NGCX 1 1

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/24/2022 at 4:04 PM, EagleRJO said:

Looks like the NGCX scale is intended for "modern" bullion and circulating coins since 1982.  What's so significant about the 1982 date other than the change in composition for the cent?  I have heard it argued that 1934 and later is a pretty good dividing line for "modern" circulating coins.

Also follows the bursting of a coin and PM bubble.  Maybe that is another reason.

[zadok]

On 11/23/2022 at 7:09 PM, World Colonial said:

I was attempting to draw an analogy but apparently not successfully.  I know that higher demand = higher price.  I'm not disputing that.

The buyer since the mid to late 70's and especially post TPG is a lot more affluent versus earlier buyers, so I assume more of them are willing to treat higher value purchases as a consumption expense.  This is an inference, not fact.

As an example, I infer that what I'd describe as common or very common coins with higher numbers on the TPG label are viewed as far more desirable primarily due to the price.  It's the most logical reason, since pre-70's collectors obviously didn't think of these coins the same way.

If these coins return to more closely reflect earlier relative prices, I expect collectors will change their perception, again.  Not all of these coins are bought explicitly as "investments" but the buyer would usually never pay this type of price without expecting to get most of their money back. 

Registry sets make a difference but no reason to believe it's important enough to more than a very low minority.  To most buyers, finishing first (or whatever) in a marketing competition doesn't offset losing much or most of your money.

...yes i understand ur inference...personally i prefer "some" to "most" when referring to generalizations toward collectors, but thats just me...i suppose it mite assist if the collectors were separated into those that r "budget" driven as opposed to those that r "collection" driven...i believe that "most" would apply to the "budget" group n "some" to the "collection" group...i personally dont buy my coins as investments for the most part, however in many areas my coins have out-paced my other true investments...i do have a couple of boxes of coins that i do not collect but buy as stand-alone coins i view as long term investments i.e. finest known or finest certified and some where only 4-5 examples r known..."many" collectors r just that, collectors...if i need or want a coin for my collection, especially if i dont think it mite come back on the market again  i just buy it n do not consider whether the price is too high, historically or compared to current price guidelines...once an opportunity is passed it may never present itself again...that goes for registry sets or primary collections...registry sets r vanity sets n i have several other collections r just for me n my own personal satisfaction, no one needs to known the contents or the whereabouts of those coins, i obtain personal satisfaction of owning coins that have never been on the market, r unrecorded in the censuses or that have been off the market for 40-50-60 years, those coins dont have market prices....

[zadok]

On 11/24/2022 at 3:22 PM, gmarguli said:

In the PCGS3000:

Unapproachable: Chain/Wreath 1c in UNC, numerous key dates in near gem/gem, 1792 Half Disme in MS63/64, most early coinage they have listed in MS63-65, key date gold, proof gold, etc. The reality is that the vast number of collectors will never be able to afford any coin that costs anything near these levels. These are dream coins and they shouldn't be used to judge the health of the market. 

Well Heeled: Contains tons of $5K-$50K coins. Median income in US is around $45K and household around $65K. A significant portion of collectors will never be able to afford these and many that do buy at this level may only buy one or two to complete a set. 

I don't know the weight (if any) put on each coin, but I'd much rather have an index like this heavily weighted upon the coins that frequently trade and lightly weighted on the coins that come up for auction once a year. It'd give a much better representation of the whole market.

...what is the big push to have any index at all?...each coin is bought n sold on its own merits, how it compares to all others same date same grade not relevant if the collector knows what he /she is doing...everyone running around n looking at multiple price guides every time they look at any coin just demonstrates that they r probably in the wrong hobby....

[mlovmo]

On 11/16/2022 at 5:14 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

It seems to be a way to bring in more comic and card collectors by making them feel good about a 10-1 grading scale as opposed to Sheldon? I'm going to reread everything again in the morning but that's my first take on it.

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/10916/introducing-ngcx/

https://www.ngccoin.com/specialty-services/ngcx/ 

Agreed.  Also, it MIGHT BE a response to CAC's new grading service...

[Crawtomatic]

On 11/23/2022 at 6:36 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

...but you don't want investor enthusiasm to go the way of stamp collectors, either. 

As a self-described collector of dead & dying media (coins included) I routinely feel like stamp collecting fell to the side because stamps lost their utility.  Most collectors initially start collecting with an item they formed an emotional attachment to at a younger age.  Even 40 years ago the act of mailing letters as a means of correspondence was on the decline.  Then along comes the internet, email, chat boards, etc...  I'd bet 51%+ of households today don't even have a stamp in their possession. 

[World Colonial]

On 11/25/2022 at 8:06 AM, zadok said:

...yes i understand ur inference...personally i prefer "some" to "most" when referring to generalizations toward collectors, but thats just me...i suppose it mite assist if the collectors were separated into those that r "budget" driven as opposed to those that r "collection" driven...i believe that "most" would apply to the "budget" group n "some" to the "collection" group...

You and I do not buy the coins most collectors buy.  

Also, I'm not referring to the typical "low" budget collector whose maximum price point and collection value you might or do consider nominal.  It's hard for me to be more specific than that.

Excluding these collectors, when I look at what most other US collectors are buying, and then look at the prices being paid and how easy it is to buy these coins, and then read the sentiments I have in the numismatic press and coin forums for decades, yes, this combination leads me to believe collectors would overwhelmingly never pay the prices they do (if it's "meaningful") without the expectation of getting most of their money back.  

It's collector specific (no absolutes) and also a function of the amount being spent.  Generically though, collectors did not experience a collective epiphany in the 70's or starting in 1986 where they miraculously discovered that predominantly common coins (especially those with a high number on a TPG label) are so much better than their predecessors thought.

On 11/25/2022 at 8:06 AM, zadok said:

...i do have a couple of boxes of coins that i do not collect but buy as stand-alone coins i view as long term investments i.e. finest known or finest certified and some where only 4-5 examples r known...

Yes, I suspect the number in the US who do this is substantial.  I also infer that most of these aren't US.  The occasion does arise to buy one really "cheap".  

On 11/25/2022 at 8:06 AM, zadok said:

.."many" collectors r just that, collectors...if i need or want a coin for my collection, especially if i dont think it mite come back on the market again  i just buy it n do not consider whether the price is too high, historically or compared to current price guidelines...once an opportunity is passed it may never present itself again...

Once again, this applies to a very low proportion of US coinage, maybe something like 1% to 2% of US Mint issues, if that.  (It's higher for territorial gold, colonials, and patterns.)  If you haven't done so, check out the Hansen mega thread on the PCGS forum as proof of what I am telling you.  (Yes, I know why he can do this while others can't.)

The number and proportion of collectors who 'must" have some specific coin is very low, as overwhelmingly another one (usually many) are available and interchangeable to them.  

[zadok]

On 11/25/2022 at 11:53 AM, World Colonial said:

You and I do not buy the coins most collectors buy.  

Also, I'm not referring to the typical "low" budget collector whose maximum price point and collection value you might or do consider nominal.  It's hard for me to be more specific than that.

Excluding these collectors, when I look at what most other US collectors are buying, and then look at the prices being paid and how easy it is to buy these coins, and then read the sentiments I have in the numismatic press and coin forums for decades, yes, this combination leads me to believe collectors would overwhelmingly never pay the prices they do (if it's "meaningful") without the expectation of getting most of their money back.  

It's collector specific (no absolutes) and also a function of the amount being spent.  Generically though, collectors did not experience a collective epiphany in the 70's or starting in 1986 where they miraculously discovered that predominantly common coins (especially those with a high number on a TPG label) are so much better than their predecessors thought.

Yes, I suspect the number in the US who do this is substantial.  I also infer that most of these aren't US.  The occasion does arise to buy one really "cheap".  

Once again, this applies to a very low proportion of US coinage, maybe something like 1% to 2% of US Mint issues, if that.  (It's higher for territorial gold, colonials, and patterns.)  If you haven't done so, check out the Hansen mega thread on the PCGS forum as proof of what I am telling you.  (Yes, I know why he can do this while others can't.)

The number and proportion of collectors who 'must" have some specific coin is very low, as overwhelmingly another one (usually many) are available and interchangeable to them.  

...yes i think we mostly agree in principle...its diff to put numbers or % on collectors because the spectrum of coins to collect is so diversified...i believe a large proportion of the collectors u categorize r US modern collectors, i was mostly addressing comments for pre 1900 collectors, big diff...i do not collect any moderns not even type...i dont consider any of those coins truly rare, mostly rare only in census conditions...true most collectors dont collect what we collect especially in our non-US coins, where rare means rare...most of my stand-alone coins r US however, foreign often bit diff to sell here...as an aside, my rarest coins both US n foreign r not certified nor do i intend to do so, two reasons, those coins will always sell themselves n i prefer for them not to be known to exist at least not for the present....

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/25/2022 at 11:53 AM, World Colonial said:

this combination leads me to believe collectors would overwhelmingly never pay the prices they do (if it's "meaningful") without the expectation of getting most of their money back.  

It depends on how you define "most" of that money.

If the cumulative investment I make in coins is let's say $100,000 (including or excluding bullion as an investment, doesn't matter).....and if those $$$ would have gown to $250,000 in a basic balanced mutual fund of stocks & bonds......and let's say in 25 years it is worth $100,000 or $80,000 or even $50,000.....I'm probably not going to care much if I am still alive (because presumably mentally I assumed they'd be "zero" if I ever needed the money, which I better not)....or my heirs/estate would get the coins, in which case whatever they are worth they are ahead of the game.

While I would hope my coins would appreciate, I actually ASSUME they will be worth about the same or less (depending on when I bought if it is before or after a big runup) which is why I do NOT consider them investments like stocks and bonds, but rather (depreciating) assets like baseball cards, art, and other tangible "investments" like collector plates or the like.

On 11/25/2022 at 11:53 AM, World Colonial said:

Yes, I suspect the number in the US who do this is substantial. 

What makes you think that ?

On 11/25/2022 at 11:53 AM, World Colonial said:

Once again, this applies to a very low proportion of US coinage, maybe something like 1% to 2% of US Mint issues, if that.  (It's higher for territorial gold, colonials, and patterns.)  If you haven't done so, check out the Hansen mega thread on the PCGS forum as proof of what I am telling you.  (Yes, I know why he can do this while others can't.)  The number and proportion of collectors who 'must" have some specific coin is very low, as overwhelmingly another one (usually many) are available and interchangeable to them.  

Can you give a quick summary of what the Hansen Mega Thread is implying, though I'll try and check it out (if it's really large may take me a while to read) ?

I think that even for lesser-heeled "investors" in coins the expectation is that very few are "investing" $$$ that they can't afford to lose money on.  I don't think that huge declines of 1980-82 or 1989-90 or 2008-2020 aren't forgotten by anybody who reven remotely uses their head.

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[zadok]

On 11/25/2022 at 12:36 PM, zadok said:

...yes i think we mostly agree in principle...its diff to put numbers or % on collectors because the spectrum of coins to collect is so diversified...i believe a large proportion of the collectors u categorize r US modern collectors, i was mostly addressing comments for pre 1900 collectors, big diff...i do not collect any moderns not even type...i dont consider any of those coins truly rare, mostly rare only in census conditions...true most collectors dont collect what we collect especially in our non-US coins, where rare means rare...most of my stand-alone coins r US however, foreign often bit diff to sell here...as an aside, my rarest coins both US n foreign r not certified nor do i intend to do so, two reasons, those coins will always sell themselves n i prefer for them not to be known to exist at least not for the present....

...p.s. just to illustrate...a couple of my number 1 registry sets r my duplicate sets, no need to even list the primary sets, the dups will never be surpassed....

[GoldFinger1969]

Wow, the rebound off the 2019-20 lows has been really impressive.  We basically wiped out the entiree post-2008 bear market.  Let's see if it continues without stimulus checks:

https://www.pcgs.com/prices/coin-index/pcgs3000

Check out the 10-Year Chart to see the end of the U.S. Coin bear market, but hit the 1970 To Date Chart to see how far we are still down from the bubble spike years.

I would guess just looking at the chart that the long-term moving average and trendlines are right about the current level since that massive late-1980's spike has been "absorbed" over time.  Eerily reminiscent of the Japanese Stock Bubble which also peaked at the same time. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[zadok]

On 11/25/2022 at 12:37 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It depends on how you define "most" of that money.

If the cumulative investment I make in coins is let's say $100,000 (including or excluding bullion as an investment, doesn't matter).....and if those $$$ would have gown to $250,000 in a basic balanced mutual fund of stocks & bonds......and let's say in 25 years it is worth $100,000 or $80,000 or even $50,000.....I'm probably not going to care much if I am still alive (because presumably mentally I assumed they'd be "zero" if I ever needed the money, which I better not)....or my heirs/estate would get the coins, in which case whatever they are worth they are ahead of the game.

While I would hope my coins would appreciate, I actually ASSUME they will be worth about the same or less (depending on when I bought if it is before or after a big runup) which is why I do NOT consider them investments like stocks and bonds, but rather (depreciating) assets like baseball cards, art, and other tangible "investments" like collector plates or the like.

What makes you think that ?

Can you give a quick summary of what the Hansen Mega Thread is implying, though I'll try and check it out (if it's really large may take me a while to read) ?

I think that even for lesser-heeled "investors" in coins the expectation is that very few are "investing" $$$ that they can't afford to lose money on.  I don't think that huge declines of 1980-82 or 1989-90 or 2008-2020 aren't forgotten by anybody who reven remotely uses their head.

 

...its very diff to quantify how collectors view the $$$ they put into their collections, i dont even track the amount my coins cost, once i spend the bucks i consider it zero...but many budget driven collectors who spend maybe $100 per month to buy 1 or 2 coins wont/dont even realize that 10-20 years from now their collection will have $25-50K "invested" in it...comparing their investment to the then current worth mite be very revealing....

[EagleRJO]

On 11/24/2022 at 4:24 PM, gmarguli said:

My great great grandfather used to say 1865 was the start of modern coinage... There is no real reason. Different TPGs have called 1970 the modern cutoff. And also 1965. And 1955. ... 1982 is as good as any other date as that was the start of the so-called modern commemorative era. 

I can't imagine that the 1982 date as a cutoff for "modern" coins that the NGCX scale would be used for was just picked out of thin air.  I have heard "modern" as being after 1933 when the gold standard ended and post-depression coin production resumed, after 1970 with the end of silver circulation coins and essentially the end of the bi-metallic money standard (also previously considered "modern" for grading submissions, presently 1965), but not 1982 which seemed like a pretty specific date to just be arbitrary.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/25/2022 at 12:47 PM, zadok said:

...its very diff to quantify how collectors view the $$$ they put into their collections, i dont even track the amount my coins cost, once i spend the bucks i consider it zero...but many budget driven collectors who spend maybe $100 per month to buy 1 or 2 coins wont/dont even realize that 10-20 years from now their collection will have $25-50K "invested" in it...comparing their investment to the then current worth mite be very revealing....

I could understand that 50 years ago....or 40 years ago....or even 25 years ago.

But with all the information on the internet and financial channels, there is no way anybody should be thinking that today.  Sadly, I think it is mostly older people like my father who are no longer able to think clearly or process information.

Edited November 25, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/25/2022 at 1:08 PM, EagleRJO said:

I can't imagine that the 1982 date as a cutoff for "modern" coins that the NGCX scale would be used for was just picked out of thin air.  I have heard "modern" as being after 1933 when the gold standard ended and post-depression coin production resumed, after 1970 with the end of silver circulation coins and essentially the end of the bi-metallic money standard (also previously considered "modern" for grading submissions, presently 1965), but not 1982 which seemed like a pretty specific date to just be arbitrary.

Again....I think starting in 1992 would have been seen to be "cherry picking" after the Great 1989-90 Coin Bubble.  I think by starting in 1982 you eliminate the 1970's:  rampant inflation....chasing of PMs and coins....end of fixed exchange rates....etc.

Since those are largely 1-time events not likely or possible to happen again, that's how you get 1982 as a "good" starting point.

[EagleRJO]

... perhaps 40 yrs old, and not really date specific.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/25/2022 at 1:28 PM, EagleRJO said:

... perhaps 40 yrs old, and not really date specific.

1982 is right at the time when you just got new, modern, speculative "investors" in this sector.  You wouldn't find the same numbers if you went back a few years...or to 1972...or 1962.

After 1980 everything was different.  So I think that's how they came up with 1982.

[VKurtB]

On 11/24/2022 at 3:24 PM, gmarguli said:

My great great grandfather used to say 1865 was the start of modern coinage... 

There is no real reason. Different TPGs have called 1970 the modern cutoff. And also 1965. And 1955. 

1982 is as good as any other date as that was the start of the so-called modern commemorative era. 

The reason they chose 1982 as the line of demarcation is almost certainly the Washington Commemorative. 

[World Colonial]

On 11/25/2022 at 12:37 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It depends on how you define "most" of that money.

If the cumulative investment I make in coins is let's say $100,000 (including or excluding bullion as an investment, doesn't matter).....and if those $$$ would have gown to $250,000 in a basic balanced mutual fund of stocks & bonds......and let's say in 25 years it is worth $100,000 or $80,000 or even $50,000.....I'm probably not going to care much if I am still alive (because presumably mentally I assumed they'd be "zero" if I ever needed the money, which I better not)....or my heirs/estate would get the coins, in which case whatever they are worth they are ahead of the game.

This isn't what I meant.

I do not believe hardly any collectors are buying coins as alternatives to other "investments", buying based upon relative return or adjusting it for relative risk.

The way I see it is they are primarily viewing it in terms of recovering their cost, probably in nominal dollars.

I didn't mean that most coin buyers are financially motivated.  I do not believe this at all.  They just do not like the coins they buy enough to lose "noticeable" money or a proportion of their cost.  Even as alternative consumption expense, they would rather use the money for something else.

Most coin collectors (the vast majority) are actually buying "widgets" and here, I am using the term very broadly.  It's "bad form" to state this, especially for coins that aren't considered cheap to most collectors and the marketing hype (primarily from TPG) in US collecting.

Most coins are easy to buy, except when artificial and arbitrary criteria are used, and most usually have numerous "comparables" which are viewed interchangeably, not by all buyers but most.

If they can buy a "comparable" coin now, tomorrow, next week, next month, or even next year, why would they usually view it any differently, unless the amount is immaterial to them?

Because coins are a "dead asset" producing no income stream, collectively there must be some "slippage" to provide a return to those who provide liquidity, usually dealers.  The money has to come from somewhere and it's the collector end-user.

It's like effectively "renting" the coins we own since no one owns it forever.  All I am saying is that this "rent" has to be an acceptable amount to most buyers.

[World Colonial]

On 11/25/2022 at 12:36 PM, zadok said:

.i believe a large proportion of the collectors u categorize r US modern collectors, i was mostly addressing comments for pre 1900 collectors, big diff...i do not collect any moderns not even type...i dont consider any of those coins truly rare, mostly rare only in census conditions...

True, but I am applying it more broadly.  I don't consider very many US Mint issues (all the way back to 1793) scarce or rare, except in grade or as a specialization which isn't a real rarity and isn't compelling enough to most collectors.

The coins which were more expensive in the pre-financialization era (prior to the 1970's) are somewhat different.  You know which coins I mean.  These coins were "always" expensive even in mid or low circulated grades, which makes it evident that collectors like it for what it is as a collectible, as opposed to mostly for the TPG label reflected in the price.  But even here, I don't believe that most buyers find it interesting enough to ignore price differences just because of the (often minimal) differences in quality which US collecting considers so important now.

As one example, Larry Miller (deceased car chain dealer and Utah Jazz owner) owned a 1794 MS-62 dollar.  He could have bought any of the better ones, yet he didn't.  This coin isn't common, but it isn't that hard to buy in an MS grade either, even though I recall there are only 8-10 known.  It comes up for sale often enough and I presume he also could have bought it privately through the dealer network.

So, since he could easily afford to buy a better one but did not, I presume it wasn't important enough to him.  Same sentiment has been inferred on the Hansen thread ATS.  Just because someone is very wealthy doesn't mean they are indifferent to the financial result.

It's a function of someone's attitude toward collecting and this aspect I am describing is a big part of it.  I don't believe there are more than a very low proportion of diehard collectors whose psychology differs noticeably from my description.

[gmarguli]

On 11/25/2022 at 9:43 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Check out the 10-Year Chart to see the end of the U.S. Coin bear market, but hit the 1970 To Date Chart to see how far we are still down from the bubble spike years.

The chart doesn't take into account is the loosening of grades or inflation. Without those, the chart is useless. 

[zadok]

On 11/25/2022 at 1:19 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I could understand that 50 years ago....or 40 years ago....or even 25 years ago.

But with all the information on the internet and financial channels, there is no way anybody should be thinking that today.  Sadly, I think it is mostly older people like my father who are no longer able to think clearly or process information.

...im not even sure that most coin collectors even watch or pay any attention to the financial channels...i doubt that 50% of the members on this forum watch the financial channels on a daily basis if at all...u should survey....

[World Colonial]

On 11/25/2022 at 12:37 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

What makes you think that ?

It's an inference.

Look at auctions of dealer collections.  It appears to be common there if they were a long-time successful one. They are in the best position to acquire coins at favorable prices through their network, especially if it's their specialty.

I bought two coins from Stacks last week.  Both are AU "details" but he (Pat Johnson) is one of the few who with access to buy it.

With non-US coinage, these coins are very cheap compared to US and I infer many US collectors (it's usually not going to be anyone else) don't understand the factors which explain coin pricing.  They think it's something like general economic affluence (which is essentially irrelevant), so they have an inflated perception of the future prospects.

[zadok]

On 11/25/2022 at 3:31 PM, World Colonial said:

True, but I am applying it more broadly.  I don't consider very many US Mint issues (all the way back to 1793) scarce or rare, except in grade or as a specialization which isn't a real rarity and isn't compelling enough to most collectors.

The coins which were more expensive in the pre-financialization era (prior to the 1970's) are somewhat different.  You know which coins I mean.  These coins were "always" expensive even in mid or low circulated grades, which makes it evident that collectors like it for what it is as a collectible, as opposed to mostly for the TPG label reflected in the price.  But even here, I don't believe that most buyers find it interesting enough to ignore price differences just because of the (often minimal) differences in quality which US collecting considers so important now.

As one example, Larry Miller (deceased car chain dealer and Utah Jazz owner) owned a 1794 MS-62 dollar.  He could have bought any of the better ones, yet he didn't.  This coin isn't common, but it isn't that hard to buy in an MS grade either, even though I recall there are only 8-10 known.  It comes up for sale often enough and I presume he also could have bought it privately through the dealer network.

So, since he could easily afford to buy a better one but did not, I presume it wasn't important enough to him.  Same sentiment has been inferred on the Hansen thread ATS.  Just because someone is very wealthy doesn't mean they are indifferent to the financial result.

It's a function of someone's attitude toward collecting and this aspect I am describing is a big part of it.  I don't believe there are more than a very low proportion of diehard collectors whose psychology differs noticeably from my description.

...i would agree, i mite choose to believe that one of the considerations in this instance was that Mr. Miller's coin collection simply wasnt his primary or major interest among others, id say the same was true for Jerry Buss who dabbled with coin collecting based on the individual coins he purchased but chose to not assemble coins by series....

[World Colonial]

On 11/25/2022 at 12:37 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Can you give a quick summary of what the Hansen Mega Thread is implying, though I'll try and check it out (if it's really large may take me a while to read) ?

The point I was making by referring to this thread is that very few US Mint coins are hard to buy, except when you get into TPG labels or specialization.  Yes, I know that for some of the rarest, he was able to buy it privately but that doesn't change my description meaningfully.

That's why one reason I infer they don't actually view what they buy the way I read it inferred by US collecting generically.  See my last reply to zadok.  

On 11/25/2022 at 12:37 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think that even for lesser-heeled "investors" in coins the expectation is that very few are "investing" $$$ that they can't afford to lose money on.  I don't think that huge declines of 1980-82 or 1989-90 or 2008-2020 aren't forgotten by anybody who reven remotely uses their head.

You're describing "strong hands" versus "weak hands".

I'm not going down the rabbit hole of our different financial and economic view here.

But even ignoring this, it's my inference that there is a substantial difference in different coin segments between those who are actually "strong hands" and those who (most) everyone else might think are but really aren't.

I've seen "big ticket" high profile coins (yes, same coin) sell at a loss (versus prior public sale) but it's not often.  It presumably happens a lot more than I have seen.

Whether it's the reason you give or another one, I don't think it matters.  It's the generic belief (regardless of the reason) that provides the buyer confidence to pay the price they do, where they aren't willing to treat it strictly as a consumption expense.

[World Colonial]

On 11/25/2022 at 12:47 PM, zadok said:

but many budget driven collectors who spend maybe $100 per month to buy 1 or 2 coins wont/dont even realize that 10-20 years from now their collection will have $25-50K "invested" in it...comparing their investment to the then current worth mite be very revealing....

I agree with this sentiment.  Most people aren't very organized and if they treat it as a consumption expense, have no motive to track it.  Most collectors also don't buy (mostly) NGC or PCGS coins to make it easier to value.

I have intentionally gone out of my way to avoid this outcome.  That's why I almost exclusively buy Lima and Potosi pillars.  I'm not rich and have no intent to work longer just to fund my collection, which means I probably won't even be able to complete these sets, much less have budget for anything else.

I've thought about new "side collections" and already have a few but not adding to it.

The main reason I don't add to "side collections" and never make impulse purchases is that I consider these coins inferior to my primary interest.  I'm also not interested in accumulating a hoard of unrelated, undistinguished, or less marketable coins.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/25/2022 at 3:12 PM, World Colonial said:

It's like effectively "renting" the coins we own since no one owns it forever.  All I am saying is that this "rent" has to be an acceptable amount to most buyers.

If I bought an MCMVII High Relief coin....and I knew I was paying a premium price.....I would not be shocked if 10 or 20 or 25 year later it fell in price by 50% for my sales purposes or my heirs/estates.  It would no dissuade me from making the purchase, either.

I think that's a pretty sizeable loss to realize....I would NEVER think a stock or bond mutual fund would lose that over that time horizon (maybe <5 years).  

I think the high-volatility of > 75% losses is confined to non-PM Small Denomination U.S. coins which could find a demographic imbalance downt he line similar to what stamps endured (though maybe 2008-20 was the bottom).   Even here you'd probably figure that 60-75% is the bottom NOW since you're not buying at a bubble peak like 1980, 1989, or 2008.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/25/2022 at 2:02 PM, VKurtB said:

The reason they chose 1982 as the line of demarcation is almost certainly the Washington Commemorative. 

Which means, what, for us novices ? 

Commemoratives actually soared in the 1980's and were the most impacted by the end of the Coin Bubble in 1989....PMs and regular series U.S. coins did NOT do much in the 1980's.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/25/2022 at 3:38 PM, gmarguli said:

The chart doesn't take into account is the loosening of grades or inflation. Without those, the chart is useless. 

Good point, but it's all we got. 

And the Coin Bubble of 1989 was right after PCGS and NGC opened for business.  It wasn't the TPGs that were the reason for the spike -- they were a contributing factor -- but the promise of Wall Street and institutional $$$ into the sector.

MS-65 common Saints traded at a 500-700% premium to their gold content.   The last 20 years or so, it's a 20-100% premium. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/25/2022 at 3:39 PM, zadok said:

...im not even sure that most coin collectors even watch or pay any attention to the financial channels...i doubt that 50% of the members on this forum watch the financial channels on a daily basis if at all...u should survey....

Regardless, people today know much more about where the stock market is at...interest rates....the economy.

In the 1970's or 1980's, it was only those who read The NYT Business Section or The WSJ.  That was about it.  My father used to get his financial news on the 55-minute mark from commentators on WINS and WCBS-880 here in NY driving home or to work each day.  That was it.

I can still remember those zero-coupon ads in 1981 when I commuted with him...nobody wanted those 14, 15, 16% interest rates !!!  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/25/2022 at 3:57 PM, World Colonial said:

I've seen "big ticket" high profile coins (yes, same coin) sell at a loss (versus prior public sale) but it's not often.  It presumably happens a lot more than I have seen.  Whether it's the reason you give or another one, I don't think it matters.  It's the generic belief (regardless of the reason) that provides the buyer confidence to pay the price they do, where they aren't willing to treat it strictly as a consumption expense.

Look at real estate, which is largely replaceable:  prices are falling for trophy homes, super-expensive beach houses, skyscraper mansions, etc.  There's always more of these being produced (just look at the NYC skyline  ).

OTOH, unique art pieces seem to be holding up.   Can't produce more DaVinci's, Rembrants, Van Gough's, etc.  More bidders....no more supply = stable or rising prices.

Edited November 25, 2022 by GoldFinger1969