World Colonial

Multiple motivation involved with this question. There is a financial element to it in that TPG grading improves marketability. For others, it's registry competition. There is also the real reason TPG existed in the first place which is to authenticate. That's a bigger factor now due to harder to detect counterfeits but though I never hear it from anyone else, it should also be evident that the inflated price level makes it a lot more profitable to fake coins that never would have been previously.

Regulating coins isn't going to change the economics. Nothing can go up forever. This is particularly true for coins because no one other than a collector derives any actual utility. That's why prior bubbles like 1989 in the US shortly after TPG became mainstream and in South Africa after TPG also financialized this market are unsustainable. The US "hobby" first became widely financialized in the 1970's. This attracted a large number of far more affluent buyers who were both willing and able to pay much higher prices but enough of them were also sufficiently interested in real collecting where it has lasted to the present day, unlike in South Africa where this much smaller market collapsed after 2011. The difference now though is that the price level for the coins most collectors and affluent buyers want the most are astronomically higher. This is evident in the PCGS 3000 index. The price of this coinage cannot perpetually increase at a rate faster than the incomes and asset bases of those who buy it. The only way this is sustainable now is if the collector base includes a much larger percentage of more affluent buyers who treat their purchases as widget buying as a replacement for mainstream asset classes. Most of this coinage isn't remotely interesting enough to most collectors, unless they aren't losing a noticeable proportion of their outlay.

I'll answer your question for myself. It's a function of the buyer's attitude toward collecting. Many buyers aren't collectors at all or it is secondary to money, so obviously they will have the sentiments in your post. This is a lot more true of a coin like the Morgan dollar than the bust dime. The first coin is one of the few that I would somewhat describe as an alternative "investment" substitute since it is bought in much higher proportion by financially motivated buyers. I infer this by how common it is and who is selling it. Most others presumably still expect to lose money but are willing to treat it - to a point - as an alternative consumption expense. They like what they buy but just not enough to lose a "noticeable" proportion of their outlay. It's a subject I have commented on extensively where I have undoubtedly expressed unpopular opinions but it's what is evident in the numismatic press and anecdotally expressed on coin forums. A declining price level doesn't mean the hobby will cease to exist. It just means that a lot of people will potentially lose a noticeable or large proportion of their outlay and it will be a lot less profitable for those in the business.

Agree Another consideration is prospective relative financial performance. I'm not even positive on silver now yet would still buy it over either of those two coins, at near current prices. I expect it to lose value so I would try to buy it somewhat cheaper first but I think the likelihood is a lot higher than it will double to about $36/oz before either one of those coins will increase 100% after selling expenses.

I'd never buy any coin as an "investment". A very low percentage of collectors make money but no reason to believe it's any more than that. I also believe the collector base is shrinking but even if it isn't, very poor liquidity and wide buy-sell spreads versus "mainstream" asset classes. Someone has to pay all the slippage covering the intermediary's expenses and it's the collector. It's debatable but I don't think either of the coins you use as examples are good for this purpose either. An 1880-O Morgan dollar in MS-63 is simultaneously very common, generally not a very appealing grade and yet it still sells for a huge premium to silver spot. I have not studied the price history in detail but my suspicion is that someone is more likely to make money buying a larger number at lower premiums which benefits from a rising spot price. Or, the more expensive but simultaneously scarcer and better quality dates favored by bigger budget buyers. The 1880-O MS-63 seems to be in the middle. The 1800 dime is desirable but it's still an expensive "collector" coin, even in MS-61. You are probably also going to have a hard time buying it considering that NGC only lists one and PCGS none, in this grade.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.