World Colonial

The 1923 is a much better value than the 1924, as it is much harder to buy even if the TPG data is somewhat representative of the relative scarcity. The 1924 is relatively easy to buy in grades up to MS-64. I don't know how scarce either is versus the others in your post, such as the 1916-C. Both are also collected as part of the Union series but there aren't many big budget buyers.

Sorry, can't answer your question on those two coins, as I don't collect Guatemala portrait coinage or follow it that closely. I have a reference book for Mexican portrait coinage and many of those are scarce, but more so for the earlier than later dates. Mexico runs from 1772 to 1821. One or both might be scarce but still won't be worth much going by the state of preservation in the image.

Probably an obvious suggestion but you should look at the Newman Numismatic Portal if you have not. Also the Aureo & Calico archives which I rank second best for Spanish after Heritage. (Some might rank it first.) The annual "Selecion 500" sale has a good variety of high quality Ferdinand VII though I don't recall specifics. I performed an extensive search in the available Stacks catalogues and a few others through NNP for pillar minors but there wasn't much. Even if it is noticeably more available than appearances though, I wouldn't expect these firms to have sold hardly any of it due to the low price. Most would have been nominally valued; like a few dollars to $50 from the 1930's to 1980's no matter what TPG grade it has now. Except for Crowns and gold, the collector base for most 19th century European series will not be that large. Probably usually fewer than the coinage I collect where collectors will pay good prices for it. (Over 2000 years to collect with the earlier coinage while presumably usually scarcer, also usually with a higher preference.) Exceptions apply to a (very) low proportion where no actually scarce or rare coin is cheap and where survival is much better known, such as a few Victoria 6P dates.

I consider the 1923 and 1924 South Africa "strong" and overpriced. I infer (not actually knowing) this mint isn't as widely collected. The 1924 is conditionally scarce (top pop) but the date isn't rare. I would describe it as moderately scarce and the TPG data includes nine in MS-65 and 75 total. Some duplicates probably due to the value but I suspect many more ungraded. Out of the mintage of 3184 (currently accepted) or somewhat over 2500 (1950 Kaplan guide), I'd guess as many as several hundred actually exist. Record price for the 1923 to my recollection. It's tied with two others in grade and the count is 21 out of the recorded mintage of 64 or 406. I don't track the others.

Thanks for the clarification. I missed this key point. I thought it was for the series generally. I agree with you. The premiums for the better cameos are already high, not that different for a 1950 versus many of the proof Barber or Liberty Seated halves in about the same grade (maybe one lower). There is more demand for modern (1936 and later) US proofs but I suspect that many of these collectors aren't aware of what else they can buy for the same money.

Nice coin in the image. It depends definition of "market accepted". I haven't heard of any Franklin half collecting by die variety, but based upon my assumption of the collector base (maybe somewhat over 50,000 out of my guesstimate of 2MM active US collectors), a very low proportion (maybe a few hundred) might pay some premium for it. But I wouldn't count on it for proofs, as it appears to be an imperceptible fraction of the total regardless of the series. In the example you used, I agree with you that the premium is paid because most 1950 don't meet today's quality standards but don't believe collectors do or will care which variety they have.. Financially, the challenge for any "meaningful" die variety premiums in this series is that it can add up to a lot of money real quick and most collectors would almost certainly rather spend their money elsewhere. Going by the price level (Heritage archives) and TPG data, I'd guess a few hundred might have as much in the series as I do in my collection for both MS and proofs. I think that's a generous assumption and I'm hardly a big budget collector by US standards. As with US moderns, I can see collectors "cherry picking" for submission but seldom paying for it. Not knocking the series or those who collect it but realistically, it's peak preference is behind it. It's all downhill from here. It's almost certainly been losing "share of wallet" to (world) NCLT and will continue to do so.

There is presumably a limited market (and therefore grading fees) for this attribution. Neither series has a particularly strong collector preference. There isn't much die variety collecting for series after large cents.

My bet is hardly anyone was thinking about the future disposition of gold coinage at all. $20 was more than the typical person made in a week. I believe the minimum wage was 25c/hour (roughly $40/month) when it was enacted around this time (1933), for those who even had a (full-time) job. There is a good chance most people never even saw an eagle or DB (the only gold minted at this time). Unless the collector base was disproportionately affluent, the majority couldn't afford one gold coin either. If it was mostly affluent, only because it preceded mass collecting prior to the introduction of coin albums. To give you another perspective on how little most people made at the time, there is an episode in the British TV series "Poirot" (from the Agatha Christie novels) where Poirot (who is quite well off) convinces the Scotland Yard Chief Inspector (who wasn't making the type of salary these people do today or the recent past) to buy meat at his local butcher. When they both leave, Japp complains that the six shillings he paid for the packet of beef cutlets was enough to pay a house cleaner for three days. The TV series infers most of the episodes take place in the late 1930's (around 1936) and mostly in London. My recollection is that the exchange rate of the GBP to the USD was $3.80, having been devalued from $4.80 earlier in the decade. (This might be wrong but not far off.) American incomes and living standards to my knowledge have always been noticeably higher than British, but you should see my point. This is fiction but Christie did write some of her novels during this time and the scene I described is probably "ballpark accurate" on the economics of the period. Not trying to pick on you, just trying to describe the reality of the time. It's easy for all of us to lose perspective when a noticeable proportion of the large collector base during our collecting experiences (the financialized era of the "hobby") can and has been able to buy gold coinage at the inflated prices we know. (On a relative basis, gold is at a multi-century high versus most other commodities and presumably, most goods and many services.) It wasn't anything like that at the time.

I don't know which coins you are trying to find. There are presumably tens of thousands of European from the 19th century. The earlier ones should usually be (much) scarcer than later ones, those from countries with less collecting should also be (much) scarcer versus those with more (such as Britain and Germany) but many presumably had low mintages for the reason I gave you. My primary claim for the scarcity of pillar minors is not just based upon what I see. Potosi and Lima were geographically isolated at the time and for over 150 years after this coinage was discontinued. There is no organized collecting in Bolivia now and it's limited in Peru. I presume there were few (if any) collectors at the time. Unlike the pillar dollars, the coins aren't found in shipwrecks much since it I must have been struck primarily for local circulation versus international trade. The vast majority of known coins are either badly worn or holed, as I understand it circulated for over a century. The mintages are generally not that low and the coins aren't worth that much. These are the primary reasons some of this coinage (I still doubt most much less all) might be (a lot) more common than appearances. For example, 1767 Peru 1/2R recorded mintage was 1,040,000. (This as opposed to Guatemala where all the mintages were in the vicinity of 20,000 or less.) If accurate, that's a lot for the time. Number of high grade examples known? Zero as public knowledge unless the ANS has it. In his survey, Yonaka included eight. I've seen a few more but only one as good as VF. (I own a raw VG details with slight rim damage.) To adjust for what I described, I compare the scarcity to one where the rarity is better known. The one I consider most representative is the equivalent Liberty Seated denominations; not exact but close enough particularly for the earlier (No Motto) dates. By US standards, many are scarce or rare, sometimes in any quality but frequently in high quality. It should be evident particularly where the mintages are roughly comparable, pillars are almost always (much) scarcer. As an example, Heritage provides estimates of 48 and 60 in two listings for the 1878-S half. Last I checked, TPG data had 39 with 12 MS (excluding "details" coins and duplicates) from a mintage of 12,000. I own the 1758 Peru 4R NGC XF-45. Recorded mintage is about 26,000, Yonaka identified three and I have seen a few others. It might be more common in total due to the relative mintage but the probability of (anywhere near) as many MS or even better examples existing is virtually zero. (Potentially less than 10 for the entire series of 21 years.) Patterson had one which appears to be slightly better than mine but other collections such as the ANS (which includes Norweb) doesn't have it. (ANS includes seven of the 21 coins.)

With apparently up to 240,000 eligible for grading, practically any collector will be able to afford to buy it. I also doubt that more than a very low proportion of the more affluent collector base spends any noticeable amounts or proportion of their collecting budget on NCLT. This is an inference but there is more reason to believe that only those who predominantly buy NCLT do so. The rest of the buyers are predominantly low to moderate budget or it is not their primary collecting interest.

I did only open the link but only browsed through the article. My broader claim is that there is no actual rarity in the entire ASE series, it's a complete exaggeration. There is limited "grade" rarity" where the counts are (somewhat) low as a 70, but that's a contrivance since at least with other coinage, the coin is actually legitimately scarce in "high" quality. This doesn't exist with any ASE.

To my knowledge, US, British, and ancient Greek and Roman Is by far the most researched and presumably where the scarcity is best known. It takes a lot of effort along to compile estimates or confirm known survivors. Most coins are also either too common or not sufficiently interesting to enough collectors. I'm not familiar with the source or background of (potential) hoards. In my examples, I assume some are hoards, as I don't see how so many could otherwise exist in this quality. There are also other coins to my knowledge that might also be hoards, such as the 1817So (Chile) 1/4 real. I understand there are over 100 MS examples known, with somewhat over 30 currently graded. I would like to know what else is available in my primary series to potentially buy. This is Lima and Potosi pillar 1/2R, 1R, 2R and 4R. I have Gilboy's and Yonaka's books, the Patterson (1996 Bonham's) catalogue and have reviewed the ANS collection online (but not in person). Yonaka includes survey data in his reference but it doesn't break it out by quality. For the European coinage, it's my general belief that most Western post 1775 isn't that scarce, but some seem to be distinctly more common than others. Example: British seems to be a lot more common than contemporary Spanish, both absolutely and in equivalent quality. Where the coinage is scarce, I would attribute it primarily to low initial mintages due to population and economics. Examples of this would be Dutch provincial where each province potentially had around 100,000 near 1800. (It's a "guesstimate", haven't looked it up.) I would also expect many die varieties to be scarce for the same reason, along with the likelihood that collectors at the time didn't consider it important. Most early US federal coinage isn't rare even in "high" quality. Where it is, the mintage was usually low with presumably far fewer collectors to preserve it than most of Western Europe. (Examples: 1794 dollar, 1796-1797 half and one of the bust half dimes-1805 I recall.) It also depends upon what you mean by "recorded". The TPG data isn't representative since grading is not preferred in those countries and I doubt most of the better specimens are owned in the US. It's more common for US collectors to own most (and sometimes probably all) of the better or even decent coinage from the developing countries since there is usually limited local organized collecting and only a limited market at (much) lower prices.

There is one (or two) in Canada if you consider that "overseas". There is (or was) CGS in the UK but I think it is defunct. SANGS survives in South Africa (for now). The problem for any (prospective) non-US based TPG is first, lack of local acceptance. Most of these collectors don't like it. Second, there is no current or realistic scale where it is viable as a business proposition. There isn't and won't be enough volume because the most preferred coinage (classic equivalents) do not usually exist in sufficient supply or where it might, the price level is too low to make it worthwhile to submit in volume. So as examples, China has limited scale in NCLT and there are large counts in circulating PRC (in comparison to other world coins), but even though I don't consider most recent Chinese "classics" that scarce, this coinage probably doesn't exist in large enough number to support a local TPG. In the UK, the supply of 19th century and earlier coinage in "gradeable" quality isn't that low much of the time, but I'm dubious it's enough to support a local firm longer term either.

To answer both of your posts, I'm referring to the number of coins potentially in existence, not just in the TPG data. You can refer to my last post for example but despite how high some of these numbers may seem, there almost certainly more or many more not graded. I used the TPG data because it's the only independent quantifiable source. There are coins that I and many others know to be common even though the population counts are low because we see it regularly, but just because collectors can't find a coin doesn't mean it is rare. That's what most collectors do. Outside of the TPG data, they seem to conclude based upon personal experience that just because they or everyone they don't know can't find it, the coin must be "scarce" or "rare". In one sense, the example I use I believe is unusual for this type of coinage. But I don't think it is as unusual as most collectors probably believe. The effort has just not been made to identify known survivors (it isn't worth it) or the coins aren't submitted.

Yes, it's more applicable to non-US coinage but I think it applies to a lot more US coins than you seem to think. I have included more examples below and though some are known hoards, to my knowledge not all. In all of these examples, there were fewer or almost no collectors and in many or most instances, the mintages were probably lower due to population and economics. As to which US coinage it predominantly applies, mostly US 20th century but probably also in a minority of cases to the Barber coinage and Bust halves. The grades will vary but most of this coinage isn't worth that much, though US collectors have a much higher preference for TPG than those elsewhere. For post 1933 US coinage, it's my belief that most dates are easily an R-1 in MS-66 (1250+) with a large proportion having a (very large) multiple. Here are the examples I referenced in my last post. Not all of the numbers are "high" but all are much higher than is evident to anyone looking for these coins without the TPG data. It's not like US coinage where, due to the price, the coin is easy to buy most of the time. 1853 Bolivia 1/4 sol 7 MS Rhodesia 1977 1/2C 13 (nine MS) Sarawak 1941H cent circulation strike 46 (37 MS) Spain 1726M Real 28 MS (2 MS-68, 7 MS-67 and 9 MS-66) Mexico 1751 1/2 Real 31 MS Mexico 1861 Mo CH 2R 175 MS (26 PL, 10 MS-67 and 53 MS-66) Central American Republic 1837 GOLD 4E 10 AU-55 or AU-58, 9 MS 1712 Peru 8E 37 MS, probably mostly or entirely from the 1715 fleet shipwreck 1821 Guatemala Real 369 MS (264 PL) 1774 Bolivia 8R 91 MS (MS-66 top grade) ; This is a hoard (Cuzco hoard I believe) with many more presumably ungraded No date (1542-1555) Mexico 4R 52 MS (up to MS-64); Many more in AU-55 or AU-58 1754 Mexico 8R 566 MS; This is a confirmed hoard coin

Yesterday, I noticed that Heritage is offering 10 MS 1821 Guatemala 1/4 real in it's May 28 weekly auction. Grades range from MS-64 to MS-67. This made me curious, so I checked the NGC census (but not PCGS) which I have not recently; certainly within the last year but cannot remember exactly when. The count for this mint ("G") struck from (1796-1821) is 255 but only about 15-20 aren't 1821. (Seven for the 1819 which is easily the second most common.) Of this total, 53 are MS-65, 103 are MS-66 and 14 are MS-67. Given the recent count increase and value, there are probably few if any duplicates. The last time I checked, the count was around 30 and my MS-66 was tied for first or maybe there were a few MS-67. It's apparent this is a hoard coin, as practically all of the other close to 100 dates from the other six countries are at least somewhat scarce. Concurrently, this is yet another example that the overwhelming majority of coins are far more common even in "elite" grades than is apparent to most collectors. If anyone is interested, I can also post a list of other coins which most collectors would probably consider to be at least somewhat scarce also existing in large supply in high quality.

There is no rarity. 240,000 isn't remotely rare.

Agree, except that if I recall correctly, they would still have about $50B in debt without the acquisition. I still think that's far too much though others may believe otherwise. They no longer have the near bullet proof balance sheet they used to have. I think they are an A+ credit now when they used to be AAA many years ago. They are symptomatic of the decline in corporate credit quality across the board. In the oil sector, I expect most if not all of the majors to follow them, starting with BP. Chevron probably has the highest likelihood of keeping their current payout.

You misinterpreted my post. I didn't say what you imply and my post didn't have anything to do with what you think. On your recommendation, it's far too late to transition to a funded system but if it did occur, it won't work the way most people think, though you may already know it.

Correct again, but this was also reported from the prior FRB survey, I believe as part of the 2016 tri-annual Survey of Consumer Finances. This is the most glaring aspect of the disconnect between the financial markets and "real" economy. The financial markets are dominated by institutions and the top 10% who purportedly own 84% of all stocks. Those who manage others money aren't placing their own wealth at risk and to a great extent, are detached from the economic reality in which most people live. Aside from financial promotion, that's the best explanation for how they can permanently believe everything is so great when for the overwhelming majority, their financial situation is precarious.

Correct. My younger sister is one of them. I estimate she will receive $10,200 from federal unemployment (maybe somewhat less as I believe she will go back to work before it ends), the $1200 stimulus check and any state unemployment. So, potentially more than $11400 and in her case, I am also subsidizing her rent @$700 per month. She should have more soon than she has ever had in her entire life.

The only way those polls make sense is if many are making more from unemployment than they were working. That may be true but if so, only temporarily. Whenever the economy returns to "normal", it will be worse or much worse than it was before. The recent economic expansion was already the weakest since WWII. it was hardly the "best economy ever". This is evident by looking at median net worth and median income. Most people don't own anything, even the majority of the supposed middle class, many of whom are better described as the working poor. Financial assets in the aggregate have recovered (15% decline is nothing unusual) but that's not true of (commercial) real estate and private businesses which represents a noticeable proportion of net worth among the more affluent. I also find it interesting how people find a way to ignore the obvious. I recently read a website article covering the recent Royal Dutch Shell dividend cut of 66%. It was the first since 1945. Posters expressed "surprise" that a company recently yielding over 10% in a world of 2% dividend yields, virtually zero "risk free" interest rates and multi-decade low oil prices concluded it could not be supported. Who could have imagined that? There is a lot more in store where that came from. If Shell cannot support their dividend, what's going to happen to the majority of companies whose financial statements better resemble a stable rag and whose credit worthiness is actually in the gutter regardless of their credit rating? At the macro level, what's not "priced in" in the future is negative political "blowback" as most people's living standards decline noticeably. No economy can bribe the majority of the population forever through endless issuance of debt.

I don't see $3000 gold in the near future either but there will be no return to "normalcy" (as in pre-virus bubble conditions) either. Since the financial markets are totally disconnected from the economy, new highs in the near future are certainly possible. (It's only like 15% from here anyway.) Most people will be worse or much worse off than they were a few months ago even if this happens.

Not those who are predominantly recreational collectors or where improving their collection is more important than making money. However, I don't agree with the sentiments in the extract from the letter. Gold bullion is a viable alternative to financial assets because it has scale (about $6 trillion capitalization recently) and fungibility but numismatic coinage has neither. (Silver has no scale either.) Coins also require substantial knowledge to make informed decisions and avoid pitfalls not associated with tradeable assets. Numismatic coinage has no capability to accommodate meaningful fund inflows without the entirely self-defeating outcome where the prospective buyers will inflate the prices of what they are buying above true collector demand. That's what happened during the TPG bubble ending in 1989 which left these "investors" as bag holders. Only collectors derive any actual utility from collecting, not buyers of substitute "widgets". If anything should attract money into coins, it should be higher gold and silver prices. Gold is about 10% below the all-time peak of $1921 from late 2011. Physical silver is in temporary short supply but isn't bought by "big money" anyway and has gone nowhere in the recent gold runup. Neither did much of anything to attract substantial funds, even at the last bubble peak in 2011. Numismatic coinage is not an actual alternative asset class. It's a luxury bought with discretionary income. The current economic environment is almost certainly going to lead to most people becoming poorer or a lot poorer which is hardly a positive for the price level.