting better prices but wouldn't think it makes any difference here.

Of the 349 lots, I consider the 1894-S dime and maybe the 1827 quarter elite but not any others.  Next are the two $50 slugs and the capped head quarter eagles.  A lot of nice coins but mostly conditionally scarce or near it.  I also read he was a big collector of patterns but don't have a similar opinion of these coins some others do.

Maybe disposing of duplicates?

A change in collecting focus?

Could be financially motivated but I doubt it.  Based upon the reports I have read of his collection, it's a small proportion value wise of his holdings.  When I first saw it earlier this week, my first thought was that he was bailing out due to anticipation of noticeably lower prices due to current events.  But after looking at many of the coins, I don't think so.

3 hours ago, kbbpll said:

My point was to illustrate a handful of examples. There are varieties all over Canadian coinage and people do collect them. Their dollar collections are not complete without at least both the 1947 pointed and blunt 7. 1926 5c near and far 6. Etc etc. Price differences across the board indicate desire for nearly all varieties. I was merely countering your assertion that "There is no never going to be any significant variety or error collecting of world coinage" but I don't want to argue about it. 

I'm not trying to argue your point because your examples don't contradict what I stated.  I never implied that there is no noticeable collecting of individual varieties.  It was directed toward a prior post where I (maybe incorrectly) interpreted it more broadly.

16 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Talk about the desirability of assembling a collection in short order!  To think I was derided by one of the heavyweights on this forum for simply stating my intent at the very outset of assembling a collection of French 20-franc gold roosters in 90 days. The fact of the matter is we are talking a grand total of 16 coins, half of which are generally unavailable in any grade, with plenty of room for upgrading. I can hear the naysayers now: "Aw c'mon.  If we wanted to bust your chops, we'd've told you to go home and get your shinebox."  THANK YOU WORLD COLONIAL FOR VINDICATING ME!  While I have the No. 1 compilation elsewhere -- with plenty of room for upgrading as specimens become available, it would never occur to me to deride another collector's niche fixation. If someone were seized with the compulsion to complete a set of $4 gold Stellas, I certainly would not begrudge his choice. To those who enjoy tearing down, try uplifting instead. Bear in mind, there may be Young Numismatists watching!

I have expressed the sentiments in the quote you extracted from my post many times but it's not to knock anyone's collecting.  It's just a fact and an evident explanation for common current (US) collecting behavior.

Decades ago when most US collecting was out of circulation, there was almost no specialization in these series and my explanation for it is that the sets were a lot more difficult to complete since most weren't paying any premiums.  Now with improved communication mostly due to the internet, collectors need to find a new challenge.  This is my explanation for the increased US preference for full strikes (such as FS and FB), toning, errors, die varieties and registry competition.  A coin or series which can be bought (essentially) on demand or short notice (in practically any quality) can be made as easy or difficult as the collector chooses based upon the application of this narrow criteria.

16 hours ago, kbbpll said:

There are 575 total here in the NGC pop report for 9 Canadian 1947 $1 varieties alone. Arnprior, short waterlines, large beads, small beads, shoulder fold or none - hundreds more. In Thailand, an alley along the Grand Palace area used to be lined with coin vendors (because the national coin museum was there). Whenever a commemorative bill came out (60th anniversary on the throne 60 baht bills, etc), people snapped them up by the millions. On my last trip over there last summer, I took note of how many little shops devoted to stuff unrelated to coins had a small sample of coins or bills for sale in a case. "Popular" is how you want to define it, I guess, and depends on your personal experience and niche.

Your post covers a handful of individual coins from thousands of series.  I've noticed similar counts for a very low number of other coins through my review of the population data and auction records.

My guess is that this Canadian 1947 $1 is also a fake "key" date under the assumption it is included in price guides.  That's exactly why the most widely collected die varieties (or errors) in the most widely collected 20th century US series are so expensive despite being so incredibly common: 1922 "No D" cent, 1955 DD cent, 1937 3-leg Buffalo nickel, and the two 1942 overdate Mercury dimes.  All are very common and none are necessary for a complete date/MM set for any of these series.  Collectors include it by habit as all are included in albums, the Red Book (and now registry sets) longer than I have been alive.  A very low number of others are (somewhat) expensive, also due to inclusion in more recent references or in registry sets.  Same collector behavior pattern.

There is also a clear difference between popular and an actual collector preference.  Many "popular" coins and series actually have a low preference.  The coin or series is liked (by those who buy it) but predominantly widely collected because it's common and cheap; the collector usually prefers other coins more but doesn't buy it for a variety of reasons.  This should be evident in the declining prices for most 20th century US classic series which presumably have lost "share of wallet" to (world) NCLT.

1 hour ago, Fenntucky Mike said:

 

Yes, if you're talking about getting a TPG to recognize more varieties. 

I have several foreign sets that include varieties. Getting the varieties recognized by a TPG is a challenge, 9 out of 10 would be rejected due to popularity (a collector base), not for lack of documentation or examples. Varieties can be well documented in the coins country of origin, in books from that country or region and even by the mint/producer themselves but for the most part if the variety is not in the Standard Catalog you'll have a hard time getting it recognized. 

I think there is just as large a pool of variety seekers for world coinage as U.S. coinage but but divide that pool up by X number of countries and you just don't have the collector per capita need to get most world varieties recognized. Even though, in that region or country variety/error collecting is most likely very popular.

TPG's lack of interest in recognizing "low value" (in the U.S.) world varieties at least in part discourages collecting along those lines. There is not enough interest so the TPG's don't want to invest the time which stifles growth in that area of collecting. For my current focus (Ukrainian coinage) there are many books, papers and examples of varieties and errors. It's a very well documented area and almost none would be TPG accepted. All of mine are safely tucked away in 2 x 2's.

Some of it is the lack of reference material and TPG recognition but that's not the primary basis of my prior post.  Collectors outside the US disproportionately do not care about TPG.  It's mostly inference into US collector views of this variety collecting but don't believe it represents even the same level of interest as it does with US coins.

My contention is that most collectors do not find most series remotely interesting enough to bother with it.  It's viewed as numismatic minutia.  That's why I made the comments on US collecting practices.  Look at the level of die variety collecting within the most widely collected (viewed as the most "popular") US series.  There is almost none or if there is, the price level certainly doesn't reflect it and it's predominantly "cherry picking" at nominal if any premium.  Predominantly varieties listed in the Red Book "necessary" for a "complete set" with almost no interest in the others.

This includes the series covered by the other active thread on the "golden era" such as Wheat cents, Buffalo nickels, Mercury dimes and WLH.  There is more (or appears to be) from US moderns but outside of the Lincoln cent, not much of it either.  Most of it appears to be "cherry picking".

Even with my primary interest where I buy almost nothing else now, I don't collect by variety either.  It's a combination of the lack of available specimens and budget (if the coins actually existed in higher quality in any volume) but also because there is hardly any difference with over 90%.  I'll buy multiples if I can find the coin at an acceptable price too.  If it's a different variety (like 1755 Peru JM and JD assayers on my two MS-65 half real), great.  But I didn't buy it because of the variety.  I bought it because the coin is rare and would rather own duplicates versus something else.

If variety or error collecting is very popular anywhere else, I have never heard of it.  Coin collecting generically isn't very popular either hardly anywhere else.  Not by my standards, as I'd consider maybe 20 to 30 countries where the scale is anything I would call meaningful.

In the US, I wouldn't describe either as very popular either.  The US price level is outrageously high (relative to everywhere else and what most collectors can afford), so errors are popular enough where the price level is respectable (usually in the two and three digits for US modern errors which is most).  For varieties, it's mostly concentrated in a very low number of series with the largest collector bases apparently being EAC and Capped Bust halves.

There are no absolutes but think of it this way.  For the collector of British coinage, there is over 2000 years to collect (including ancients) at mostly affordable prices except in the higher or highest TPG grades.  British coinage is or appears to be the most researched along with US and ancient Greece/Rome, so there is no shortage of reference material.  The vast majority of collectors appear to prefer to collect different sets (such as by monarch) because it's a lot more interesting to them.

The two US coins that I consider the most distinctively American are the Buffalo Nickel and IHC.  

This subject comes up periodically from different angles on coin forums.  There is no never going to be any significant variety or error collecting of world coinage.  Here are my reasons:

One: The collector base for most series is too small and except for a very minimal proportion, that's not changing.

Two: A much higher proportion of world coinage is too scarce to be collected in this format.  It's simply not practical.  The series are too hard to complete by date.  In the coinage I collect (now or before), there are references for pillar coinage but I cannot even find many of the dates at all or only in damaged or problem state.  For South Africa Union, there is a partial variety guide but presumably the author didn't attempt to perform identification for all denominations because it was too much trouble.

The primary reason this type of collecting is somewhat popular with US coinage is for one of two additional reasons.  First, the collector base is large enough where a noticeable number will attempt it and one reason they will is because most are very easy to complete by date/MM.  Anyone who has the money can complete most US series in one day, a week, a month or some other short time period except in some narrow quality.  Second, a disproportionate percentage of US series and types are too expensive for the (vast) majority of the US collector base, though this partially depends upon the quality they will accept.

With world coinage, most collectors aren't going to bother with what they consider minutia when a much higher proportion are affordable to them and they can collect a much wider variety even in better quality.

Here is what it would accomplish:

Depending upon the mintage and how it is released, another speculative opportunity for flippers.

More "product" for dealers to sell and grading fees for TPG

In a stagnant market, it will redirect spending from other coins resulting in weaker prices for alternatives collectors otherwise would have bought.

Like other US Mint NCLT since maybe the late 1980's or early 1990's, it won't do anything for collecting.

4 hours ago, Just Bob said:

With what I collect, it is just the opposite: no one is buying, including me, at the moment. I have several tokens on my Ebay watch list that keep getting relisted.

I see most of my eBay items sit indefinitely.  A few have recently sold but not many.  I also see the same items come up in my searches that I have not saved which have been there for years since the seller refuses to lower the price.  

Haven't noticed in particular, only heard comments similar to OP.  If accurate, definitely temporary.

59 minutes ago, Zebo said:

Or the best - depending on what side of the coin you are on. 

Yes, I agree US collecting is the best at financially promoting the "hobby".  No doubt about that.

On 6/19/2020 at 12:11 PM, RWB said:

Conder101 - Helpful comments and a lot of cuts through the nonsense. Also, reinforces that observations MUST be objective and unbiased. Analysis and interpretation might vary, but not the data.

Has Robert W. Julian uncovered any material?

When it comes to the most expensive coins generically (not specifically this coin), those who buy and sell it are a lot more interested in exaggeration to inflate the price level as much as possible.  It's marketing and nothing else.  US "collecting" is the absolute worst in doing this.

There is a thread ATS which you must have seen.  The owner hasn't denied it.

1 minute ago, bernard55 said:

MarkFeld - but that's the point. The market spoke on that coin.  lets say 1000 coin people looked at that coin over the course of that auction.  1 ended up with it for 16k.  the 1000 people market said that coin was worth 16k (not 26k). but a sucker like me might come along an buy it for 26k or someone smart like all of you might have told them you would buy it for 17k.  Without easily accessible transparency to what the market says something is worth (not TPG services) suckers like me will get taken over and over and become unhappy with the hobby--example of what I'm feeling...

You are not a sucker if you buy with full knowledge (to the extent possible), like what you buy and are willing to accept that you might only be able to sell it for less later.

Earlier, that's why I wrote that it mostly comes down to the buyer's attitude toward collecting.  It's also why few (particularly US) collectors will ever try to collect the same coins I do.  The supply is very limited but even aside from that, there is very limited data to price anything I buy.  The coins are a lot cheaper but that's why it's important that I like what I buy enough.  Currently in my primary series, I value it at somewhat more than $40k but if I tried to sell it now, I could receive a lot less but likely only somewhat more. 

The pricing is a lot more predictable due to the much better liquidity, but that's a primary reason why I'll never buy most US coinage precisely because I share your sentiments a lot more than for what I collect now.  No one can collect the types of coins I do and consistently be satisfied if they are more concerned about the financial outcome.