World Colonial

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not sure it was this one, but I used to see one similar for 39c at my local coin stores at the time.
  2. I can't set any collecting goals in advance. I can only buy what comes up for sale which is unpredictable and infrequent. In 2019, I was able to buy five coins I would describe as significant to my collection. So yes, a successful year by my standards. This month, there is one coin of particular interest to me coming up for auction. I actually hope it fails to meet the reserve, as I think it is both over graded and not worth the minimum bid. I want to buy it but only later and for less.
  3. I have owned two from Bolivia in the past but none now. As for US patterns which I presume is the intent of the OP, I have no interest in buying any. Even as far back as 1987 when I considered buying what I recall as J-228 (1859 IHC with the shield reverse), all were too expensive. Aside from a few elite pieces which are far above my price range, these transitional patterns are the only ones which interest me. I consider the others disproportionately overpriced for what it actually is.
  4. Like I stated in my last post, I have not looked for the coins diligently. Apparently, it is more common than I thought. I was using Peru pillar coinage as a point of comparison, as it is one I do collect diligently and have for many years. It's possible that the coins are more common than I believe locally but it's irrelevant to the point I was making because most aren't collectible (by US standards) anyway. Most are either damaged (an example being holed) or of such low quality that few (if any) "advanced" collectors will want it. I was also using the other quartillo mints as a point of comparison. The other mints appear to be more common but this is an inference only. I don't have access to the mintage records and have only seen data in isolation. (CoinWiki lists 403,000 for the 1818 and 224,000 for the 1814.) I presume (not actually knowing) that since this series is more recent than Peru pillar 1/2R and 1R, that the mintages aren't "low" but can't confirm it. Most of the Peru pillar 1/2R have recorded mintages from slightly over 100K to somewhat over 400K and 1R from slightly over 100K to about 250K. If so, then yes, I can see these coins existing disproportionately in low quality by the hundreds or maybe a few thousand on occasion because it's consistent with a very low survival rate but on a large mintage for the time.
  5. The 1832 CAR coin is certainly a key date. I am not familiar with the scarcity of the other two but given what I have seen of your collection, agree with you.
  6. I will be surprised if this is true, except maybe in the lowest grades. Most of the better Latin coinage seems to be owned elsewhere, mostly by US collectors since they have the affinity for it and find the coins cheap versus US coins. As one example, on one occasion someone posted pictures (on another forum) of the Peru (equivalent) mint collection pillar coinage. I can't tell you if the photos included all of it but the five denominations were of low quality, damaged or both. Since I know the mintages disproportionately were not low, it should be evident that if the coins were available in any supply locally, this collection would have better examples. The Mexico national collection is much better but much of it still consists of "problem" coins. To my knowledge, much of it was donated by a prominent collector. I have not searched diligently for this series but have looked for it, regularly. A few of the dates are common or relatively common but that is all: 1813 Mo, 1821G and 1817So appear to be the most common and I own all three in MS-66/MS-66/MS-67. I would describe a few additional dates as somewhat or occasionally available in better quality but that is all.
  7. You are free to believe whatever you want. It does´t change anything I told you. Cycles do exist. People get overconfident and make bad decisions which matter. No different than any other area of life. If you don´t believe there is a bubble now, you´ll never believe there ever was one or ever will be. No point in even debating someone who beluieves that. The concusion I draw from your posts in that it´s different this time. 2008 didn´t happen because anyone listetened to the pessimists. It´s easy enough to show it. People collectively changed their minds, the reason doesn´t matter.
  8. Your reply displays your ignorance of financial and economic history. No, of course there is no reason for it, for someone who believes people should behave like robots instead of real human beings and collectively awful economic decisions should have minimal or no consequences. Under the logic you are using, there would never be an economic contraction anywhere since the same reasoning applies. Every prior financial bubble has burst with negative consequences - no exceptions to date, not even one. But this time is different, right? I never claimed it was the "end of the US economy" as someone here once claimed. I'm definitely not a metals bug, owning no gold or silver. I have frequently argued against absurd claims on imminent hyper inflation or the USD losing reserve currency status. I have claimed that most Americans (and by implication, most everyone else) are going to be poorer of a lot poorer when borrowing isn't an option under the lowest collective credit standards in history. That's a reasonable inference confirmed by history. To give everyone an idea of how weak economic conditions have been during the current US economic cycle, it has taken over $11T in incremental public debt and (near) zero target rates to achieve about 2.5% annual GDP growth since 2009. Things are so great now, the Federal Reserve lowered its lending target three times this year and reinstated QE to the tune of $300B the last three months. If federal debt growth in this expansion approximated what it did immediately prior to the GFC, economic growth would have been (near) zero or negative most of the time. Unlike you, most people don't have effectively guaranteed jobs for life where their employer can raise everyone else's taxes to pay their salary, benefits and pension. It's easy enough to be dismissive of the financial stresses most people face every day from your safe ivory tower.
  9. My opinion too for a British coin. I wasn't aware of the scarcity though and it may not be as well known as a coin like the 1930 or 1933 penny (can't remember which).
  10. With the coins I have owned, NGC will also "net grade" a "details" coin. I'd rather they just assign the numerical grade based upon the wear and add a description of the problem.
  11. If the mintage is 2MM, even if only 1% survive "essentially as struck", that's still 20,000. The survival rate will almost certainly be noticeably higher. Far too common to support a price of $100 to $139 except for the condition census coin if the count is relatively low.
  12. Congratulations. I don't know how hard it is to complete but I don't perceive it as easy and I know it's quite expensive. Now you can move on to King George V. I know there are at least a handful of quite scarce (and expensive) coins here, starting with the 1923 South Africa circulation strike and one from Canada, I believe the 1916.
  13. The example you gave is an example of how the "hobby" has been financialized. US collectors didn't experience a collective epiphany with the widespread adoption of the Sheldon scale in 1986 where they miraculously discovered that the highest TPG grades were so much better than slightly lower or even much lower quality coins. Concurrently, most collectors elsewhere don't collect in ignorance where they fail to understand the supposedly compelling nature of these quality differences. It's predominantly for the three reasons I gave here. This is evident in the differences between US collecting and practically everywhere else. It's also evident in South Africa (one of the few foreign markets to fully adopt TPG) where "collectors" have created an even more irrational price structure. The price level is much lower but the price spreads are even wider. Accepting it as a bubble is difficult for most people first, because it's hard to convince someone of something when it's contrary to their personal interest and personal preference. That's the reality for bigger budget US buyers generally. Second, bubbles don't normally last decades but this micro bubble with the higher TPG grades (and CAC) is a symptom of the real mega bubble, the one in worldwide credit which is the greatest in the history of civilization. It has been a process to get to this point and it's end will be a process but when it does, the price structure and price level will return to more closely resemble what it used to be before the hobby was financialized. In between though, there is likely be another massive gold and silver bubble when the financial system comes under stress. That should provide noticeable price support temporarily, though I expect temporarily to last for quite some time.
  14. Too late now but I would have bought these coins already graded in the holder I wanted and at the price corresponding to the grade acceptable to me. I buy most of my coins ungraded but that's partly because it's the only option.
  15. Registry sets have a place in collecting but the focus of this article has little to do with it. In every article of his I have ever read, Garret’s usage of “rare coins” is mostly marketing hyperbole. In this context, he exaggerates both the scarcity and significance. The label on the holder is rare but the coins in it disproportionately aren’t. The single biggest difference between US numismatics and practically all others (not just Europe) is that US collecting has been financialized. That’s the primary reason these differences are considered so important. To those who disagree, the second reason is that the US series with the largest number of registry participants are so easy to complete even in “high quality” (literally in one day), that an additional challenge is necessary for some collectors. Most European coins are also common but a much higher proportion are a lot more affordable to the typical collector. With world coinage, the actual best sets in the highest profiile series either disproportionately do not compete or don’t compete at all. There are a very low proportion of series with a noticeable number of participants but I can infer that it’s mostly US based collectors who participate. US collectors will pay outsized premiums or multiples for these minimal differences in (perceived) quality for US coinage but others almost never will because there is no market for it. “Buying the best you can afford” was good advice when the price level was “low” and price spreads between grades were “reasonable”. In this context, it’s absolutely awful advice. He mistakes a side effect (ridiculously inflated prices and exorbitant price spreads for predominantly common coins) from the greatest credit bubble in the history of civilization as interest in real collecting. Per my post in another recent thread, forum posts make it evident most collectors disproportionately don’t find these coins compelling as collectibles at current and recent prices, except under the expectation of recovering most, all or even more of their money back. Registry set competition isn’t comporable to coin boards. Most collectors don’t participate. The impact he describes is mostly if not entirely financial and has little if anything to do with actual collecting. It makes no practical difference to 99%+ of US collectors because the resulting inflated prices don’t keep them from buying what they want.