World Colonial

32 minutes ago, Revenant said:

If you were making minimum wage or close to it you'll be making more than you were when working - for 4 months. After that... not so much. The people who aren't working also aren't spending money on gas for their cars and aren't eating out or haven't been. There's also been a thing going on where people have been getting rebates on car insurance because of something the government did - my wife and I got $50 back from Nationwide.

Between tax refunds, the stimulus checks, them waiving student loan interest and payments for 6 months, the insurance rebates... some people are getting insane cash dumps right now. It's not going to last. It isn't even generating the sugar-high the Fed and Trump were hoping for. But certainly the people that haven't been laid off and the minimum wage workers getting more on unemployment than they were working are doing unusually well... for now.

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.

1 hour ago, Revenant said:

Well, unfortunately, even if your 401K bounces back with the DOW you aren't going to be thrilled if you're unemployed.

I'm not convinced that gold will be shooting up anytime soon - even though you have BoA and even Jim Cramer talking it up intermittently - just because there have been polls and studies showing that 90% of people are using those stimulus checks to either save or pay down debt and people are not spending on nonessentials and people are going to cash, which in the short term will be deflationary and not inflationary.

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.

6 hours ago, Voltyris said:

I completely agree. However, the $3,000/oz prediction would mean he is on cloud nine rather than solid footing. It won't happen anytime soon. Most countries/economies are re-opening, and when they all get back to normalcy, all the money is flying back to where it belongs, where assets show what one defines as a "return". 

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.

6 hours ago, Revenant said:

It's an interesting read but.I don't imagine this will make many collectors happy. It might make some dealers happy. It might make some speculative short-term flippers happy, but I don't see how a debt-fueled bubble in the collectables market is going to be good for collectors, the community or the hobby. I don't see how more people seeing this hobby as an investment is going to be good for the hobby long term.

Just my 2 cents.

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.

5 hours ago, Just Bob said:

I have no idea how accurately most collectors grade, but I do know that there are members of this message board who regularly grade coins quite accurately - usually within a point or so of the TPG grade, and they do it from pictures.

Sure, there are a very low proportion who can do so, if they have a good eye and put in enough effort.  I'll admit I am not one of them who can do so consistently, as it isn't meaningful to hardly any of the coins I collect since this coinage doesn't exist in equivalent quality to the overwhelming percentage of US.  My grading of the coinage I collect is "adequate" since I am forced by necessity to grade coins almost exclusively from images but that's about it.  The harder part for me is identifying surface quality on raw coins.

2 hours ago, RWB said:

The factors that separate MS-60 from MS-63, or MS-65, or MS-68 are the severity, quantity and location of post-striking marks. Some "grading" companies also include luster and/or visible detail (i.e., "strike") in their composite opinion of a grade. (I happen to disagree with that last part, but it is as it is.)

Wherever you send your very best coins for authentication and grading, you will receive their best opinion. Later, a buyer will likely argue that the "grade" is too generous and offer less than you feel the coin's value to be; but that is part of buyer-seller negotiation and does not change the coin in any way.

I don't care for the use of all 11 MS grades and certainly not the "+".  It's just more marketing to inflate the price level as much as possible and exaggerate the significance of what are overwhelmingly common coins.  I don't see that it adds anything to collecting and I consider it a pretension that this level of accuracy is meaningful.  Most collectors cannot grade to this level of detail.  

I also actually agree with you on "market acceptability".  It annoys me in particular with the primary series I now collect which I don't think should be graded under the Sheldon scale anyway.  The one NGC uses for ancients I think is far more appropriate for this type of coin.  

I have most of my coins in TPG holders but it's predominantly for future marketability; to make it easier to sell later.  It's probably increased the supply of what is available to buy somewhat but more than anything else, probably required me to pay more for a coin I could otherwise have bought for less.

3 hours ago, Salvus Eruit said:

Now that caught my attention. What an elitist way to determine a grade.. Not only is it highly unethical (the companies don't state anything like this in their Terms of Service).. but it would create a short-term bubble that leaves future generations clueless in terms of how to grade properly, which is by the Sheldon Scale ー i.e. the way in which these companies currently advertise they DO grade a coin. 
Suffice it to say, the FTC certainly wouldn't approve of such behavior.

It's happening now, regularly though in low proportion.  That's why I provided the specific examples I did.  There is also little difference between what I described and TPGs changing their minds by assigning "details" grades initially and then a numerical grade if resubmitted later.  It's a low proportion but not unusual. 

You call these sentiments elitist but it should be evident that many collectors will give more latitude to coins that are much harder to buy or with higher prominence than another which can be bought at any time in multiple in practically any quality.  

More importantly, why would those who don't buy it or the TPG who has no idea what collector preferences actually are determine "market acceptability"?  There is no absolute standard.

In the examples I gave of the South African coinage, NGC "got it right" with the 1898 single 9 pond and might have "got it right" (my opinion) with the other.  The second coin is more debatable but they might have "net graded" both, something which isn't unusual either.  But presumably or at least generally, both NGC and PCGS apply a US centric standard of "market acceptability" and frequently have no idea how collectors of non-US coinage view the concept.  

I also don't share your concerns on "proper" grading, as there is no such thing.  It's an opinion and standards change over time.  I am also in the minority here where I see little if any significance between one or even multiple grade increments in MS coinage, except financially.  The primary purpose for grading most coins of meaningful value is marketing (as in money) which has nothing to do with collecting 

As for your coin, after I wrote my posts, I checked the Heritage archives.  There doesn't seem to be much if any price difference between an MS-60 and an "UNC details".  Both recently sold for about $450 on numerous occasions.  So you are unlikely to incur any noticeable financial penalty if you ever decide to sell it.

3 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

And while you're not alone n your thought, I disagree about applying different standards to rarer coins. 

My opinion on this aspect isn't specifically based upon the coin being rare, it's also what appears to occur. in practice from looking at many coins from many different series, countries and time periods.  I'll admit this is predominantly from images and the coin may look different under direct inspection, so I could be wrong in my impression more often than right.

My opinion on "market acceptability" is that it should be based upon the perception of those who predominantly collect it or at least have the most influence on the price.  So as an example, I have seen more than a few early large cents in numerical holders that appear to show surface problems.  Based upon the image only, I don't think these coins would likely receive a numerical grade if from another series, most of the time.  But if EAC collectors consider it "market acceptable", I'm ok with that.

As another example of a specific coins, Heritage sold an NGC AU-58 South Africa pattern 5 shillings last year.  It's an aluminum coin badly bag marked.  With only five known or struck, I personally would consider it "market acceptable" though I'm not sure the label made any difference.  It sold for about $20K but I don't know if it would have sold for less in a "details" holder.

The unique 1898 Single 9 South Africa pond is graded NGC MS-63.  (It's profiled on this site in the archives.) It has the first owner's initials subtly engraved on the obverse.  On most coins, this would probably be labeled "graffiti" but personally, I'd consider it ridiculous to give it a "details" grade.  That's form over substance, as it doesn't noticeably detract from the coin's appearance, it's obvious that it is concurrently considered the most desirable coin in the entire series, and that South African collectors do consider it "market acceptable", even if no one else does.

22 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Why would you give the coin a details grade? I see nothing other than substantial, but perfectly acceptable contact marks. It's just a matter of what grade the coin deserves, as a result. I don't see how this one can be other than "market acceptable".

I consider it a very unappealing coin because the contact marks are so numerous and noticeable on the portrait.  You know TPG grading standards better than I do and I will also admit that I don't recall seeing any Morgan dollars in an MS-60 holder since there are so few.  (RWB provided an explanation how it occurred, so I presume that's why I am wrong.)

I don't think any coin like this one should receive this latitude as "market acceptable" when so many other better looking coins are available.  That's a big component of my definition of "market acceptability".  If the coin was at least somewhat scarce or rare where potential buyers had few or no choices, I'd use a different standard.

In a numerical holder, I'd "net grade" it to reflect what I think it would sell for versus others.  Not sure where that would be but probably a low AU at best.

Sorry if it sounds harsh.

On 4/27/2020 at 7:31 AM, 7.jaguars said:

 I can not imagine what a similar USA coin would sell for!

I can't think of a close example from US coinage.  There aren't that many unique US coins outside of specialization (die varieties and errors) or patterns which have less demand.

The best example I can think of is the 1873-CC no arrows dime, which I consider a minor type.  Stacks sold it last for $1.88MM.  By comparison, this isn't that different from the 1894-S dime which to my recollection has nine known survivors with some selling for less and others more.

The reason?

The 1894-S is one of the most prominent coins from anywhere while the 1873-CC is relatively obscure.  Knowledgeable US collectors presumably are aware of it but it's evident from the relative price that few who can afford it want it that badly.  Many noticeably more common US coins sold for a similar or higher price both somewhat before and since it sold.

Heritage sold one of the purportedly seven known 1933 UK circulation strikes for $193K a few years ago, though only three are apparently available for private purchase.  The scarcity difference is comparable to my example but I'd guess the relative preference between the two is probably greater.  (I don't know how prominent the 1952 is considered.)

I also infer that the price of the 1933 pattern is due to buying it as a substitute.  It's rarer than the currency coin but this rarity is not nearly as unusual for a pattern.  Heritage last sold it for about $64K.  Similar behavior explains the prices of the 1895 proof Morgan dollar, maybe the 1877 proof IHC and the 1931 South African proof silver.

Sorry, but if the obverse image is representative of the actual appearance, I'd give it a "details" grade.  It's a semi-key date but still a common coin even higher grade.  I don't see how this one can be "market acceptable".  Anyone who want this coin can buy it at any time.

I own much older coins where the surfaces aren't "original" but that still look better than this coin come back with a "details" grade and I have seen many more.  No way any coin in any of the series I collect would ever receive a straight grade with an obverse anywhere near this one.

2 hours ago, 7.jaguars said:

That would be your opinion then. Well, the penny is ARDENTLY collected including the proofs. I agree that L175k is pretty high, but probably 100 is not.  I am wondering if this is not your area how you can state with authority what is and what isn't. Perhaps I might suggest inserting the IM(H)O acronym in some of those pronouncements.

Proof gold of Victoria is off the charts as far as values, and Record proofs even moreso; there are reasons for that. Proof silver of Victoria is also pretty high. Matte proofs of the 20th century are not quite as rare but a coin such as the 1927 or 1937 MP crown will go for in excess of 35k, possibly a lot more. We are leaving the Edward VIII issues out of this, but they go for multiples of this number....

The 1933 penny goes for well in excess of 100k, this coin in all likelihood should as well. It has not been even known at all up until just over 20 years ago so will likely take some time for mystique to develop.

I can infer that you don't like my comments on this coin.  I wasn't trying to offend you or anyone else but what you see is my writing style.  I have exchanged posts with you in the past or posted in threads where you also did, so it's not like you haven't seen it before.

Every post I write is my opinion, unless I specifically provide supporting data.  Someone on the PCGS forum once asked me the same question.  I'm not going to insert this disclaimer in every post since it is self-evident.  I am aware that anyone can invalidate my comments and buy the coin at the ask price.  

I wasn't clear but wasn't referring to 19th century proofs of record.  I know those are viewed differently and so are gold and crowns.  I have looked at auction records numerous times.  I was referring to comparable examples, KGV and KGVI minors like this penny.

Yes, I know a little bit about the 1933 penny.  To my knowledge, it's one of the most prominent 20th century British coins, even though it is more common.  Is this equally true of this coin?  

If you tell me that the proofs of record I am specifically referencing now are generally more common than I believe, then I will agree that a higher price versus what I previously implied makes sense.  The auction listings I have seen don't address it but my understanding is that it's usually 10 or fewer.  

It's evident from the prices of these KGV and KGVI proofs of record that overwhelmingly, most collectors of British coinage prefer sets such as the 1839 which are a lot more common.  The supply is limited but if more than a very low number of bigger budget collectors really found it that interesting, the coins would sell for a lot more.  This is equally true of any coin.

It's also true that in any series with disproportionate scarcity, the scarcity of most if not all individual coins isn't as meaningful as it would be otherwise.  The only exception I know to this pattern is with US coinage where literally every actually scarce or rare coin sells for an outsized price versus those from elsewhere.  The reasons for it includes the one I am giving you now.

16 hours ago, 7.jaguars said:

Hmm, I think there are more than a few that collect English rarities, including the Record Proofs. Over the years, I have seen some very nice collections and note they are generally snapped up when sold at auction. Some of the matte proofs are especially attractive, say of 1927 or so. Rarity is there, and this coin has it.

Really, should an American collector comment on ugliness of coins when there is the Washington quarter or even the Morgan dollar, etc. to look at (and spend MUCH MORE than L175k on)?

I am aware there is a lot of demand for British rarities, but it isn't reflected in the price of "proofs of record". It's a very low fraction of demand for the 1839 set which is a lot more common yet the prices are much stronger given the outsized difference in scarcity.

I stated the ask price of 175K is excessive as I am not aware of even one which has previously sold anywhere near this price and no, I don't agree that the relative scarcity justifies the difference.  If anyone else does, they can buy it.

I also consider the overwhelming majority of mostly supposedly rare US coinage to be inflated, since it's predominantly based upon the TPG grade.  I don't collect at this financial level but even if I did, I'd never buy it, as I don't consider most of it interesting enough except maybe at 90% to 99%+ off current prices.

In a country like Britain or the US, there are many rarities if only because so many coins were struck over an extended period.  However, rarity alone isn't enough to make any coin interesting to very many collectors.  The US is an outlier in that every actually rare coin (excluding most specialization or from the TPG grade) isn't remotely "overlooked".   This isn't true hardly anywhere else, though demand by US based collectors has noticeably inflated the prices of British coinage. 

45 minutes ago, Abuelo's Collection said:

@World Colonial unfortunately I don not own a 1/2 grano. But that will change one day.

I must have you confused with another PCGS contributor.  I recall Stack's selling both coins in NGC MS-65 and thought one or both were posted on the forum.  Those are two I wouldn't mind owning myself but out of my price range.

9 hours ago, Abuelo's Collection said:

For sure if the budget is 500/year competing is out of the question. But not sharing, I think. I really enjoy visiting both NGC and PCGS registries to see coins owned by other collectors in my areas of interest (not Morgans). That triggered communications with other collectors and good camaraderie. So I think they serve collectors even with modest budgets. The diploma is the least of the perks. BTW @World Colonial would love to see your coins in the Signature Set. I am positive you have some great pieces! Stay safe everyone!

There isn't much in the series I collect included in either registry.  In other coinage, almost nothing that isn't available in the Heritage archives for viewing since they have sold a noticeable proportion of it at some point.  Most of the better coinage I collect and want to buy the most either isn't graded or the owner doesn't participate.

I'm not looking to buy much now but if more coins were graded and listed, the registry would be useful to contact the owner to try to buy it.  However, to my recollection, there are only seven date/denomination combinations (out of close to 100) in the two primary mints I collect in the combined population data that I would like to have an opportunity to buy.  Maybe slightly more in upgrades and maybe as many as 20 additional combinations where I know the coin exists in acceptable quality but not graded.  I already own most of the combinations listed in the combined TPG population data.

There are a few sets in the registry where we can't see the coin anywhere else but not many.  One is the Rudman Mexico gold royal escudo type set.  But otherwise, I probably see more on the PCGS forum, like your 1769 Mexico 1/2 grano and grano if I remember correctly that you own these two.

13 hours ago, Revenant said:

Yeah... but... They're tiny. Half the US doesn't have $500 saved for an emergency. The high end collector's market is what? 10,000-20,000 people?

Probably something along your numbers.  In the past, I have estimated 2MM active US based collectors but it's a total guess.  Going by the Heritage archives, maybe 10,000 who have bought coins valued at $10K or above at least once, though this may include a noticeable proportion who are more "investor" than collector.

To clarify my prior comments on the registry, I'm not knocking it though I know that's how my comments come across.  I just recognize it for what it is, a marketing tool for the TPG to drive submission volume and nothing else.  It's not really relevant to most collectors if my estimate that more than half have annual budgets below $500 is a reasonable approximation.  Most of my coins are in TPG holders (primarily NGC) and if I ever get a lot closer to completing my sets, I will consider creating a Signature Set here to illustrate it, but not a competitive one even if it becomes available.

3 minutes ago, Revenant said:

I don't think that view of things is as dead as you think .There are plenty of people (I think) that reject the guidance of "buy the best you can afford" and, instead, buy the highest grade they can before a significant price increase / buy where they think they get the greatest value.

Of course, there was a while there where I kept seeing articles about how "Millennials" don't care about things and acquiring "stuff" at all and would rather spend their money on experiences and vacations. My wife follows that model.

It's not dead among mainstream collectors.  I don't think most collectors care about this marketing hype since it adds little if anything to their collecting experience.

What I described is certainly the preferred and promoted view by the industry and at minimum, a noticeable proportion of the higher budget collector base.  "Collecting" would be a lot less profitable and the most valuable collections would lose a lot of value without the current price structure.

3 hours ago, Revenant said:

At the same time, I feel like that's one of the things that makes the major awards over here so much fun, because many / most of those are given based on the work that's gone into the set, the presentation and the love shown for the set and the subject, rather than just tank fights for points.

Mostly, anyone can buy their ranking if they have the money.  This is true of practically all US competitive sets and at minimum most western world coinage dating back to the late 1700s.  For the overwhelming majority, it doesn't take much work, unless by this someone has in mind looking for minimal differences in actual quality. 

By my standards, I'd consider four 20th century US regular issues (proofs and business strikes) rare with a few more scarce where it will take maybe up to a month to find a quality example.  The rest can be bought literally at any time, even those which most US collectors presumably think it scarce.  This coinage and world NCLT is where the bulk of the registry sets exist and none are difficult to compete for a top tier registry ranking, except due to lack of money.

I'm not that old but I'm older than you from your prior comments.  Maybe I hold this opinion because I remember when what are now otherwise common but (near) condition census coins being viewed for what it actually is as a collectible. Nice but not rare, not "investments", and not what current consensus opinion claims it to be.

12 hours ago, Revenant said:

With so many series /categories there's only 2-3 at the top that are in any way in the running for the top spot and I think it can be fun to "trade shots" and compete with another person for the top spot if you have serious competition from at least one person. There can at least be some fun / joy in the competition at that point anyway if you're into that sort of thing. It can even be quite friendly and you can swap messages and chat over the years about the series and joke about hating each other for scoring a big upgrade or something. When there's just one person at the top and they have no serious competition? I can't believe most people find that very rewarding to crow about.

But... there are those we've all seen over the years that attach (IMO) far too much importance to it and like to think it means more than it does.

My 10G set is easily the top in the registry. However, I'd be shocked if there aren't at least 1-5 sets out there, graded, that could easily beat mine. Probably more like 10+ or 20+. They just aren't on the registry.

It just depends upon what motivates someone in their collecting.  I don't see that registry competition has much of anything to do with collecting at all. 

There isn't a competitive set for most of coins I collect.  But even where there is, I have no interest in "winning" if my set doesn't deserve it.  It's fake and the equivalent of winning a "participation trophy".

The biggest impact has been on inflating the price level.  It doesn't really make much difference with US coinage because any coin which most collectors can afford to begin with is common enough where they can buy what they want anyway.  They will just buy a slightly lower quality one.  There are almost always dozens, hundreds, thousands or even more that are essentially identical.

On 4/18/2020 at 8:38 AM, Moxie15 said:

Questions to the OP;

1. Why SHOULD they allow certified coins from a competitor? I can see no way they would benifit.

2. Why do you have such an itch to add coins to a NGC registry that would naturally fit into a PCGS registry?

3. Does it truly make that much difference to you? 

There is no reason for NGC to allow a PCGS coin in their registry.  It's what some collectors want but I don't see that it drives any revenue and that's ultimately what the registry is about, for both NGC and PCGS.  The whole purpose of the set registry is marketing and it's been successful in accomplishing its objective.

On your last question, apparently it does to many.  In world coinage, I have never understood why winning an award when almost no one is competing is meaningful, especially when most of the sets are still comprised of common coins where there is limited to no practical difference between the highest graded examples.  With US coins, same principle but at least there are generally a meaningful number of participants.

2 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

I suppose that would depend on the buyer. The owner of this coin will not only be the only person to own a 1952, but will be the only person in the world who even has  a chance at completing a set of George VI pennies in bronze.

There aren't very many collectors who collect "proofs of record" even if they have the money.  Most cannot afford it and while I cannot prove it, I don't believe hardly any of those who can find these coins very interesting.  I can't say that no one will buy it at near this price but they are likely to have a very difficult time getting their money back at resale.  I'd value it at a low fraction of the ask price.

Take a look at the prices of most 1839 proofs.  Reported mintage is 300 except for the "Una and the Lion" which is 400.  Most of the 15 coins sell for somewhat less to a lot more than most "proofs of record", in near equivalent quality.

It's also a function of how someone defines "completion".  I suspect (but also cannot prove) that most define completion with the circulation strikes and the proof dates from the publicly issued sets, even if they can afford these coins and know it exists. 

The UK has an extensive history of interesting coinage from which to collect at comparable or lower prices, a lot more interesting than these pieces even where the coinage is a lot more common.  I don't buy or own very many easy to find coins but have no interest in any coin just because it's rare.  Almost no collector will pay a "high" price just because a coin is rare.  I've told the South African collectors I know the same thing.  They seem to think that every rare SA coin (actual and imagined) should sell for a high price.

23 minutes ago, coinsandmedals said:

The seller is currently asking £175,000 for this coin. 

It's a ridiculous ask price.  It isn't remotely interesting enough compared to other rare British coinage.  For somewhat more and maybe less, someone could buy one of the few Edward VIII patterns.

Heritage offered a large collection of "proofs of record" from the 1920's to early 1950's (to my recollection) within the last 10 years.  (Practically) all are (very) high grade and sold for less than $5000.

3 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

What is that? Just something to go into their museum to say "Hey, we made this."?

Sorry, not sure but probably something like that.  I have never seen or attempted to find mintage data but have the understanding that the numbers are less than 10, if not always at least usually.

15 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I understand why they didn't mint many (demand was low). 

But that raises other questions: 

1. Why did they mint any at all? 

2. Why did they mint just a single one? 

3. This is a proof, so clearly a presentation or collectors item. Why weren't a limited run made (100, or 1000, or something like that) and issued as part of proof sets? (Did the UK issue sets at the time? I assume they did). 

4. How do they know it is unique? As I mentioned, if they minted one, isn't it reasonable to assume they minted more? 

The UK did not issue proof sets in large numbers regularly until at least 1970.  They did so in 1826, 1839, 1887, 1893, 1902, 1911, 1935, 1937, 1950 and 1953.  (I missed a few years but cannot remember which ones.)  By "large" numbers I'm not talking about volumes like US modern proof sets but more than a very low number.  Prior to 1970, I believe the 1953 has the highest mintage with 40,000.

Proofs in other years are described as "proofs of record" in the auction listings I have seen.  That's what this 1952 must be.  I don't know if proofs were struck every year in between but I have seen many on Heritage.

I don't think the rarity of this coin is that unusual.

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

What would be very interesting would be to focus on modern coins graded by the TPG's today vs. 30 years ago.  I see everyone chasing PF70s and DCAMs and other label designations.  That seems to be where the growth is on Ebay and at coins hows, even if the "oldtimers" like Heritage and Stacks do very little with that stuff.

Certainly, these bulk submission orders I always read about with the TPGs are not for Wheat Pennies !

Well, it's easy enough to confirm my prior post is "directionally" accurate simply by looking at the TPG population data.  This especially applies to US, China, Canada, Australia and to some extent South Africa (silver KR) NCLT.

In the 1960's, probably at least 90% of the US collector base collected at least one of the circulating designs as their primary series, though maybe in noticeably lower proportion at any "meaningful" premium to FV.

Today, maybe 70% to 80% do (a total guess) but it has to be noticeably lower given what has happened to the prices of most coins in these series since 2008.

Several decades from now?  Probably 50% or even less due to new coins that don't exist yet (probably mostly new NCLT again) and a changing demographic composition where a noticeable proportion has little if any affinity for this coinage.