I rarely think along these lines, but some generic type coins sure seem cheap!

[jom]

I do not have a list from US coins since I do not buy them.

 

I do agree that Mercury dimes in PR-65 (Or better?) seem like a good COLLECTIBLE value at $150. Personally, I would probably try to buy one of the CAM from whatever date that has the most of them (which I cannot remember). The last time, these were not that expensive either.

 

Very few Proof Mercury Dimes of any date have been designated Cameo by NGC or PCGS. And the ones that have, have generally sold at substantial premiums - to the tune of many multiples of non-cameo examples.

 

I think I created a thread about this last year. The 36-42 era proofs are very rare in Cameo....for example it seems PCGS has never graded a Washington quarter Cameo from those dates. I don't remember exactly but I think the Merc is probably the most "common" of the types in this regard.

 

jom

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't usually pay attention to such situations or care, but every once in a while, I can't help but think certain coins seem cheap.

 

Such is the situation now with, among others, the following :

 

Mercury Dimes graded PR65-67

Walkers graded MS65-67 and PR65-67

$3 Gold pieces graded MS63-65

$10 Indian's graded MS63-64

$20 Saints graded MS64-65

I am not saying that you are wrong, but my opinion and experience differ a bit on your specific list. I think generic Walkers at MS-65 and up are actually overpriced, and think that is also true of Saints in those grades.

 

However, I think Saints at MS-67 are underpriced, if the particular coin is a TRUE MS-67 (and not a "green label wells fargo" or other generally inflated 67).

 

To me, one underpriced series is SLQs in any non-FH UNC grade.

James, I'm not saying you're wrong, but upon what do you base your opinions?

 

For example, gold is at $1671 and MS64 Saints are bid at slightly over $1800 with an ask below $1900. That seems ike a pretty small premium to me - what would make you think they were cheap on a historical basis, considering premiums to the spot price of gold?.

With regard to Saints, my opinion is based on cataloging duties of the past several years. It seems like there are so very many of these graded MS-64 that they really aren't worthy of a premium. The value of generic Saints also seems unlikely to suddenly push up for numismatic reasons because hardly anyone collects them as a series. Thus, most people only care to buy one or two as types, and the supply far outstrips that need.

 

But again, that's at the MS-64 through MS-66 level. I perceive MS-67 as the "tipping point". At that grade, these are far from common, and I'll guess that market value on an MS-67 Saint is something like $6000 to $7000. It is at the MS-67 grade that the coins go from being marked up to becoming really nice -- sharply struck, evenly toned, lustrous and clean from distracting contact marks... which allows one to truly appreciate the universally revered design. It's kind of like an "everybody should own one" coin, yet I practically never see them. It seems like these factors add up to something that should be worth much more than $6000 to $7000.

[AnkurJ]

Same as everyone has said about proof walkers. I believe a big collection released a hoard onto the market dropping prices everywhere.

Proof merc dimes have been cheap for a while. Not much demand for them it seems.

 

Personally it seems type 2 gold dollars in below MS seem cheap.

[MarkFeld]

I don't usually pay attention to such situations or care, but every once in a while, I can't help but think certain coins seem cheap.

 

Such is the situation now with, among others, the following :

 

Mercury Dimes graded PR65-67

Walkers graded MS65-67 and PR65-67

$3 Gold pieces graded MS63-65

$10 Indian's graded MS63-64

$20 Saints graded MS64-65

I am not saying that you are wrong, but my opinion and experience differ a bit on your specific list. I think generic Walkers at MS-65 and up are actually overpriced, and think that is also true of Saints in those grades.

 

However, I think Saints at MS-67 are underpriced, if the particular coin is a TRUE MS-67 (and not a "green label wells fargo" or other generally inflated 67).

 

To me, one underpriced series is SLQs in any non-FH UNC grade.

 

James, that sounds reasonable. With one exception - nice MS67 Saints typically sell for $10,000 and up, already.

James, I'm not saying you're wrong, but upon what do you base your opinions?

 

For example, gold is at $1671 and MS64 Saints are bid at slightly over $1800 with an ask below $1900. That seems ike a pretty small premium to me - what would make you think they were cheap on a historical basis, considering premiums to the spot price of gold?.

With regard to Saints, my opinion is based on cataloging duties of the past several years. It seems like there are so very many of these graded MS-64 that they really aren't worthy of a premium. The value of generic Saints also seems unlikely to suddenly push up for numismatic reasons because hardly anyone collects them as a series. Thus, most people only care to buy one or two as types, and the supply far outstrips that need.

 

But again, that's at the MS-64 through MS-66 level. I perceive MS-67 as the "tipping point". At that grade, these are far from common, and I'll guess that market value on an MS-67 Saint is something like $6000 to $7000. It is at the MS-67 grade that the coins go from being marked up to becoming really nice -- sharply struck, evenly toned, lustrous and clean from distracting contact marks... which allows one to truly appreciate the universally revered design. It's kind of like an "everybody should own one" coin, yet I practically never see them. It seems like these factors add up to something that should be worth much more than $6000 to $7000.

 

James, nice MS67 Saints typically sell for $10000+, already

[Kurtdog]

I have a few general problems with the original question and its phrasing, and the multiple thoughts in reply to the question.

 

First, the thrust of the question is skewed. It seems to concentrate on the idea of collecting for monetary return, and considers lowering some non-defined collecting standard by considering "generic" coins.

 

Second, the emphasis of the original question seems to prefer investment over collecting, given a perceived economic condition windfall that would favor the lowering of the non-defined standard at this time.

 

Third, the word "cheap" is simply skewed. In order to determine the relative value for comparison, I would think we would have to, at a minimum, eliminate any values/prices that were the result of manipulation, up or down, that makes a person decide to consider the purchase of these "generic" coins now, as opposed to then.

 

I understand that there is a valid school of thought that would be presented: I could not afford that coin way back in 1579. Now that the coin is "cheaper" than it was then, it is a bargain.

 

Is this really a valid school of thought, all things considered?

 

From a Dealer perspective, I certainly understand contemplating the question, because it may mean the difference between eating peanut butter or a nice fish dinner. From a collector perspective, I understand contemplating the question if it allows the collector to buy "more" with the coin money budget. But (blah, blah) does it really?

 

Does the original question itself defy the often stated mantra of buy the best you can in the highest grade and leave the widgets to drown?

 

Ready, aim, fire....I have already started running.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

I don't collect coins for their investment potential, I invest in stocks for their investment potential. Yes, this is a coin-investing question, not a coin-collecting question.

[MarkFeld]

I have a few general problems with the original question and its phrasing, and the multiple thoughts in reply to the question.

 

First, the thrust of the question is skewed. It seems to concentrate on the idea of collecting for monetary return, and considers lowering some non-defined collecting standard by considering "generic" coins.

 

Second, the emphasis of the original question seems to prefer investment over collecting, given a perceived economic condition windfall that would favor the lowering of the non-defined standard at this time.

 

Third, the word "cheap" is simply skewed. In order to determine the relative value for comparison, I would think we would have to, at a minimum, eliminate any values/prices that were the result of manipulation, up or down, that makes a person decide to consider the purchase of these "generic" coins now, as opposed to then.

 

I understand that there is a valid school of thought that would be presented: I could not afford that coin way back in 1579. Now that the coin is "cheaper" than it was then, it is a bargain.

 

Is this really a valid school of thought, all things considered?

 

From a Dealer perspective, I certainly understand contemplating the question, because it may mean the difference between eating peanut butter or a nice fish dinner. From a collector perspective, I understand contemplating the question if it allows the collector to buy "more" with the coin money budget. But (blah, blah) does it really?

 

Does the original question itself defy the often stated mantra of buy the best you can in the highest grade and leave the widgets to drown?

 

Ready, aim, fire....I have already started running.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

John, taking advantage of what MIGHT be low or "cheap" prices, is not confined to investors or "monetary gain".

 

I am not advocating that anyone make such investments, and I don't typically recommend coins as investments, even though I am a rare coin dealer.

 

However, if someone has been considering buying any of the coins mentioned (by me or others in this thread), it MIGHT be a good time to buy it/them now, when price levels are relatively low, compared o those of two or more years ago.

 

Yes, I might try to acquire some for "monetary gain", but that was not the point of my thread. My apologies for not having been clearer. And thank you for your well intended and successful nudge.

[Kurtdog]

I understand that, but the perception of silver at 5 an ounce and a 30 dollar dime versus 28 an ounce and the dime hasnt changed, makes the dime cheaper perception-wise. also cheaper due to inflation.

These prices are determined on different supply and demand curves. And, yes, sometimes the bullion price will exceed the numismatic price on a particular coin at a particular grade. That event won't shift the numismatic supply and demand curve, however; that's my point.

[mumu]

I dont think you can dissacociate at least some degree of investability in any collectible. No one wants to collect anything they are guaranteed to lose money on. I'm not saying no one actually does do that in some cases, but nobody purposely sets out with that idea in mind.

 

There is definitely a scale or a line somewhere the seperates people on these and other forums between purists and profiteers. But I dont think even the purists can deny a desire in value.

[Kurtdog]

I dont think you can dissacociate at least some degree of investability in any collectible. No one wants to collect anything they are guaranteed to lose money on. I'm not saying no one actually does do that in some cases, but nobody purposely sets out with that idea in mind.

 

There is definitely a scale or a line somewhere the seperates people on these and other forums between purists and profiteers. But I dont think even the purists can deny a desire in value.

I may be alone on this but I don't collect coins to make money. In the long-run, I don't think coins are a good investment. In the short-run, anything can happen. One wants to gamble on coins in the short-run, this is the kind of thread one wants to see.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thank You Mark.

I am certain you know my intentions were not with ill will.

 

In these times of fiat money, it is easy for a person to interpret "cheap" the wrong way. We all do so.

 

I did not believe you were or are advocating investment strategy via coin collecting.

 

I was trying to assist you, via a clarification perspective.

I appreciate that you recognized same.

 

I also forgot my manners-Your kind words on the other Thread about my Post was very nice. Thank You.

 

I don't have to say "..no soup for you...".

 

With Respect,

John Curlis

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The opposing point of view is not the "investability" issue. It is investment gain.

 

Coin collecting will always be an investment. The return on this investment is an entirely different subject, and the decision and choice to collect coins- or anything else for that matter- should not be based on increased investment potential.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[James_OldeTowne]

James, nice MS67 Saints typically sell for $10000+, already

Mark, this link to Heritage auction results would argue otherwise unless, of course, none of the sold coins is "nice". It looks like they can be had from $6600 through $7800 more or less, about in-line with my guess. And that's top money at auction.

 

Yeah, $7000 is a lot of money, more than I have at my disposal. But Saints are practically THE ultimate "generic type coin", per the subject of the thread, in grades below MS-67. It's just my own opinion that this price range is "cheap" for coins that I practically never see. I'll bet I saw two or fewer at this past ANA, and I do look for them.

[MarkFeld]

James, nice MS67 Saints typically sell for $10000+, already

Mark, this link to Heritage auction results would argue otherwise unless, of course, none of the sold coins is "nice". It looks like they can be had from $6600 through $7800 more or less, about in-line with my guess. And that's top money at auction.

 

Yeah, $7000 is a lot of money, more than I have at my disposal. But Saints are practically THE ultimate "generic type coin", per the subject of the thread, in grades below MS-67. It's just my own opinion that this price range is "cheap" for coins that I practically never see. I'll bet I saw two or fewer at this past ANA, and I do look for them.

 

James, I wasn't just guessing. My $10,000+ figure was based on having viewed quite a few MS67's in hand and following the prices. I am admittedly picky, but none of the ones I liked brought less than $10,000. My guess is that you would be unhappy with most of the ones that sold in the range you noted. That is, unless your grading has gotten a lot looser.

 

Also, your $6600-$7800 range is clearly not "top money at auction".

 

Here are only some of the ones that sold this year for quite a bit more than the range you indicated:

 

$13,800

 

$16,100

 

$11,513

 

$11,500

 

$17,250

 

 

[crypto79-migration]

AU55-58 Seated dollars

[James_OldeTowne]

James, nice MS67 Saints typically sell for $10000+, already

Mark, this link to Heritage auction results would argue otherwise unless, of course, none of the sold coins is "nice". It looks like they can be had from $6600 through $7800 more or less, about in-line with my guess. And that's top money at auction.

 

Yeah, $7000 is a lot of money, more than I have at my disposal. But Saints are practically THE ultimate "generic type coin", per the subject of the thread, in grades below MS-67. It's just my own opinion that this price range is "cheap" for coins that I practically never see. I'll bet I saw two or fewer at this past ANA, and I do look for them.

 

James, I wasn't just guessing. My $10,000+ figure was based on having viewed quite a few MS67's in hand and following the prices. I am admittedly picky, but none of the ones I liked brought less than $10,000. My guess is that you would be unhappy with most of the ones that sold in the range you noted. That is, unless your grading has gotten a lot looser.

 

Also, your $6600-$7800 range is clearly not "top money at auction".

 

Here are only some of the ones that sold this year for quite a bit more than the range you indicated:

 

$13,800

 

$16,100

 

$11,513

 

$11,500

 

$17,250

By "top money at auction", I am drawing a contrast to "normal pricing from the bourse/coinshop/wherever". We all know that a Heritage auction, like any major auction, is entirely geared to obtaining top dollar for coins. Therefore, it MIGHT be possible to get equivalent coins elsewhere for less.

 

And do note my previous caveat where I admit that coins in my referenced Heritage page are not necessarily all "nice".

[JIM F.]

I like current prices for the PF-65 - PF-67 Mercs and Walkers and have been accumulating the dates 1938-1942 - the 1936 and 1937s are a bit pricey for me though.

 

I also like current prices on PF-64 RB IHCs and Matte PF Lincolns.

 

"Classic" gold commems are also interesting at current pricing.

 

 

[DirtyGoldMan]

James, nice MS67 Saints typically sell for $10000+, already

Mark, this link to Heritage auction results would argue otherwise unless, of course, none of the sold coins is "nice". It looks like they can be had from $6600 through $7800 more or less, about in-line with my guess. And that's top money at auction.

 

Yeah, $7000 is a lot of money, more than I have at my disposal. But Saints are practically THE ultimate "generic type coin", per the subject of the thread, in grades below MS-67. It's just my own opinion that this price range is "cheap" for coins that I practically never see. I'll bet I saw two or fewer at this past ANA, and I do look for them.

 

James, I wasn't just guessing. My $10,000+ figure was based on having viewed quite a few MS67's in hand and following the prices. I am admittedly picky, but none of the ones I liked brought less than $10,000. My guess is that you would be unhappy with most of the ones that sold in the range you noted. That is, unless your grading has gotten a lot looser.

 

Also, your $6600-$7800 range is clearly not "top money at auction".

 

Here are only some of the ones that sold this year for quite a bit more than the range you indicated:

 

$13,800

 

$16,100

 

$11,513

 

$11,500

 

$17,250

By "top money at auction", I am drawing a contrast to "normal pricing from the bourse/coinshop/wherever". We all know that a Heritage auction, like any major auction, is entirely geared to obtaining top dollar for coins. Therefore, it MIGHT be possible to get equivalent coins elsewhere for less.

 

And do note my previous caveat where I admit that coins in my referenced Heritage page are not necessarily all "nice".

 

From Legend's website today:

 

Re: MS-67 Saints--"Our sightUNSEEN BID for ANY PCGS/CAC (ONLY) piece is $12,500.00."

 

James, if I were you, I would buy them for $8000, CAC, and watch the money roll in.

[mkman123]

Laura doesn't want ngc cac saints? Why not?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Laura doesn't want ngc cac saints? Why not?

 

That strikes me as a very fair question.

 

If the 4th Party Grader is acceptable sight unseen for one TPG, why not for another? I would think the 4th Party Grader would not be biased.

 

The only logical reason left would be it may be harder to spell...

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

Laura doesn't want ngc cac saints? Why not?

 

That strikes me as a very fair question.

 

If the 4th Party Grader is acceptable sight unseen for one TPG, why not for another? I would think the 4th Party Grader would not be biased.

 

The only logical reason left would be it may be harder to spell...

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

I think you meant, that perhaps, even with a CAC sticker, an NGC example might be easier to spell, but more difficult to sell than a PCGS one?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Sigh....

 

PCGSCAC.

 

NGCCAC.

 

The mistakes usually happen with the double letters.

 

I will, for discussion purposes, agree to your reasoning.

 

However, the logic posit would then be that the 4th Party Graders' opinion can not be "trusted" when evaluating certain TPGs.

 

This would seem to be a marketing failure. What is selling, the TPG, or the 4th Party Grader? If it is one TPG over another, then the 4th Party Grader labeling is useless. I must, from a logic point, challenge you.

 

If you are correct, and sales support this, I would make the argument that the 4th Party Grader is biased. I have not seen or read evidence of this.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

Sigh....

 

PCGSCAC.

 

NGCCAC.

 

The mistakes usually happen with the double letters.

 

I will, for discussion purposes, agree to your reasoning.

 

However, the logic posit would then be that the 4th Party Graders' opinion can not be "trusted" when evaluating certain TPGs.

 

This would seem to be a marketing failure. What is selling, the TPG, or the 4th Party Grader? If it is one TPG over another, then the 4th Party Grader labeling is useless. I must, from a logic point, challenge you.

 

If you are correct, and sales support this, I would make the argument that the 4th Party Grader is biased. I have not seen or read evidence of this.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

I believe that the bias resides with some buyers (and sellers), not the 4th Party Grader.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Then it seems you are agreeing it is a marketing failure, and some very serious work needs to be done, because there should not be any bias by the seller or buyer, when the point of the sale is the 4th Party Market Branding, if they are doing their job.

 

PS: Can I go back to using CAC now, without offending anybody? I am getting a little confused using 4th Party Grader.....

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

Then it seems you are agreeing it is a marketing failure, and some very serious work needs to be done, because there should not be any bias by the seller or buyer, when the point of the sale is the 4th Party Market Branding, if they are doing their job.

 

PS: Can I go back to using CAC now, without offending anybody? I am getting a little confused using 4th Party Grader.....

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

I believe that in many instances, CAC has helped bridge, if not close entirely, the gap in prices between NGC and PCGS coins.

 

However, clearly they can't do it all by themselves. So, while CAC will pay the same for NGC coins as it will for PCGS coins, they can't force others to do the same. Some of those others will, while some of them wont.

 

I can't speak for others, but you wont offend me by writing "CAC" in place of "4th Party Grader".

[yonico]

This might be a bit off-topic, but I find it very annoying that common, low grade morgan/peace dollars and "junk" 90% halves/quarters/dimes are sold BELOW their MELT value (i own a store and I buy 90% silver u.s coins all the time, and unless I sell to RETAIL customers, I get about 1.5%-2.5% below melt for these) - while Silver American Eagle & CA Maple Leaf & even brand or generic silver bars sell for $2-$3 OVER spot!

For $100, most of my customers would rather buy 3x 1989 silver eagles, than 4x VG/Fine 1889 Morgans..

[Arizonadesertrat]

JC, you are omitting one very important point. All CAC is doing is identifying coins that its consortium members (presumably) will deem acceptable for the purpose of sight-unseen trading. The CAC green bean could identify an 'A' coin or a 'B' coin (for a given grade), but not a 'C' one. It is entirely possible for a TPG1 MSXY CAC coin to be deemed slightly inferior to a TPG2 MSXY CAC coin precisely because of a market perception that TPG1's coins tend to be 'B' while TPG2's coins tend to be 'A'.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

JC, you are omitting one very important point. All CAC is doing is identifying coins that its consortium members (presumably) will deem acceptable for the purpose of sight-unseen trading. The CAC green bean could identify an 'A' coin or a 'B' coin (for a given grade), but not a 'C' one. It is entirely possible for a TPG1 MSXY CAC coin to be deemed slightly inferior to a TPG2 MSXY CAC coin precisely because of a market perception that TPG1's coins tend to be 'B' while TPG2's coins tend to be 'A'.

 

Thank You for your reply.

 

However, while I appreciate your reasoning, it is does not explain bias.

Since a step letter grading is not used in the market logo branding, it is a moot point. The issue is the bias toward one TPG with the same market branding as the other (shall we say preferred) TPG.

 

I submit that if the entity in question here -Legend- has decided that it will not offer the same courtesy of equality for an NGCCAC branded coin as it does for a PCGSCAC branded coin, then the marketing failure is squarely on the shoulders of CAC. There can be no logical reason for the Legend decision other than bias toward NGC itself, (this has been suggested to me), and the reasons for that bias seem to be an unstated opinion of NGC grading abilities and quality.

 

BUT (blah, blah), if CAC has truly "removed" the bias that Legend displays, by CAC branding an NGC coin with their logo, then Legend is declaring to the public it does not trust CAC when CAC brands an NGC coin. This is a failure of CAC, not Legend.

 

Fairly or unfairly, Legend has removed its glove for the duel.

 

Is legend doing its customers a favor? Is Legend misleading its customers in order to market PCGS, with or without a CAC logo? Is Legend bias and supporting PCGS for purely business reasons and a marketing connection between Legend and PCGS? All of these reasons may have merit, however, they all would have one thing in common-CAC has a marketing problem and should move to correct a perception that is being transmitted to the numismatic public via Legend non-offer to place NGCCAC branding on the same pedestal as PCGSCAC branding.

 

Indeed, your answer itself supports my position (as it should).

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Then it seems you are agreeing it is a marketing failure, and some very serious work needs to be done, because there should not be any bias by the seller or buyer, when the point of the sale is the 4th Party Market Branding, if they are doing their job.

 

PS: Can I go back to using CAC now, without offending anybody? I am getting a little confused using 4th Party Grader.....

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

I believe that in many instances, CAC has helped bridge, if not close entirely, the gap in prices between NGC and PCGS coins.

 

However, clearly they can't do it all by themselves. So, while CAC will pay the same for NGC coins as it will for PCGS coins, they can't force others to do the same. Some of those others will, while some of them wont.

 

I can't speak for others, but you wont offend me by writing "CAC" in place of "4th Party Grader".

 

Thank You Mark.

 

Rather than repeat a reply for no reason, see my answer to another forum member that I posted before this Post. I would proffer the same to you as a reply.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

This might be a bit off-topic, but I find it very annoying that common, low grade morgan/peace dollars and "junk" 90% halves/quarters/dimes are sold BELOW their MELT value (i own a store and I buy 90% silver u.s coins all the time, and unless I sell to RETAIL customers, I get about 1.5%-2.5% below melt for these) - while Silver American Eagle & CA Maple Leaf & even brand or generic silver bars sell for $2-$3 OVER spot!

For $100, most of my customers would rather buy 3x 1989 silver eagles, than 4x VG/Fine 1889 Morgans..

 

Curiously, why does that annoy you?

[mkman123]

A ngc cac should be the same as a pcgs cac unless cac is grading each coin differently which they shouldn't. Wish Laura would lay off the juice. Maybe she is the one in the cac suit Ankur posted a pic of?