-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
World Colonial
-
Posts
5,534 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
25
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
NGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by World Colonial
-
-
1 hour ago, Mohawk said:
Those minors are tough, World Colonial, you're absolutely right.....that's quite the pursuit! I commend you on taking on such a difficult project.
Thanks
I have no realistic prospect of completing anything other than denomination sets by mint. This was my goal prior to making this series my first priority.
Earlier this year, Spanish auction firm Cayon sold a mostly complete set but the quality was very poor, by US standards. I am primarily buying Lima and Potosi coins because Guatemala is both too expensive for my budget and not available. Of the approximately hundred coins for these two mints in all four denominations, there were a handful of high quality coins, two 1754 Peru half real I would grade better AU (and probably TPG eligible) and a Peru 1753 4R that I would grade AU details. I didn't bid because Cayon insisted on a deposit and I didn't want to bother with it. The coin I actually wanted to buy the most was the 1763 Peru 2R that I would grade VF details. A nice coin but with surface issues. I'll probably regret it later, as there is a good chance I'll never see some or many of these coins again, problems or no problems.
Other than this collection, Patterson (sold by Bonhams in 1996) is the only other I know that was mostly complete. I own most of the better quality date/MM combinations in the NGC and PCGS populations, though there are opportunities to upgrade. Of those available, I believe there are nine I don't have. Also aware of a few ungraded examples out there which I either missed or was outbid.
-
Spanish colonial pillars, by far. Of the five denominations, I don't actively buy the 8R unlike most collectors. The entire broader series totals about 400, excluding varieties. . All four mints for all four minor denominations range from quite to extremely difficult to complete. Due to the number of coins (20), Potosi (Bolivia) is the easiest to complete but not in any decent quality. Outside of Mexico, the minor denominations are disproportionately damaged or very low quality. Many of the dates are almost impossible to buy at all.
-
On 5/25/2019 at 3:13 AM, Miguel del Rio said:
One of the global publications' weaknesses it that it is impossible to contact a specific contributor to correct a catalog coin specification, to report a coin variety, to report a fantasy issue, or to add a coin.
The online publications are better with corrections, though they are more incomplete than the traditional guides.
In many instances, the traditional guides are the only source for the online publications.
Accuracy and completeness require a lot of work. In the coins I almost exclusively buy now, I only recently was able to find mintage data. Krause doesn't include it for most listings and in some (or many) instances, it might not be available at all.
-
On 5/29/2019 at 9:01 PM, Mohawk said:
Those thoughts do make a lot of sense regarding the supply of platinum and the decreasing demand. Gold has, as it always has, gotten a lot of the attention the past few years, too. Maybe gold has a better marketing department than platinum right now.....
I have expressed the opinion that the best explanation for the relative price between gold and other metals (especially silver) is that gold is viewed as a money substitute while the others really aren't. Gold's current value certainly isn't based upon it's utility since unlike silver, platinum and palladium most of it is in bar or coin form.
On this coinage generally, I have also commented that I don't believe that most buyers are primarily (if at all) buying it as a collectible but for financial purposes. Except for the 70 grades, it's a relatively low premium option with additional potential financial upside.
It's my opinion that the "real" collector base for any of these issues is very low, maybe in the hundreds at most. If this is correct, these "low" mintages aren't really that low. None of these coins are remotely actually scarce and it is invalid to compare the mintage to other coinage, especially circulating series.
As an actual collectible, it should be self evident that even at current depressed prices, these coins are hopelessly uncompetitive versus any non-NCLT in a similar price range.
I am aware that a low number of the earlier AGE sell for high premiums even below a 70 and I'd also guess that many who buy it hope for a similar outcome.
-
23 hours ago, Conder101 said:
No book of prices will ever be "accurate" as a value guide, but one done right should at least put you in the ball park. As for "doing it right", how about being more up to date with types and dates than five years before the date on the cover (I have two double row boxes of coins going back 5 years that aren't in the latest issue), not leaving out part of or even entire countries, improve the images, stop dropping images etc.
I don't see how it can ever be in the ballpark either. There are too many coins which sell infrequently, whether in grade or otherwise and it will never be economical for most of the values to be anything other than a guess. The problem is, I don't think that most collectors know that most price listings are anything other than just made up.
Here are some examples:
Coins listed that either do not or likely do not exist: South Africa Union 1933, 1934 and 1936 business strike farthings. The 1936 is in dispute, as NGC has four listed in the census. The mintage is supposedly three but South African collectors don't fully accept these coins. The 1953 "matte proof" crown is another. South African collectors have never heard of it and it isn't listed in any local guide. Bolivia 1882 and 1889 50 centavos might be another.
Coins which either have not sold at all or in the listed grade: Krause lists the South Africa 1931 florin in "UNC" at $1250. NGC only recently graded an MS-63 and I wouldn't buy it without a second opinion, as there are instances where proofs have been graded as business strikes. Regardless, the has probably never sold publicly (there appears to be no record of it) and this equally applies in lower listed grades. Krause also lists value in multiple grades for the 1752 Peru 4R. According to Brad Yonaka's recent volume, a single coin is believed to exist. Gilboy lists it as an R5 (1 to 3 known) but apparently, he couldn't find one in the numerous auction catalogs listed as references. Patterson and Norweb didn't have it either.
Attribution accuracy would be nice but ultimately, I don't see why anyone who has bought one version will ever need a second since the price listings are worthless anyway. That is, unless they collect modern NCLT. I have no intention of updating my 1998 ever.
-
45 minutes ago, Conder101 said:
But do Spinks or Marsh publish catalogs that cover the entire world for a 500 year span? Any specialized catalog that covers a single country can do a more indepth job, but to cover the whole world that way you would need about 350 books. And then how often would you have to buy another set? The Standard Catalog served a needed purpose. I certainly hope someone that has the money to put into it and do it right purchases it. I know Whitman toyed with the idea of a world catalog along those lines but never did anything with it. This would be a good opportunity for them rather than having to create the data base and gather the images from scratch.
I own a hard copy of the 18th to 20th centuries and all are in storage. Initially back in 1998 when I resumed collecting, I used it to determine what was available to collect once I decided it wouldn't be US coins. It is useful for attribution but not otherwise.
I'd curious to know your definition of "doing it right". I see no prospect that it will be remotely "accurate" or useful as a value guide. The prices are just made up and it will never be economical to even attempt to publish prices for over one million price points updated with any frequency.
I presume from accounts I have heard that collectors believe it has been mismanaged since it was acquired. My suspicion is that it's mostly because their business model became outdated and no longer relevant in the internet age.
-
2 hours ago, Zebo said:
Even with the flaws in this poll - it is providing some interesting results. It still has a little over a week to go, but ...
1) Completing a series is leading followed closely by Type and Other (other surprises me)
2) collecting MS is leading by a good margin followed by VF or below - no love for XF or AU???
3) Completing a series and collecting a series that is attractive are tied, with a distant third of financial gain
4) silver leads by a long shot. Copper has overtaken gold for second place (Where are all the gold bugs???)
5) U.S. Is leading 2-1 vs. World. World had the initial lead.
We'll see if these change over the next week.
A few inferences from what I see in the data I have reviewed and comments on coin forums.
My initial post would be an example of "other" I suppose. I am a series collector but don't have a realistic prospect of completing it. I suspect for other collectors, "other" includes thematic collecting.
For US collectors who predominantly collect 20th century US classics plus the Morgan dollar, there is no point in collecting below MS unless they can't afford it. Except for key and somewhat less for semi-key dates, the price difference isn't "material".
In many instances, the surviving quality distribution makes it impractical to collect XF or AU grades. Many series have a disproportionate percentage of (very) low quality survivors with a noticeable though low proportion of higher grade examples. Barber quarters and halves are examples.
Gold isn't affordable to the overwhelming percentage of the collector base. For US collectors, common silver classics are overwhelmingly preferred over moderns.
Based upon sales volume, the Heritage archives indicate that US collectors may prefer US coinage by a factor of at least 10-1. Many US collectors collect both but the Heritage data also includes buying by non-US collectors who I don't believe collect US coinage hardly at all.
-
The poll doesn't really enable me to provide answers either.
Currently, I have one primary area of interest but now, I doubt it will change going forward. But it's because of the challenge in acquiring coins and by challenge, I am not referring to the current US definition which I don;t consider a challenge at all.
My goal isn't to complete the set because I doubt I can but even if I could, I wouldn't buy dreck just to do it. I also don't buy based upon eye appeal using the quality standards of most US collectors because there isn't hardly anything available. I try to buy AU or MS coins if available but also buy lower circulated and in some instances, even "details" coins as long as it looks decent. It isn't the type of set which would interest hardly anyone else.
-
2 minutes ago, Just Bob said:
I had that same thought, as I am sure others have. Is there room for another fourth party, and how would it go about achieving market acceptance?
Rick Snow is accepted for IHC and Flying Eagle cents though I don't know if he "makes a market" other than as a retail dealer. I can see the same applying for other specialties. Otherwise, not really without supporting bids,
-
54 minutes ago, numisport said:
There really is some high value coins in the cameo series for 1950-64. Heavy cameo wheatback cents to name just one. Also there are some SMS coins that look like proofs that are high value coins. I doubt Mr. Albanese is going to expand his parameters by suggestion but the motivation for other companies is already there. Question is will another sticker mean the same as a CAC sticker.
Yes, but the number is not many. Most of these coins are only worth nominal amounts. Exceptions presumably include a few DCAM/UCAM in the higher grades, RD cents in the highest grades and generically the "top pop".
As for another sticker, only if backed with offers to buy.
-
7 hours ago, numisport said:
Not a bad plan and not much to lose. However CAC doesn't verify all modern coins. I would like to see them expand to include '50 to '64 proofs as well as SMS coins. Also what about Kennedy Halves ?
Does anyone know the minimum value cut-off CAC will actually make an offer for a coin? I'm not asking whether they will sticker any coin below a certain value but whether they buy it. As an example, CAC will sticker lower priced MS-66 Mercury dimes which might be worth $50 or somewhat more.
I have no idea but seems to me there isn't enough money in lower value coins for CAC to bother making a market in it, except on occasion.
My guess is that the coins you listed meet the criteria I am describing; not really worth making a market for CAC.
-
4 hours ago, LINCOLNMAN said:
WC, as I recall the whole investment idea and its attendant sins preceded the TPG's. However, facility of trading and confidence undoubtedly made the idea of coins as an investment more feasible. Of course the condition rarity phenomenon, which has always existed ("buy the best that you can afford"), has increased exponentially. On balance, I'm not unhappy with the price levels of the coins I collect, although the prices are many multiples of what I would have paid and did pay as a YN in the 50's and 60's.
From what I read first hand in the 1980's, coins were marketed as "investments" on a large scale starting sometime in the 1970's as a "hedge" against inflation. This is also consistent with the price changes from my Redbooks and charts of the PCGS 3000 index. As an example, common date "UNC" Capped Bust halves are listed at $450 in my 1977 edition (which I owned at the time) which I recall was up from $250 in 1972 and from $75 a few years before that. I might have the dates wrong but the prices and trend I believe are accurate. I don't consider Capped Bust halves "investment" coins either then or now, yet the prices still exploded anyway. I can't tell anyone whether the Red Book represented "retail" at the time but it did in the coin shops I bought from and to my knowledge did for most of the coins most collectors bought.
As for conditional rarities (or near it), I have never heard that collectors paid what I consider to be exorbitant (and absurd) prices much before TPG. I have heard anecdotal accounts that it happened on occasion in the 1980's prior to 1986 before PCGS was founded but not otherwise.
When I have looked at my Red Books from 1965 and 1967 before the price run-ups, most of the coins in the most widely collected series (even excluding key and semi-key dates) sold for what I would describe as nominal prices. Most, but not all. As an example, I believe common "UNC" SLQ listed for $20 in 1972 (my preferred dealer had one for $60 in 1977). I wouldn't consider this price "low" because the coin isn't remotely scarce and $20 was a meaningful amount. Concurrently, don't believe any "uber grade" but even more common coins would hardly ever sell for a noticeable multiple to the "Red Book" price because communication limitations would have virtually guaranteed that most collectors would never get most of their money back.
-
On 10/21/2018 at 9:18 AM, LINCOLNMAN said:
I can testify as to how bad the good old days were, before the TPG's came along. Collecting was very hazardous financially. One still needs to buy the coin, not the plastic, but at least one isn't faced with a total loss if making a bad decision. CAC provides a worthwhile service, yet another opinion. It seems to me that that opinion is overvalued by many, such as those who only buy stickered coins, and may be abused, which is too bad. But that opinion nonetheless has value. As adult collectors, we need to take responsibility for our decisions, learn as much as we can, and buy what we like, not what someone else tells us to like.
I believe the internet would reduce the risk of some of the problems you mentioned, in the sense that at least the buyer can far more easily acquire coins outside of their immediate geographic area. TPG
Most of the risk you describe is substantially if not predominantly the result of the hugely inflated price level. Prior to TPG and buying coins as "investments", the vast majority of the coins most collectors buy now sold for nominal amounts, so the risk was much less. Outsized financial buying and a distorted pricing structure where minimal differences in (supposed) quality have such large price variances create most of the financial risk you describe. Counterfeiting, doctoring and artificial toning are a lot more profitable due to the inflated price level. This should be self-evident since counterfeiting is presumably far less prevalent on non-US coinage (I am aware it is selectively a problem) and hardly to anyone will bother to doctor or artificially tone this coinage either.
TPGs have increased buyer confidence and with it, made it easier to sell coins. However, TPGs have also contributed substantially to the inflated price level by increasing the number of financial buyers and registry competition has noticeably contributed to the existing price structure.
-
I would start by searching the Heritage Rare Coin Galleries archives or one from a similar firm (such as Classical Numismatics group) to attempt to identify what you have. Heritage is by far the easiest to search. From this source, you should be able to get a general idea of what the coins are worth, subject to differences in appearance (what US collectors term "eye appeal") and level of preservation. And if you aren't familiar with coin collecting, you need to be aware that small differences in quality can result in much bigger differences in value, though much less with ancient than US coins.
Depending upon the value, you might also buy a reference book but don't rely on the prices if any are included; use it for attribution only. You could also contact a coin dealer such as Harlen Berk.
-
9 hours ago, Mohawk said:
You'd be surprised. This coin really isn't that obscure to modern coin collectors, and there are many, many collectors of modern coins. Lincoln Cents are also one of the most popular, if not the most popular, of the modern US series. The only modern US series that may be contenders are Kennedy Half Dollars and Silver Eagles And Karen is right on about the price, a nice one of these does go for over $100. Even a mid-grade one goes for around $45, so there is definitely a demand for this variety.
Die varieties listed in reference books (especially the Red Book) are a lot more widely collected than those which are not. With the prices you listed, I presume this is one of them.
But I also believe dleonard is correct. Most die variety collectors are almost certainly "cherry pickers" who will pay little if any premium to face value for most circulating die varieties and little if any premium to the price for a "regular" date on an earlier coin.
-
7 hours ago, JohnnyRios said:
Just want to know what makes it a replica so I can know with my other coins. Thank you by the way.
If you haven't done so, I would start by comparing it to images of a confirmed genuine example.
-
There is no absolute answer to your question. You'll need to evaluate whether these coins fit into your collecting goals for the amount you paid. If you like these coins despite what you wrote, I would keep them. Sounds like you are having second thoughts.
-
I have one or two of them, cannot remember. The one I know is a Victoria obverse with the Three Graces reverse in silver.
-
You should post your request in the Marketplace. Likewise on the PCGS Message Boards.
-
Nice write up and by someone who writes longer posts than I do.
-
General Market Notes
Mexican coins, in general, aren't the most popular with collectors today. And the few collectors who are interested in Mexico coins seem to be more attracted to the 19th and early 20th century gold and silver denominations like the real, escudo, and peso. This puts the Pyramid of the Sun coin pretty low on the overall desirably scale among the general collectors today.
The Pyramid of the Sun coin was produced in large quantities. Nearly 900 million coins were produced in total throughout the entire POTS coin mintage. With such a high production and little overall desirability, most POTS coins have little numismatic value and will sell for less than $1. Only a few years in the best condition have any significant numismatic value.
There are many POTS coins currently available at coin shops, numismatic shows, and online auctions. The large majority of these, however, have not survived the years in BU condition, particularly some the earlier dates.
Perhaps the hardest date to be found in BU condition, and most valuable, is the 1951. Other early dates that less commonly found still in BU condition include 1943, 1946, and 1952. Later dates of the POTS coin that can be harder to find in BU are 1960, 1968, and 1959. Nevertheless, there are no dates that are impossible to find in BU condition.
I believe that the Mexican collector base is a lot larger than most countries, certainly in the top 20 due to demand from US based collectors. It is just small compared to the US because this country is an aberration among all of them.
As for this series, though I do not know it specifically, I agree that it is toward the bottom of the preference scale among Mexican coinage but I don't see anything unusual about it. At the same time, unlike my opinion of world moderns generally, financially I believe it will do a lot better than most if TPG becomes the norm by those who collect it. I expect more Mexican-American collectors to prefer it and other Mexican coinage in the future.
In a prior article, the Mexican Coin Company mentioned that Mexican coins were popular among (US) collectors in the past (1950's and 1960's). I believe they mentioned or I understood that at least some Mexican modern series were collected by completing folders (presumably Whitman). If this is correct, I suspect this series was one of them and that a decent number of the better grade coins survive as a result of US collecting.
-
I think that the whole autographed slab tag thing is silly, not matter who signs it.
I agree 100%!!
In some cases, it is more than silly, it is absurd. I will leave out the specifics for now but I was recently reading a Coin Week article in the archives where a prominent dealer purportedly made a claim that a rare but actually obscure coin should sell for some future "moon money" price based upon its association with a past US Mint Director.
I find such a premise completely absurd. We are not talking about George Washington but someone who is actually a historically unknown person. Not only have virtually no non-collectors ever heard of people like this, most coin collectors have no clue who they are either and could not care less.
The example covered by this thread is not exactly the same but I do not see why such a signature should even be worth a dime. I can only surmise that maybe some want these signatures from any person who held the office or performed the same role. Or, to speculate and sell it to someone else for more later.
-
My understanding is that the storage conditions for coins and paper might differ somewhat. I have no paper collectibles at all but understand that some moisture might be preferable for them.
-
1628 Spain Segovia 2 Reales
Do You Have a Favorite Series? (And Why?)
in US, World, and Ancient Coins
Posted
Lot of variety in Roman coinage...it's something on my list to consider if I ever decide to "move up" the complexity scale of collecting. Others are Byzantine silver and bronze, Crusader and medieval Europe. Definitely interesting and challenging. But I don't really have an active second "go to set" now as I believe you do for interim "action" when I cannot find anything.
I prefer to buy my coins at auction. My comments were specific to this one firm. Not sure why they required a deposit, as it's not like the amount I was asking to bid was material. I'll buy my coins from dealers but I will usually have to pay more, since most of the coins they have come from the same auctions I compete in. As an example, one dealer has a coin where I was the under bidder last year. They paid somewhat less than $3k for it and are now asking almost $6k. Same coin in the same holder for over double the price. It's probably the best one of this date/denomination combination in existence but I think it's overgraded. If I get a second chance to buy it near the last auction sale, I'll probably buy it but no way at anywhere near their ask price. My guess is that they will hold on to it looking for the right buyer but I think they will have an almost impossible time getting their price, unless a prospective buyer is unaware of the prior auction result.
They also have a second coin I want where I was one of the under bidders but their ask price is also too high, as it's the most common date from this denomination (in higher quality) and I am also dubious of the assigned grade. The coin previously sold ungraded (where I missed it) for around 15% of their ask price before they bought it in the TPG holder. They had it for about six months, couldn't sell it, offered it through another auction firm where it failed to meet their reserve and it's back on their website at a slight discount to their initial price. I suspect it will sit indefinitely, as I don't think it's worth what they paid for it. I'll buy it if I can get it close to my initial bid, around 75% of their cost. Otherwise, I'll just wait another 5+ years for another one.