World Colonial

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About World Colonial

  • Boards Title
    I was posting here when you were in diapers.
  1. To grade or not to grade

    Can't tell the potential grade from your image and don't know how to accurately grade this series either. What I can tell you is that the 38-D Buffalo is one of the most common US circulating coins in high quality dated prior to 1999. The population count at both services exceeds 100,000 with most MS-65 or MS-66. The two die varieties you mentioned aren't scarce either. At minimum, I expect you would need to receive an MS-65 to break even and maybe an MS-66. You can check prior prices on eBay or Heritage.
  2. My assumption is that most Sovereign collectors are located in the countries you state, since this is where the coins were struck other than India and South Africa. Can't speak for India but South African collectors only collect their own either totally or almost exclusively. The 1923 circulation strike is rare, the 1924 is scarce (not rare) and the 1923 proof is one of the most overrated and overpriced coins in the entire Union series. The rest of the dates (1925-1932) are common, both the Sovereign and half Sovereign (1925, 1926). Nothing wrong with a good story. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or knocking their preference for pedigrees. I'd compete for one in my series from one of the more prominent collections but otherwise would never pay any premium for what is otherwise a common coin, but my standards not those of most other collectors.
  3. Sure, I understand your point. If the object actually met the criteria you described, maybe I would. The point I am making is that by my definition, it hardly ever does or doesn't at all. Not at all in coin collecting and certainly doesn't for any of the coins I collect. I don't consider any of the "famous" or "prominent" collections or collectors to be famous or prominent at all. I am aware it presumably does by the standards of most other contributors on this forum and PCGS but then, it should be apparent from prior posts that my standards of significance and distinction are a lot higher. Whether it would be of interest to others depends upon who the "others" happen to be. Sure, to US collectors, the Eliasberg pedigree carries some weight along with a few of those I listed. But then, most of the coins owned by current collectors from these collections were an afterthought in the context of these collections. Maybe a nice coin (or not) frequently with a (much) higher perception than when this collector owned it due to the really low standards of significance prevalent among US collectors in the last few decades. From your prior posts, I understand you collect Sovereigns and I collect pillar minors as my primary collecting interest now. Your series is more widely collected than mine but there are no actually famous collections or collectors of either. I presume in the UK more collectors know of the prominent Sovereign collections but it's likely to still be a low minority and almost no one elsewhere has ever heard of them. With my series, I'd be interested in owning certain coins from the Patterson, Norweb (now ANS) and a few other collections. However, my motive is because there are few (and maybe no) remotely comparable specimens elsewhere. I really don't care that this person owned it, other than helping to confirm authenticity. If the coin(s) comes up for sale, it's possibly my one and only opportunity to buy it, like the 1763 PCGS MS-62 Peru Real I bought last year which I believe came from Patterson. As for the perception of the non-collector for these pedigrees, public perception of these collections and collectors should be apparent.
  4. It will have different value to different collectors. On the highest ranked registry sets, my contention is that practically none of them are actually "outstanding" because the significance is contrived along with the "scarcity" and "rarity". Worth collecting and nice? Certainly. Are these collections remotely what most US collectors apparently imply or claim? No. The biggest challenge is actually coming up with the money, not finding the coins. Of course, many (and maybe most) US collectors think or claim otherwise but then, that's because no collectors in the aggregate elsewhere have the same tendency to exaggerate the merits of the coins they like and collect. I don't find this surprising either because it's human nature to rationalize something which should be obvious to any impartial observer. The biggest rationalization is to justify the hugely inflated price level. That's exactly what South African collectors also do (just a lot less than here) and though these coins are usually much scarcer, it's also financially driven and based upon minor quality differences. Lastly on the history, that's another topic where I disagree with practically every comment I have ever read on any coin forum. Used in the abstract, I understand why forum contributors think it. When used literally with most coins, it makes no sense generically and has little if any significance. Every coin has a history and a provenance. To take this concept to its illogical conclusion, I suppose it's supposed to matter who owned every 1957-D wheat cent. If this sounds ridiculous, I intend it to be and I use this example because there isn't actually much difference with the overwhelming majority of coins.
  5. True, and why would most collectors care about this for most coins? The answer is they don't. I am aware that a few do but most coins are far too generic where it has any useful value. As with numerous other things in collecting, by an amazing coincidence, it seems to matter a lot more to US collectors than anyone else. The reason I gave is by far the most important one I know. Disproportionately, the provenance history is known best for a very low number or proportion of British and US coins such as the 1804 Dollars and the 1861 CSA half dollar. JGlenn mentions the Huntington collection. Yesterday, I performed a web search to find out what I already knew. His Spanish colonial coins were sold by Morton & Eden in 2013. Approximately 1500 coins. Of these, four Peru pillar minors were sold in one group lot, including a 1762 Real which I would grade low to mid-AU (by far the best and maybe the only one I have ever seen) which I didn't buy because I wasn't aware of the auction. Due to it's low value at the time, I'd rate the chances as virtually nil that anyone would have counterfeited this coin up to 1908 when the collection was purportedly completed. The face value equivalent of this coin was 12 1/2 cents and I'd guess he paid less than a quarter for it. But if a better and much more expensive coin from this or one of my other series came up for sale for a scarce/rare date I had never seen, I'd care if it came with a provenance such as this one. On the other hand if and when my collection is sold, I don't see why anyone would care and I probably have one of the best collections from this mint since the coins are really hard to find and few collect it. Practically all are in NGC and PCGS holders and that's worth a lot more to a prospective buyer. Of the most prominent collections, I know that most others have a much higher opinion than I do for most of them. Of those I know, I'd rate Eliasberg, Ford, Pittman, Farouk, Norweb, and maybe Garrett and Lilly as the first tier. Others such as Newman and Bebee somewhat below it. I have a lower or much lower opinion of the more recent collections. Every one I know is much narrower and the perception (usually by US collectors) is substantially if not disproportionately driven by minor differences in quality. If a poll were to be taken on this forum and PCGS, I'd guess that older collectors would choose one on my list (probably Eliasberg) while (somewhat) younger ones would choose Pogue. While acknowledging Pogue as one of the best ever, I don't see it in the same league as those I listed. Sure, it's ultra high quality but it isn't that hard to buy most of the coins in a slightly lower one. The biggest obstacle is the money. With the collections I listed, many of the coins aren't expensive but even with the internet, aren't necessarily much easier to buy now versus then because a multiple are competing for it, very few are available and will only be sold at much higher proportional prices versus market value. Assuming you know the owner's identity, it can be bought for "stupid money" but not otherwise. Lastly, for collections consisting of a single series such as the highest rated registry sets, I'd assign the provenance a value of exactly zero. This includes the most widely collected US with the highest number of registry participants where by traditional standards, essentially identical coins can be bought by the dozens, hundreds, thousands and sometimes even more.
  6. 2017s proof silver eagle

    I don't collect this series but I share the same sentiments. I believe that most of the premiums from the OGP and TPG labels will either shrink or disappear entirely longer term. If the buyer doesn't care, it won't matter. Somehow though, I think they will.
  7. I would and will if it helps establish authenticity but don't consider that an issue with many (edit: make that most) coins and won't otherwise. I also suspect that my definition of "legendary collector" differs from yours. Most of the supposed prominent collections aren't known to most other collectors, even when these people collected the same series or coins.
  8. Coin value estimate 1949s fbl pl half

    I suspect you are going to have a hard time getting a good estimate on this coin. There can't be many which simultaneously are FBL, PL and with a CAC sticker. My initial suggestion was to look on Heritage which is where I always start for all US coins other than most NCLT and lower priced US classics and circulating moderns, but I suspect you aren't going to find a prior sale there either.
  9. proof walkers

    Proof WLH, Seated coinage or Barbers weren't high on my list and never will be, like maybe in the range of number 500 to 1000 out of all of the type coins available to be bought. I don't know how other collectors decide what they want to buy. I look at most of the universe only automatically excluding most coins without western alphabets in the legend. Everything else is a candidate and then I go for the coins I consider most interesting for my budget.
  10. proof walkers

    Over the years, I have looked at a lot of prior auction results which for US coins is almost exclusively from the Heritage archives. My recollection is that with limited exceptions, the prices for proof condition rarities are usually a lot lower than circulation strikes. I presume this is due to the (proportionately) lower or far lower number of series collectors. Even among pre-1858 Seated proofs, the prices of at least some dates are "low" for a US coin given the number of estimated survivors. As one example, Northeast Numismatics offered (don't know the sales price) an 1857 NGC PR-63 quarter for $5750 about 10 years ago. A Heritage listing states 40 minted with maybe two dozen known. Subsequently, I believe one in the same grade (maybe the same coin) sold for less. I presume it's because most buyers only want one example, don't really care about the date and look for one with better eye appeal, whether for Seated, Barber and to some extent also 1936-1942 proofs. Soon after I resumed collecting in 1998 and on occasion since, I have reviewed prices for all three groups. I thought I might buy one in a grade like 63. Today and recently, I wouldn't want it below PR-64 CAM. Too many hairlines and not enough eye appeal. I suspect a lot of collectors think likewise even though Walkers cover only seven years. Even with a low combined population, there isn't the competition which exists for the highest grade circulation strikes of a particular date. This applies even more to the more common Seated proofs and Barbers. Barber halves and quarters mintages I believe range from around 500 to slightly over 1000 for each date. Sure the mintage appears low, but it isn't that low compared to the number of surviving circulation strikes for each date. With few series collectors, with a combined mintage (for the series) maybe between 15,000 and 25,000, that's a lot of supply even if only half survive when most of the relatively few collectors who even want one still only want one. Hence the "low" prices.
  11. proof walkers

    I only checked the Heritage archives. Five sales listed for 1942 PR-66, all in NGC holders and none recent. The last cameo sale for a WLH is from 2014. For this post, I didn't check the population data but maybe the example you cited is a PCGS coin. The counts are (proportionately) a lot lower implying somewhat stricter standards.
  12. proof walkers

    This is the best strategy in my opinion also. On the rest of your comments, I just checked the Heritage archives and my last comment wasn't completely correct. There are sales going back to 2004 but I didn't remember seeing the coins in the population data though I thought I checked. The Heritage archives also support Mark's comment, though the listed sales prices were a lot lower than his example.
  13. proof walkers

    There are presumably some 1936-1942 proofs (from all denominations) without the designation that are eligible for it, but I doubt it is many. I don't recall when NGC or PCGS first started using it. Though it's a narrow type of scarcity (as with higher grades and other forms of specialization), I do believe that these coins are scarce to rare under US standards. I doubt there are that many (at least in absolute terms) that haven't been submitted. I have never seen one of these coins in person (only from images) but the contrast doesn't seem that noticeable and there are zero DCAM listed at least for WLH and Mercury dimes. Additionally, as with other aspects of TPG grading, I find this one arbitrary. Different coins but I own a South African 1954 PR-68 CAM six pence which I consider to have less cameo contrast versus other coins I own without this designation. It's also possible that the increases in the TPG populations are the result of a different version of "gradeflation". Years ago when I checked the data, there were no WLH and only a very low number for the 1939 Mercury dime. Now there are some from most dates and the combined count for the '39 dime is 58. As for the prices, I don't recall any sales for WLH offhand but the Mercury's didn't sell for what I would call particularly strong prices. I recall one which did and this coin must have had a much stronger contrast. As to whether the prices are "low", I'd say maybe or yes versus the business strikes but wouldn't expect most to sell for a lot more since I doubt the eye appeal is sufficiently noticeable on most. In isolation, the coins might appear "cheap" but when the comparison moves outside of the series versus other coins in a similar price range, not really.
  14. Coin grading questions

    Having the coin in a holder to authenticate it might be helpful for future resale. I haven't checked prior sales but would start with Heritage auction archives first and Great Collections second. I doubt there is much difference in the actual market value due to the grade. Unless you want it graded due to your preference or have a reason to believe it might not be genuine, I wouldn't spend the money on it. I'd rather spend it elsewhere.
  15. Shipwreck effect grade scale

    I'm not familiar with Liberty Seated coinage die varieties but as a general principle, only if there is someone out there who will pay a premium for it. Self evident answer I know but most date/MM combinations were struck from more than one die but don't have a premium because no one wants it badly enough. To my knowledge, there is minimal die variety collecting in Liberty Seated halves. If no one can answer it here, you can try at this link