World Colonial

No real loss to numismatics, it wasn't a real coin anyway but a marketing gimmick.

From what I have read of apparent collector preferences, it won't be as successful.

4 hours ago, Zebo said:

should NCLT coins fit into the OP's intent on listing low mintage coins? What's the difference between NCLT coins and Proof coins? I see them as one and the same. Anyone think differently?

There is a difference between a coin struck for circulation with counterparts made for collectors (traditional proofs) versus a "coin" that isn't really a currency equivalent.  That's the case with bullion coins which even have the weight inscribed or where the face value doesn't mean anything.  With more recent US commemoratives, it has a face value but unlike during the classic commemorative era where many were actually spent, no one is going to spend it intentionally.

The significance of the mintage is a different consideration entirely which is what I infer you are really asking.

"Low" mintage US NCLT isn't really low versus hardly any actual alternative.  As an example, no one who will buy the 95-W ASE or this recently issued 2019 ERP is going to buy it as a replacement for circulated wheat cents which is the type of collecting predominant two generations ago.  It's going to be bought as a substitute for other high quality circulating coinage (probably mostly the same size and metal composition) or higher quality proofs.

Low mintage world NCLT isn't the exception but the norm, at least when compared to practically almost any US NCLT.  A low mintage UK coin is a lot more meaningful than one from one of these obscure places struck by a private mint.

Low mintage proofs outside the US are also not the exception but the norm.  In the example I gave of the 1936 South Africa half crown, 40 is very low versus a 1936 proof WLH (about 90 times as common) but not really versus many other proofs from this era outside the US.  Sometimes yes but many times not really.  These coins are legitimately rare or at least somewhat scarce but more recent ones aren't, like the South African 1974 which has a mintage of about 8,000 to my recollection.

Low mintage also has reduced significance when most or all in the series are also low.  The 95-W ASE is the "key" date because all other mintages in the basic set (excluding the gimmicks with different finishes) are much higher.  A world NCLT with a much lower mintage than the 95-W ASE is never going to have the same significance and therefore, the same price because it contradicts common sense that any collector will ever find it so compelling to pay an equivalently high price for most or the entire series.

With world coinage, there are many series where there are more key dates than non-key, using the US definition.  That's true of my primary collection now which I have mentioned several times here.  Even the more available dates are (a lot) more difficult to buy than most US key date coins.

One example I don't actively buy (since I can't find anything) is the Chile Lion and Castle (same design as my avatar which is from Mexico) quarter real.  It was struck from 1796-1818 with a few earlier dates having a slightly modified design.  The 1817 is a known hoard coin (I own the MS-67) and the 1818 is occasionally for sale (seen it maybe five times in AU or MS). 

I can count on one hand (literally) the number of decent coins from other dates I have seen in almost 20 years, excluding a few details examples offered by Sedwick this year or last.  I also own the 1810 NGC AU-55, Sedwick offered the 1816 NGC AU-50 (which I missed), I previously owned the NGC 1808 (or 1814) XF-45 and Heritage sold one of the other dates recently in XF-40.

The ANS has a mostly complete set but not the 1810 (last I checked).  I have not had the opportunity to inspect it.

Proof, 1936 South Africa half crown which was 40.  Circulation strike, almost certainly my 1752 NGC XF-40 Peru 2 reales which is recorded at 208. 

I have seen both coins more often (especially the first) than many other coins in the series I collect with much higher recorded mintages.

If I were to opt for a US type set, it would exclude a lot of coins considered as "necessary" for a "complete" set.  Most of the differences are minor and more than a few of these coins are (very) expensive because  many collectors allow their collection to be defined for them by some book or album.

The first coin I would eliminate is the 1879 Flowing Hair Stella.  It's actually a common pattern.

A few liberal interpretations of "key date" here.

I don't believe most collectors or those who buy it really care.  If it's in a reference (Red Book or Judd in this instance), that's all that matters to them.  

3 hours ago, Conder101 said:

From my last post it is clear that I think the coin will come back down in price, but I never made any predictions how far down it would go.  Down anywhere close to issue price?  No, I don't think we will ever see that, but I do think they will retreat from the prices they are bringing now.  And my comments don't really apply to 70's.  Those things exist in their own speculative and crazy world with no rhyme or reason.

I think it will lose value as well from the more recent prices I have heard.  More limited collector base versus 95-W.

1 hour ago, Brandon1974 said:

What is your opinion on these coins serial numbers? Do you believe lower numbers are more valuable?

If you are referring to the TPGs deciding to put it in a holder, I can see that happening but you need to remember that its a first for any coin, at least to my knowledge.  I have heard this occurs in other collectible fields (such as currency) but its unchartered territory for coins.  No way to know if it will really catch on or not.

If you are referring to the COA without the coin, I don't think hardly any collector will care about that but I could be wrong.  Labels on holders add some premium when it has nothing to do with the coin either.

On 11/20/2019 at 4:10 PM, Senex said:

I underestimated the potential of this coin, as it is up to $1K on eBay now. I don't know how many people who collect ASEs collect them all but I'm willing to bet more than 30K do.

This is my assessment of this coin and the ASE series:

1) A buyer (notice I didn’t say collector) base of maybe 250,000 attempting to complete a set, of some sort.

2) Most of this base is low budget, either cannot afford this coin or won’t buy it even if they can.  I estimate about 80% of all collectors won’t pay over $300 for a coin.

3) At minimum, a substantial minority are predominantly “silver stacker” financial buyers, not hobbyist collectors.  Many likely own one or more coins in this series (aside from the bullion coin) in multiple for speculation.  They don't care about this coin as a collectible and many will dump it when they find better uses for the money.

4) A substantial minority (at minimum) only collect the basic set, excluding reverse proof, enhanced finish…They aren’t looking to buy this coin either.

5) There are potentially more random collectors and speculators buying this coin (or the 95-W) than (hobbyist) set collectors.

6) Almost no bigger budget buyers collect this series as one of their primary sets, unless they primarily buy other NCLT.  It’s a sideline collection.

7) Dealers have an outsized influence on the price (versus most other coins) for some ASE because they own a noticeable proportion of the supply, all the time.

So, I agree with you that the ASE collector base is greater than 30,000.  I am also telling you that this isn’t particularly relevant with this coin, as most ASE collectors will never own it. The profile of the ASE buyer I described is primarily a low budget collector who can’t afford what they would actually prefer to buy or is primarily buying it for financial reasons.

I reach this conclusion because there isn’t much collecting associated with this coinage and this is what I see anecdotally in reading coin forums for over a decade, regularly.  A noticeable proportion (mostly older collectors) don’t consider it (and much or all other NCLT) to be real coins.  Additionally, anyone who has the money can literally buy the entire series in one day, unless they want some arbitrary number on a TPG label or toned examples.

The reality is that even though it was just recently issued, it is literally already one of the most overpriced coins in the world.  I’d rank the 95-W second, so this 2019 is hardly a compelling numismatic or speculative bargain.  The 95-W has been “dead money” for years with the 70 losing noticeable value as the TPG populations have increased.  This coin may appreciate as you imply despite its merits but it’s already an absolutely awful relative value, both as a collectible and financially.  The supposedly low mintage doesn’t change my analysis because this coin is more common in high quality versus every single competitor at a similar price.

If this sounds harsh, I’m not knocking it, only telling you that most hobbyist collectors don’t really find it (or the series) that interesting since there is no challenge to it. To the financial buyer, the most (or only) interesting aspect is their desire to make a windfall. 

This coin is only interesting enough to most buyers under the assumption that they can recover most, all or more than their money back.

23 hours ago, Conder101 said:

Yes but are them more than 30K who are willing to pay $1,000+ for it.  So far the answer appears to be yes, but a LOT of mint issues go high right out of the starting gate and then latter fall back.  Sometimes it can take years before the finally reach their bottom and stabilize.  And sometime the stabilize high well above issue price and sometimes they crash and eventually end up below issue.  It is too soon to say what the final price of this coin will be some years from now.  Look at the 2001 silver proof set.  Sole for $32, jumped to $300+ and stayed there for something like 12 years.  Then started sliding.  I think they are around $60 now and may still not have reached bottom.

Not relevant, prices are set at the margin.  With 30,000, it probably takes only a few hundred buying it at any one time to support the price, whatever it is now or later.  I can see several hundred selling per week, indefinitely.

The mintage on this coin was set intentionally low.  As absurdly overpriced as I believe it to be, even I don't see it returning anywhere near the issue price of $65 for the foreseeable future.  I just don't think it's a compelling financial value at the prices I have seen quoted in the forum posts I have read.

On 11/17/2019 at 12:42 PM, Senex said:

I think you underestimate the potential of this coin, which IMO will hit the $1000 level by year's end. It is the key to the series now, like it or not and I'd wager there are more than 30,000 SE collectors out there.

You ignored what I wrote.  $1000 is a lot cheaper than the 95-W, so yes, it could sell for that.

I said that the collector base is potentially a lot lower than for the 95-W because not all ASE collectors buy these ‘“extra” coins.  If some noticeable proportion don’t want it, no it isn’t the new key date.

It depends upon your assumptions which may differ from mine.  Sending this from my cell phone but can elaborate further later.

On 11/15/2019 at 5:40 AM, Zebo said:

This may replace the 1995-W as the key to the series. A lot of interest. 

I'd rate the chances of this coin replacing the 95-W as the "key date" in the series as essentially nil.  The 95-W has it's price mostly by reputation, not any actual scarcity or the supposedly low mintage.  There are hundreds (at least) available for sale any day of the week, somewhere.

Going by anecdotal comments on coin forums and patterns of collector behavior, the collector base for these additional coins (which I consider to be marketing gimmicks) such as enhanced finishes, reverse proofs, etc. is noticeably lower than it is for the "regular" proofs.  It's "necessary" for a "complete" set if you allow someone else to define your collecting but not otherwise.

With coins like this, at issuance much of the "interest" isn't in real collecting but financial speculation.  I believe there is noticeable speculation with the 95-W as well but given the general popularity of the series and the relatively stable price over time, I assume that most who own it are actual collectors.

On 11/15/2019 at 3:20 PM, FairTradeAct_1935 said:

Yes that is a possibility and the frustration I hope was worth it. If it even touches the realm of the 1995 W IMO it was worth the headache..lol

It almost certainly won't because the number of collectors for the non-standard, extra coins or whatever you want to call it (special finishes, reverse proofs and so forth) isn't as large (probably nowhere near as large).  The 95-W is an outlier and almost certainly going to stay that way.

22 hours ago, RWB said:

It should be noted that numismatic books in English are in the minority. European publications go back centuries in every major language, with German and French dominating.

Maybe but how useful is this material to collectors today given what they buy?

I'd guess that what you describe is a lot more useful to European than US collectors, most of the time.  German references in German I can see because there appears to be noticeable collecting of German coinage by US based collectors.  French coins, only a low minority seem to be in high demand from what I have seen.

I'm aware that both languages cover more than their own coinage but from what I have seen, the more recent references are predominantly written in English by either American or British authors.

The only foreign language references I have seen that might interest me are in Spanish but have bought only one, a pamphlet on the Potosi colonial quarter real issued from 1796-1809.  I haven't tried to translate it yet but bought it as it is the only material I have ever seen for this coinage from any mint.  Cayon has written numerous volumes for Spanish and colonial coinage but I don't collect hardly any of the coins in it.  

Unfortunately, many times there is no book to buy.  Most of the series I have collected either still do not have one or it was issued only years after I started buying it.  Only one series has what I would describe as reasonably accurate rarity estimates.  Two books for this series with one issued in 2017 and the other in 2018.  The earlier one issued in 1999 is "ballpark" accurate but differed noticeably from what I actually saw.

I have mostly had to find out (to a point) through trial and error.

On 10/26/2019 at 3:06 PM, RWB said:

All I'm at liberty to tell you is that one is in Switzerland but owned by an Italian family. Another is in France but the core was originally Russian. A third is supposed to be owned by a Dutch family business, but the source was skimpy on details.

In addition several excellent European collections were stolen by the Nazi SS, but only partially recovered and repatriated.

Any idea of the composition?  I assume most of the holdings are a combination of European, ancient and maybe colonial coinage.

I have on occasion wondered if some of the rarer and best quality (not necessarily measured by TPG grade) coinage is owned by "old money".  Some banks like Swiss Bank Corporation (now UBS) used to have coin departments as part of their wealth management divisions.  (It's now Sincona.)  A few other Swiss banks also but never heard of any others.  I doubt they made much (if any) money off of it but offered it as a customer accommodation to their wealthier clients.  

SBC sold at least of the few of the better Spanish colonial collections which interest me most.  One is Sellschopp.  However, I suspect that as with what is available publicly, that there isn't much better material in hiding from colonial Spain.

58 minutes ago, Zebo said:

Roger, what are the European collections that you mentioned? 

I'd like to know too.

For the last five or six years, my core collection has been limited to pillar 1/2 real, one real, two reales and four reales from Bolivia (1767-1770) and Peru (1752-1772).  I'll also buy Guatemala if I can find any decent coins within my budget but these coins literally almost never show up.  It can be defined as three series (one for each mint) or twelve (one for each denomination from each mint.  I don't hardly ever buy anything else.

I could have completed Bolivia if I had prioritized these coins, though proportionately many would be in poor quality.  This mint has 20 for all five denominations (including 8R).  Many of the Peru dates never show up for sale.  I now look on eBay practically every day and on occasion find one but only four (one a relatively common low grade date, one cleaned but decent and another with minor rim damage and VG with no problems) that I bought.  The rest I saw but did not buy were impaired.  This is over two years looking every day.  It's dubious I'll ever acquire all 84+ coins.  For Guatemala, I'd like to upgrade my current type set.

I used to have more series (none US) in my core collection but finally concluded that I will never have the financial resources to complete all of it.  I still have most of what I previously bought.

On occasion, I have also thought about working on one or more cheaper and much easier series so that I can buy more coins regularly.  I don't do it because I know I will regret not spending the money on coins I would rather own.

On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 2:01 PM, Mk123 said:

Eliasberg mostly dealt with US or was he also into World Coins?  For the 21st century it would have to be the Tyrant Collection for world coins.........wow wow wow!

Stacks sold the Eliasberg world gold collection in 2005.  It consisted of about 3600 lots, though I don't recall what was in it.  I have not been able to find anything for world crowns and minors.

I don't know what is in the Tyrant collection except by reputation.  I'd put it above Simpson or Hansen precisely because the latter two collections only include US. 

The other collection many US based collectors would presumably consider a contender is Pogue.  It's one of the best US federal collections ever put together but never heard it included US colonial or territorial gold and can't remember anything about patterns.  To my recollection it's predominantly US circulation coinage (including some proofs) dated up to 1834.  Versus the other consensus elite collections, it's claim to fame is quality measured by increments in the TPG grade and whether the coins in it are eligible for CAC stickers.  There are numerous (though not an absolutely large number of) other collections which owned most of the coins in it, just in (slightly) lower quality.  I don't place anywhere near equivalent emphasis on this type of quality difference as most of the more affluent US collectors do today and in the recent past.

Ultimately, it is dependent upon someone's subjective criteria.  However, I'd never rate a collection as elite if the primary criteria for acquiring it is an outsized checkbook to predominantly buy coins that aren't really that hard to buy except for having the money, and this includes exaggerations by US collecting since TPG grading came to predominate.

How much is the change in the forum format and how much is the stagnant price level?  I ask as to my recollection, the participation had already decreased substantially prior to the format change versus 2006 when I first joined.  I don't post pictures but don't see that the format change should make any difference.  It isn't any harder to type a post than before.

Of those I know, I'd rate Eliasberg first or maybe Norweb, definitely above all the most prominent today except maybe Tyrant.  My criteria gives a lot more weight to the scope and the number of rare and elite coins in the available quality versus using the TPG grade or "eye appeal".  Common is common no matter how nice the coin looks.  I also wouldn't ever rank any collection first which is was overly concentrated in one area.

The Norweb collection was "world class" in many segments which is evident in how they sold it.  B&M sold the US portion while multiple firms (to my recollection) sold the rest.

10 hours ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

I dunno. I think of a hole filler in a more negative sense, as a pejorative. In your example, I would be content with a 58. If I filled the hole with less than an AU I would not be content (nor would I do it). 

I don't consider an AU-58 16-D in a Mercury set a hole filler, not if it's still a nice example. It's ultimately a matter of intent (to replace or not) but I don't consider the quality difference between AU-58 and MS-65 to be so great here where it isn't acceptable, unless someone is now going to tell me that most AU-58 16-D's are usually actually much lower quality which is another issue entirely.  (That would be "gradeflation".)

Conversely, I would consider practically any other date in the series in AU-58 to be one in a MS-65 set because the coins are both not particularly expensive and common or very common.  The other exceptions would be the 21 and 21-D (semi) key dates.  Both of these coins are still quite expensive (to most collectors) in AU-58 and somewhat scarce in this grade.

On 9/7/2019 at 10:29 PM, jgenn said:

I have a few holes left in my Colonial Mexico City 8 reales sets that are very scarce to rare varieties that I would fill with any grade level and would not exclude "details" coins.   It all depends on what series you are trying to complete.

You know this but there are different levels of quality in "details" coins.  If the coin is a nice one (by my definition), I would rather own one with noticeably more detail than a numerically graded one with a lot more wear, especially in my primary series where most of the coins have no color or toning.

Example:  The first of the three 1755 Peru one real (JM variety) I bought is now in an "XF details" holder.  It is a fully struck coin with gold and blue toning with the most noticeable wear on the two globes (on the pillar side) which are flat.  It has hairlines on this side but there is nothing wrong with the coin and it's easily better than the overwhelming majority of the low proportion from the original mintage which survive today.