World Colonial

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

Here are some fairly scarce coins I acquired at a recent public auction. They are on the way back from NGC. All are from South Africa.

1944 Shilling NGC AU-58, It is the only coin in the combined NGC and PCGS census.

1946 Shilling NGC AU-50 scarce.

1947 Shilling NGC MS-63 rare date and grade

1944 2 Shillings NGC MS-62 scarce

1945 2 Shillings NGC AU-58 scarce

1946 2 1/2 Shillings NGC AU-55 rare date and grade

World Colonial, I think that you and Cladking are saying the same thing, i.e. South African vs. East German coins etc.. Your binary factor list does not include variables such as ability to be promoted, type set importance, absolute rarity, relative affordability, ability to be collectable, desirability, metal content, historical interest and other attributes which drive collector interest and coin price besides just profit potential. Most collectors whom I know, like to think that their coins will be worth more in the future but they are not really as much motivated by profit as by the quest of finding and owning those coins which they desire. This is not the same as profit motive and in fact, has little to do with it. Many coins such as the 1909-SVDB or 1931-S cents are price driven to a large extent by type demand, popularity and ease of promotion, certainly not scarcity.

Actually you are correct and incorrect and I am aware of every consideration you have listed. But the factors I use do include what you have in your post, it just is not evident because you did not have any detail behind what I included which I have previously written.

Promoting of coins I stick under the "Country of Origin". This is not evident in my term but what you state here is the "investment infrastructure" of the country of origin and you will get no argument from me that this is not only a factor but a decisive one. It is more apparent in the United States than any other country that I know of though I see it in a few others.

I specifically mentioned metal content and this is so obvious a factor to me that it is not even worth debating.

Type set importance, historical interest and so forth is covered under the "Popularity of the Series".

Relative affordability is covered under "The Economic Scarcity Factor" and "The Substitution Factor".

Absolute rarity is covered under "Supply and Potential Supply". So is ability to be collected though scarcity and availability are not identical.

I also know that not all collectors are buying coins with the idea of SPECIFICALLY buying a coin to sell it for more and this is not incorporated into my criteria at all because it is intended to be entirely economic. The purpose of my criteria is to make a reasonable objective assessment of the financial propects of any coin or series. To the extent that a collector does not care whether they do or do not lose money, they will find no benefit from it.

The key to me is to seperate the collecting aspects from the financial ones or at least that is what I try to do. I believe that all of the coins I buy have good financial prospects (unless the coin market as a whole tanks) though it was not with this specifically in mind that I selected them at the beginning. Currently, I have been mostly buying coins that I can sell for more right now.

I have no criticism of collectors who think differently from this primarily utilitarian perspective. But I think that far too many collectors do not adequately consider the financial aspects of the "investment" they have made, just people too often do not with their financial decisions generally. Maybe they do or do not have regrets later, I do not know. But if they do, the bad economic decision has already been made and it may be to late to fix it.

Based upon what you have here, I think there has been at least a partial misunderstanding because I did understand you to mean US circulating modern dates and denominations at least some of the time.

But since you are referring to world modern coins here, I do agree with you generally though we may still have differences of opinion (yet to be discussed) on specific coins. The positive opinion on world coins that I hold from a financial standpoint applies to all types of coins. The selectivity that I believe needs to be applied is not primarily contingent upon the date of the coin because so many of these coins have low or very low mintages to begin with, even moderns.

The East German coin you mention is an interesting one because, though I know nothing of it, I think I can make a few speculative assumptions on why this coin appreciated it as it did. And if what I outline is reasonably true, then the criteria could be used to attempt to identify other coins for anyone who wants to "shoot for the moon" or win a mini-lottery bet.

The first attribute that comes to mind is that the coin was issued in a society that did not make it easy for people to save or collect coins at all, given that its offical policy made it a point of honor to virtually eliminate private property rights. Under these circumastances, the opportunity to pay a premium or speculate on future price appreciation was very low. Then the economic system changed.

Another one of these was virtually unique to East Germany. The unification in 1989 which I believe potentially had two other effects. The first is that posisbly more collectors in the former West Germany would have collected these issues but this is a bigger guess because some or many probably already did. But the second is that under the new economic system, East Germans now had a substantially increased financial capacity to pay for coins that were always scarce but previously cheap.

Another contributing factor was that after unification, the East German coins were demonitized. Demonitazation was also a significant factor in the substantially reduced supply of South Africa Union coins because unlike pre-1965 US silver coinage, they had no use. So it is possible that 1956 coin or others were more available before 1989 but went from common to scarce or scarce to rare soon after due to melting. Given the low prices they fetched, there would have been no market pricing signal for most collectors to use to determine the scarcity of this coin. Only those who had already been collecting them diligently would have been aware of this scarcity.

I'm not trying to be difficult with you either and sometimes I "shoot from the hip" which I should not do. But keep in mind that though I may be wrong, I actually do have a basis for making the economic claims I make.

The examples you use in this last post are correct but since I agree that this is true for world coins, it is impossible for me to argue with you on that point. My comments are made in reference to US modern circulating coinage and though there are exceptions that I am not aware of, what I say is generally true.

I can still send or post the analysis I described before. It is complete.

Well, apparently I must have missed your posts where you listed the scarce ones because I do not read all of your posts as you do not with mine.

The statements I make in my posts about what someone else may collect are never about the collecting merits of any coin. They are in the context of scarcity or financial performance such as in this thread. I could not care less what anyone else collects.

My prior comments to you were in response to yours about my prior post not considering demand when In fact that is exactly what my criteria attempts to do. Whether you or anyone else agrees with my criteria or my conclusions is an entirely different issue but the considerations I raise are valid though it is impossible to predict in advance exactly what will happen.

This thread is about the financial performance and potential of various coins or series. If you do not agree with my reasoning that is fine with me, but raising the considerations I do is legitimate. You may think that moderns have a different potential than I do and that is also fine. But since I do not, I will say so as I have on other occasions for other coins and when I do, I will also attempt to explain why as I have done. If you have any interest, I can certainly either post or send you a more comprehensive explanation to explain the criteria I use which will be tailored to the extent possible for the coin or series under evaluation. You or anyone else can then counter-reply. I take no offense to anyone disagreeing with my analytical opinions and see no reason why anyone else should either.

Yes, we've had many debates on this topic and we are at a standstill. You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you.

Your definition of scarcity and mine are completely different. But if you have any evidence that moderns are really scarce outside of die varieties and conditional rarities, you have failed to provide it in any of your prior posts. And if you find the criteria I use to evaluate the financial prospects of these or any other coins unsatisfactory, then by all means provide yours. (And by the way, the purpose of the criteria I use IS to attempt to evaluate demand. Others may have additional criteria or have a different opinion on the impact of the criteria I use.)

Also the 40,000 number you cite is an absolutely gargantuan number relative to other coins, even if there are potentially many more collectors out there who might buy them. But as the market pricing structure stands today, I see no evidence that most collectors are going to pay big or substantially larger premiums for these coins when a coin which is slightly less desirable will sell for a fraction of it. That is probably the biggest factor working against them from a fianancial standpoint. If you have any basis to indicate otherwise that this will not be so in the future, I would be interested to know what it is. The strongest one and only real one that I can think of is one of the factors I have already mentioned: demographics (which in case you did not notice, I have already rated as positive for moderns), but this is only one of many factors which will determine what these or any other coins will sell for.

As for your comparison of a Bust coin to a modern, I see no validity in it and I question how many other collectors would either. Most collectors are unlikely to be persuaded to find a modern coin more appealing than a Bust simply because they cannot find the latter in a higher grade for $4.

Its true that some or maybe many of these coins will or might appreciate from the very low bases that exist today, but given their prices it would take a large accumulation of coins to amount to any real money unless someone hits the lottery with one or a few of them (and these would still almost certainly be conditional rarities or die varieties). And by real money, I am talking even a few thousand dollars.

These coins might do better than many or most classics percentage wise, but I'll stick with my comments that selective world coins will beat both of them. When I buy the South African coins I collect, I do not need to wait years to sell them for a lot more. I can turn them over in one month which is about the time it takes to receive the coin, get it graded and listed on eBay. I just sold an 1892 NGC XF-45 South Africa three pence today for $522 (about 8% less after fees) for which my cost was $220 and I can give you many more recent examples. I cannot do that with hundreds of them because there are not enough of them, but I can make enough on one occasionally to make the same money that could be made with dozens of low priced moderns without the endless administrative time that would be required to sell so many low priced coins.

I have commented on many posts related to the potential financial performance of modern US coins.

So far, no one has provided any reasonable basis outside of die varieties and conditional rarities which supports why this would happen. For Kennedy halves, we can also add rainbow toned coins since I have seen these sell for what I would describe as already exhorbitant prices but no doubt those who own them have a different opinion.

Below is a format I have used in prior posts to assess a coin series financial potential. Here is my assessment for the Kennedy Half.

Factor #1: Origin: Positive (US coins)

Factor #2: Size and metallic composition: Positive/Negative

Factor #3: Popularity of the coin series: Positive

Factor #4: Current And Potential Supply: Negative

Factor #5: The Economic Scarcity Factor: Negative

Factor #6: The Substitution Factor: Negative

Factor #7: The Impact of Demographics: Positive

Factor #8: Future Exchange Value of the US Dollar: Neutral

Factor #9: The US Mint and the US Congress: Neutral (its really not a circulating coin any longer)

By my standards no US series as a whole is "undervalued". There are only specialties or pockets of individual coins that I consider to meet this criteria.

There have been more posts than I can count where one coin or another is stated as "scarce" but they are almost invariably easy to find just by checking Heritage. And these supposedly scarce coins costs multiples or many multiples of much scarcer world issues that are also still in demand. The best values today are not in US coins but in select foreign issues.

The Fed pays USD for gold? Is that at the ridiculous "official" price of $42.22 per ounce or the real market price?

I also would be interested to know if the Fed leases or forward sells any of it. I read from one source that Saudia Arabia had deposited silver with the Bank of England and then when they wanted it back, it was not there. It had been sold in the forward market and the Bank Of England had to go out and buy the bullion back. I do no not know if this story is real or not though.

The best reference book I have ever read is "The Milled Columnarios Of Central & South America" by Frank Gilboy published in 1999. It covers all pillar coin denominations by mint plus provides a historical context on these coins. But you will have a hard time finding it. The print run was was only 500 copies. I bought mine on eBay for $65 in 2002.

Fine, go ahead and point to an anecdotal example if you want. There are not that many 1715 escudos so yes, I can see someone paying a lot of money for a coin like that. But most of the fleet or Treasure coins are not like this one but are 8R which are low quality and are widely available.

The issue which I was addressing was not whether any treasure coin would sell for a lot of money or not but that a coin of the same condition and rarity would generally sell for less if it was a treasure coin because it will usually be inferior. So there is no reason to pay a premium for it. Anyone who wants to pay a premium is basically doing so for the certificate which frequently accompanies them.

NGC has graded shipwreck/salt-water corroded coins. They coined the term "shipwreck effect". And, in regards to marketability, if a reale is from an ID'd shipwreck, it adds a premium. There is a larger market for shipwreck coins compared to other cobs.

You are correct that most "treasure"coins are cobs. That was my error. As for grading, I have seen US coins as you state but never seen a cob or pillar from a shipwreck in an NGC slab. Presumably, the US coins salvaged from a wreck such as the SS Central America were either conserved or did not suffer damage because all of the ones I have seen in an NGC slab are high quality.

That is not the case for cobs or pillars. Almost all of them are lower quality than a comporable cob that is not a "treasure" coin in the same condition (which is poor enough to begin with) and I would find it hard to believe that NGC would put most (or any) of them in a holder with even this designation.

In terms of marketability, according to the "Practical Book of Cobs" by Daniel Sedwick, most of the buyers of these coins are not collectors which is why they overpay for them. If you own such a coin, go ahead and sell it to one of these buyers but serious collectors would not pay any premium at all. Ponterio has occasional auctions with these coins and they sell at a discount whether they are pillars or cobs because of the lower quality.

The Daily Mirror has just run a artical today that there is going to be a sale of Shipwreck coins Estmated a £2,000,000 this year in london !!

Any potential buyer of this material needs to be careful. Most of the coins I have seen at auction are Spanish colonial pillars and mainly 8R. I collect pillars but would not consider most of these coins because most of them are corroded from the exposure to salt water. Many of these have also been improperly cleaned to improve the appearance and remove encrustation. You will not be able to get them graded by NGC or PCGS which substantilaly reduce their future marketability.

The "Milled Columnarios of Central and South America" by Frank Gilboy and Hern's Handbook of South African Coinage by Brian Hern.

The first book cover spanish colonial pillars including die varieties, mintage techniques and rarity scales; a true reference book. (However, the print run was limited to 500 copies.) The second book is more of a price guide for all South African coins but it is the best book for these issues that I have been able to find.