World Colonial

Look at auction results and compare the relative quality between specimens to obtain an idea of relative value.  There is no absolute value, so what a coin is worth can only be evaluated relative to the closest comparable. 

Deciding how much to pay is also largely a matter of personal preference if it doesn't sell frequently.  In the area I collect which isn't US, there isn't much to data due to the lack of sales history and the scarcity.  The coins are much cheaper so the financial risk is much lower, but I decide to pay mostly using a combination of prior experience and how badly I want it.

3 hours ago, Mc10139 said:

Definitely command a huge premium, and 1 of 244 is a very limited run rarity. 1/1000th of the total pop. Add mercanti sig and FDI, this will surpass the 95w and 2015p. They sold out in a day and were only offered through 1 company to their exclusive clients. What say you all?

 

It's a gimmick.  The label is a gimmick and so is attributing a mintmark where it isn't actually on the coin.  It's all marketing driven by the TPGs to generate grading fees and nothing else.  It also has nothing to do with actual coin collecting either, since the signature (from someone I wouldn't even describe as a minor celebrity) and label on the holder are a lot more important than the coin in it.

I don't know what percentage of the buyer base (many of whom I wouldn't even describe as primarily collectors if at all) buys these things but it's a distinct minority.  Comparing the "rarity" to the 95-W isn't valid either.  It's the equivalent of comparing the scarcity of a variety to a date generically.

244 for a combination of label and grade rarity isn't actually rare, even with such a narrow definition.  Using an average holding period of five years, it will come up for sale about once per week.  That's not even close to being hard to buy.

The size of the ASE collector base is irrelevant to this example, since most who collect the series are buying it as a low premium bullion substitute.  Most of these people are also either low budget collectors or it's a sideline collection, not their primary interest.

The problem with this type of inference is that these gimmicks aren't interesting enough to enough people at any meaningful price, unless they are making money or at least not losing it.  It's a limitation for NCLT generally since a much higher proportion are predominantly financially motivated. 

It's an ok article other his repetition of the error that an 1895 proof Morgan dollar is necessary for a complete set.  It is for proofs (only collected by a very low minority of Morgan dollar collectors) but not circulation strikes. 

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

Well when you consider that in the US there are probably between 50 and 100 thousand people trying to put the set together, 400 coin is at least kind of rare because at any one time a large percentage of them are tied up in collections and not on the market.  But even with those pops there are nowhere near enough of them available to begin to cover collector demand.  Even so it is still just a grade rarity and it is only "rare" if you insist that you HAVE to have it in 70.  (a grade which if they were resubmitted many probably wouldn't get a second time around.

Here is what I can tell you from looking at most US coinage, a wide variety of world coinage and the most widely collected ancients.

I haven't checked ASE regularly but there is no reason to believe that the frequency it comes up for sale is any less than other comparably scarce (US) coins, at comparable prices.  There is every reason to believe it is a lot more frequent. 

Why?  Because a much larger percentage of the "collector" base isn't actually primarily interested in buying it as a collectible but predominantly for financial reasons. Do a higher proportion find it so compelling while collectors of US classics (or other coinage) with the same approximate availability (in total, not some contrived rarity) find what they collect a lot less interesting?

I know that any US classic with about 400 can be bought (practically) any time due to the price, probably in multiple within a very short period of time.  On one occasion, I checked Morgan dollar proofs where the mintages usually range from 600 to 800 with the survivors presumably somewhat more than 400.  Every single one had in the vicinity of 10 sales just on Heritage in the prior year. 

To your point that there isn't enough supply for every buyer who wants it, this is equally true for any other (US) coin with the same generic availability,  The coins still aren't hard to buy, for those who have the money and are willing to spend it.  Every one else either can't or won't because they can't afford it or overwhelmingly prefer to spend their money elsewhere.

How much do you like it?  How much would you mind losing money if you are wrong?  Only you know the answer to these questions.

I don't know offhand how much these coins cost but my recollection is that the premiums aren't particularly low, especially as a 70.  My limited experience on coin forums with posters who predominantly buy (world) NCLT is that they tend to look at the mintages, ignore the price of most or all other coinage, and then somehow come to the conclusion that what they want to buy is underpriced.

Sure, you can make money on it, but I don't believe that most buyers are predominantly motivated by collecting.  I'd buy bullion first personally.

26 minutes ago, Conder101 said:

He did concede the point about grade rarities, but other than those he is right, there are no great rarities in the ASE series.  Best it has are the 1995-W proof and the 2019 (S or W can't remember which) reverse proof.  In the bullion coins the best you get is the 1996 with a mintage of over 3.5 million.  The only "rarity" that wasn't specifically made to be a collector rarity is the 2008 rev of 2007 Burnished, and it was still a coin specifically made for collectors, it just happened to be a variety as well.

Yes I did but I just looked at the TPG data, again.  There is some "rarity" as a 70 for a few of the non-proof dates, if limited to the PCGS counts for those who consider them to be stricter.  (One date has 17, another 22 and a few more below 100.)  I presume this is the position of at least a minority who collect the series since the counts are noticeably lower.

Otherwise, there is no rarity even in this grade unless the concept is now extended to labels.  No date has less than several hundred as a 70 (lowest count is somewhat below 400).  The 1995-W, the "key" to the series, currently has 398 at PCGS and 635 at NGC.  What kind of rarity is that?  Maybe it's "gradeflation" (as the counts have exploded from years ago) but it's irrelevant from a collecting aspect since there is no practical difference between this grade and even several grades lower. 

It would probably take awhile to build a complete 70 set exclusively in PCGS holders, unless the counts increase at least somewhat.  Otherwise, every single one of these coins can almost certainly be bought in this grade in one of the two holders in a single day, now and all the time.

On 5/30/2020 at 2:00 PM, Carter II said:

But that's what it says on the NGC price guide 

Unless prices come from actual sales, it is just made up.  There is no possibility that anyone or any source can possibly know the actual value of hundreds of thousands or millions of price points (coin in multiple grades).  This includes coins with no known (public) sale, whether in grade or otherwise.

Yes, for the reason you received in your first reply.  Most collectors would rather spend their money on coins than grading fees.

The numbers are also noticeably higher if NGC and PCGS are combined.  For the 1952-D, PCGS has graded 161 with 134 FB.  So, either this year had a very good strike or fewer bother to submit coins they know won't receive the designation.

I don't consider around 300 MS-67 low or the prices low either considering how many actually likely exist.  Every date is likely an R1 (1250+) or at most an R2 (501-1250) on the Judd rarity scale.

2 minutes ago, Stephen83333 said:

You are a complete insufficiently_thoughtful_person. You are like the Trumptards who think they know more about everything (like their master). If their is no rarity of ANY ASE coin as you claim, go build a complete set or two of ASE's in high quality MS70 and then a complete set of high quality PF70's and we will wait for your results. By the way you other minions need to educate yourselves about who is grading/selling what.........PCGS is also grading these "emergency" ASE's under their "Premier" label and they are selling for around $299, so quit your whining about NGC grading these coins. What a bunch of whiners.

Not really interested in an "emergency" ASE coin myself, but to slam the whole concept that others may like is absurd.

You are not the first person to dislike my posts.  MS-70 is rare?  So are over 99% of all coins ever made in that grade, especially since most coins don't even exist in that grade.  It's a marketing gimmick and nothing else.

To my knowledge, most if not all of these coins have reasonable availability as an UNC.  I believe a few from the entire Republic Ireland series are scarce but I can never remember which ones.  So, I would expect you should find a sufficient supply to choose from.

If you are comfortable buying the coins ungraded, I wouldn't wait as long as you really like the coin you are buying.  A population of 10 isn't that few, but it still might take awhile for it to become available.

I would look on eBay if you don't know any dealers.  Karl Stephens is also a long time dealer predominantly sells world coins who issues price lists quarterly which does include Ireland.  However, he doesn't include pictures.  From my limited experience, he describes his coins reasonably accurately.  I have only returned a coin once for this reason.

It depends upon how important the cost of grading fees is to you and how long you are willing to wait.  You didn't identify the series, but not all in it might be graded.

It also depends how selective you are with the grades and whether you mind getting a "details".  You'll find far fewer problem coins with more recent series but the coin still might not be eligible for a numerical grade.  Make sure you have large enough images to identify surface problems to avoid it.  This is one of the biggest challenges for the coins I collect; the image doesn't accurately represent the coin but I have become a lot better at it since I almost never inspect any coin prior to purchase.

It's a nice coin from a series I have always liked.

29 minutes ago, Zebo said:

Rarity is measured in degrees and has slightly different interuptations world-wide. The below chart are just a few of those interuptations.

 

I am familiar with the Sheldon scale.  Most US collectors will still consider a high R-1 "rare" anyway.  It's not like with the 1920-S sovereign which presumably every collector would recognize.

More generically, US collectors (at least here and PCGS) mostly use rarity in the context of a particular (or minimum) TPG grade or specialization (die variety).  There is nothing unusual about it, as practically every coin is "rare" if the criteria is defined narrowly enough.

One I collect has a recorded mintage of 1,040,000.  I presume if every "change jar" across the planet could be searched, maybe as many as several thousand might exist.  But the vast majority are probably damaged or of such low quality that, though the coin might be absolutely common, it has little practical relevance.  It's somewhat comparable to the 1901-S quarter only more extreme.  This coin isn't scarce but only a very low percentage and low number exist in grades above VG.

17 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

But those coins are close to IMPOSSIBLE to get.  If not for the actual numbers (35 Eagles, 15 1927-D's, 1* 1933) then for the prices which can only be paid by a very wealthy individual or an insufficiently_thoughtful_person who wants to spend his entire IRA on a coin or coins. 

I'd consider the 1907 High Relief to be "rare" especially in higher-condition.  Yeah, I know there are thousands available....but they can't make any more of them and thousands is not millions when you compare it to the population of many collectible nickles, dimes, quarters, and pennies.

But that's just me.

 

* For now....

The 1933 DE is impossible to buy for all intents and purposes.  The other two are not, except due to lack of money.  I also know that any coin is available at some price (if it exists) but I'm not talking about that.  I am referring to being able to track a coin down through the dealer network at a "reasonable" premium to "current value", even it isn't marketed for sale.  There are enough of both and practically any other US coins where this is feasible.  These two coins are also prominent enough where one or more professional numismatists or peer collectors will usually know who owns it.  It just isn't public knowledge.

I have subjectively classified the 1933 DE, 1927-D DE and 1933 eagle as rare because only one 1933 DE is available for private purchase and the other two don't come up for sale very often.  I wouldn't consider the other scarcer Saints (1920-S, 1921 and other later dates) or the 1920-S eagle as rare because the number of "high quality" examples cannot be considered low.  The coins are absolutely scarce because the total number of survivors is legitimately relatively low but other older and frequently noticeably more common coins have far fewer better quality examples.

Hardly any US collectors have the same definition I do because they don't collect coins that are actually hard to buy.

1 minute ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

If by "rare" you mean < 10 coins available or even a few dozen....then you are talking 6 or 7-figures to buy these coins regardless of condition and that to me means that 99.999% of collectors will never have interest in buying one.

"Rare" and "scarce" are subjective but under no sensible standard can a coin that isn't that hard to buy be considered rare.  That's why US collecting finds a need to over use this term as marketing.

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

WC and KB, you are both definitely right.  There is no doubt a premium paid by folks who want to get the coin NOW and not wait a few weeks....or months.....and as for a year ?  Forget about it.

For many collectors -- especially those with a few $$$ -- the greater fear isn't overpaying by 10% or 25% or even 50%....it's saying a year and a half later that they should have bid higher because nothing close to what they passed on has become available since.

For most coins, even 50% premium isn't that much.  But at least 95% of the time, the only reason "nothing close to what they passed on" supposedly isn't available 18 months later is because US collecting exaggerates practically everything.  Only US collectors or those who use TPG as their benchmark (like in South Africa) do that.

In a prior post, I mentioned that maybe four 20th century US coins are actually rare excluding patterns, 1913 LHN (a fantasy coin) and specialization.  It's potentially actually three if Coin Facts is reasonably accurate: 1933 DE, 1927-D DE and 1933 Eagle.  These coins are actually difficult to buy.  Maybe a few of the gold proofs are scarcer than Coin Facts believes but if so, it only adds a few more.

Based upon Coin Facts, other US 20th century (and later obviously) are as I described in my earlier post.  An example is the 1920-S eagle.  It's legitimately scarce but it sold at least three time since 2018.  Maybe other collectors would consider that hard to buy but I would not.   So now we are back to grade scarcity and like most gold coins, a disproportionate percentage exist in higher grades versus silver and base metal coinage.   Anyone who has the money can buy it in a quality that would have satisfied practically any collector before the "hobby" became hyper financialized.

In world collecting, it's not noticeably different in Canada, Australia and much of Europe.  In the rest of the world, it is due to the lack of local collecting and prior communication limitations but even here, only a low proportion are actually rare in a quality most collectors traditionally would have accepted.  Usually, the coins are much harder to buy primarily because of the lower price level.  Of the very low proportion I follow, I have still seen enough sell intermittently.

9 minutes ago, kbbpll said:

You would be surprised how few the quality 1900-P dimes there are for sale, considering 17.6 million mintage. But I get what you're saying, and I'm no stranger to waiting 15 years for the right coin. In the example I cited it's just amusing to me how the price can be skewed by the "have to have THAT ONE" mentality, when there's another with barely a discernible difference in the same auction. And yet, sometimes I kick myself for not bidding just a little higher.

I wasn't actually singling out 1900 dimes.  I was writing in general terms but wasn't clear.  I don't consider most Barber coinage to be that common.  It isn't scarce generically but a noticeable proportion of Barber dates seem to be more difficult to buy than many other US 19th century and earlier coins above low TPG equivalent grades.  This is from review of the TPG data mostly, though maybe it isn't representative due to the differences in value.

2 hours ago, RWB said:

Well, yes....in part because silver was never a U.S. monetary standard. Silver had its own value relative to products and services, but any meaningful ratio between silver and gold was fiction. There cannot be two "standards" unless both are tightly controlled and that is not possible for any governmental entity. (Think of the tension and confusion between the two so-called "grading standards" - neither controls and thus neither is reliable.)

A monetary standard of today is closer to ancient production value. That is, the value of any currency depends on the aggregate of economic activity in relation to economic activity of others, plus open market stability and market faith in the issuing entity. This has a larger "opinion" bias than production value by itself, but has the flexibility to deal with multiple non-integrated economies....it tends to smooth sharp changes.

Most "money" today isn't what most of the population thinks of as currency but someone else's debt.  It is "near money" which functions as a currency substitute.  As one example, most people don't know that their checking account isn't really money.  Calling it "money" is a misnomer, as it is actually a loan to the bank and the bank customer is an unsecured creditor.

The supply of debt monetary instruments (aggregate credit) which is what matters most in the modern economy has far outstripped any increase in actual production and productive capacity since the US closed the "gold window" in 1971.  That's when credit and debt started increasing parabolically. 

Production as measured by GDP is also a very poor way to measure economic activity.  A noticeable proportion of economic activity in today's economy not only has no positive economic value, it is negative.  These transactions destroy value and make the society in which the activity occurs poorer, not wealthier.  In ancient times relative to recent history, societies didn't support very many people who couldn't carry their own economic weight.  They would have starved if this had been attempted.

1 hour ago, kbbpll said:

I was just noticing an example of it this morning. Two 1900 10c PCGS MS64, in the same auction. One $312, 10 bids. The other $840, 16 bids. The latter in an old holder with CAC. NGC price guide says $290 in MS64 and $575 in MS65. So both coins sold above the price guide, and the $840?? They think it would regrade at MS67? That CAC sticker isn't $500 worth. When looking at price guides and actual sales, I think it's often a matter of the psychology of "winning", more than the reality of value and the actual coins.

I have an entirely different view of collecting, so while I am aware of what you describe, it's totally foreign to me.

I don't buy any US coins and have a very narrow focus which I have described here.  But no matter what I collect in the future, I'm never paying an outlier price for what is actually a common coin no matter what it looks like.  If I collected coins with the profile most collectors do, I would pay a "modest" premium but nothing more.  I know I can buy an essentially identical one tomorrow, in a few weeks, in a few months or maybe next year at least 95% of the time.  This applies even if the coin is actually scarce since the internet has made most coins easy to buy.

For the coins I do collect, I'll pay an "outlier" price, within reason.  I state "outlier" in quotes because I don't actually know what most of the coins I buy are "worth" and neither does anyone else.  They can't because not only has there not been a sale of a comparable coin "recently" in a similar grade or quality, there is no public sale at all.

For the past 5+ years, most of the coins I bought were in the $250 to $1250 range.  I'm a budget collector by US standards.  So, I'm willing to buy without established values because much or most of the time, I won't have a chance to buy another one for a long time, possibly until the same coin comes up for sale years or even decades later.  As I mentioned in a recent post here, there are plate coins from books and catalogues in my primary series that I have been waiting to buy for over 15 years with no luck.  There is also another which sold on eBay on the same day I bought one I do own (March 2002).  I'm still waiting for this coin to show up.

21 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I see the same "lag" on other Saints too, WC, and they are sold pretty frequently.  It looks like they have the raw data -- recent auctions -- uploaded, whatever they do to calculate price is just off. 

Maybe it's a smoothed monthly average or something, dunno. 

Yes, but there is also another reason.  Compared to actually liquid markets, there is a wide variation between sales even in the same grade, even when the sales occur in close proximity.  It's a combination of who is bidding (at auctions) and differences between individual coins, except maybe for widgets.

It's not accurate to think of coin values as a specific price point which is how every price guide I have ever seen is published.  It's actually a price range.

Relative prices change all the time.  My explanation for the more recent gold-silver ratio since 1980 is that silver is no longer viewed as an equal monetary equivalent, especially by those with the  most economic influence.  Silver is viewed as money by "metal bugs" and "poor man's gold'" elsewhere (such as in India) but most of the time, these people lack the market influence to make a difference in the market price.

The only reason the relative ratio between fiat hard currency and the general price level is "stable" is because the supply can be artificially increased (it's never decreased) to maintain the illusion of stability.  It's actually a perpetual con job designed to transfer wealth from savers and taxpayers to debtors and spenders.  It primarily benefits those with the most access to low cost credit who can buy assets on margin but also enables a noticeable proportion of the population to live beyond their means at someone else's expense.

Second, because most "money" today (especially in developed countries) is actually someone's debt.  (That's the reality with bank "deposits".)  It's psychological which is why the credit inflation of the 1970's to early 1980's resulted in noticeable price inflation while monetary policy since 2008 has not.  Most "money" since the early 1980's has inflated asset prices; primarily bonds, stocks and real estate but also collectibles such as coins. 

This illusion of stability will only last as long as an accommodative psychology permits it.

Price guides seldom reflect actual market which changes constantly. It's more accurate for common frequently sold US coins but much if not most of it is just made up.

4 minutes ago, Revenant said:

Well… It was working out of a while. The problem they ran into is that when they seized those assets the Oil Companies still had (and they didn't) the knowledge to maintain those assets. Even if they still had the knowledge or know-how, you have to pay / spend a lot of money to maintain them in good working order. When things inevitably break you have to have left some of your profits set aside to fix them, or else there are no profits later.

Typical of state owned enterprises generally, including oil companies.  PEMEX has had the same problem though Mexico's economy is a lot more diversified since NAFTA.

5 hours ago, Conder101 said:

I will admit that interest in varieties, except on some of the early US series was rather low except among a small number of serious specialists, and interest in errors other than some mild curiosity was pretty much non-esistant at the time.  (errors were usually viewed as defective coins and practically worthless to the extent than precious metal coins would be scrapped, and base metal coins just tossed out in the trash.  Active, though mild, interest in errors didn't really start to grow until the late 50's early 60's.

I can give you a very good reason why interest in die varieties was very low then.  When a coin is hard to buy as a generic date, it's enough of a challenge completing sets without it.  This is equally true with many non-US coins now.  Most pre-1933 US coins weren't scarce then anymore than they are now (presumably more common due to less  attrition) but would have been (much) harder to buy due to communication limitations.

As for a series like Saints, the coins are too expensive to collect by die variety, even for most of the relatively few who collect the series by date.  Additionally, at this price point, there are far more interesting coins than the difference if someone has the money.

The best explanation for the more recent increased interest in all specialization including die varieties is first, the coins most US collectors collect are very easy to buy, so another challenge is necessary.  Second, the coins they would actually usually prefer (not just like) are too expensive.  Several types (such as early large cents) that used to be more affordable when I started collecting in the 70's have increased (a lot) more than the incomes of most collectors.  Third, cherry picking.  It's an option to make money from collecting and finance coins the collector otherwise cannot afford.

47 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

What does U.S. foreign policy have to do with this decison, WC ?  The UK and BOE probably believe that Maduro, not democratically elected, may pilfer the gold funds.

 

Democracy is irrelevant to this topic.  There are many "allies" of both the US and Britain which have no elections  at all.  It's a matter of perception but there is limited if any evidence that either the US State Department or British Foreign Service pay more than lip service and neither do the elected leaders, for the most part.  It's a complicated subject, there are certainly different views within these governments or any agency but predominantly, this narrative is primarily for gullible public consumption.  It's a smokescreen to justify whatever they want to do.

Going back to my initial point since we are both getting off topic, why would foreign governments ever use the FRB or BOE to hold gold or currency reserves when both governments might invent some contrived reason to effectively confiscate it later?  A neutral country like Switzerland which has a better track record of respecting private property rights sounds like a much better option to me.

As for Venezuela's oil reserves, it won't stay below $80 forever.  Not even a factor in the longer term picture.