World Colonial

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

    3,662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

3 Followers

About World Colonial

  • Boards Title
    I was posting here when you were in diapers.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. For the last five or six years, my core collection has been limited to pillar 1/2 real, one real, two reales and four reales from Bolivia (1767-1770) and Peru (1752-1772). I'll also buy Guatemala if I can find any decent coins within my budget but these coins literally almost never show up. It can be defined as three series (one for each mint) or twelve (one for each denomination from each mint. I don't hardly ever buy anything else. I could have completed Bolivia if I had prioritized these coins, though proportionately many would be in poor quality. This mint has 20 for all five denominations (including 8R). Many of the Peru dates never show up for sale. I now look on eBay practically every day and on occasion find one but only four (one a relatively common low grade date, one cleaned but decent and another with minor rim damage and VG with no problems) that I bought. The rest I saw but did not buy were impaired. This is over two years looking every day. It's dubious I'll ever acquire all 84+ coins. For Guatemala, I'd like to upgrade my current type set. I used to have more series (none US) in my core collection but finally concluded that I will never have the financial resources to complete all of it. I still have most of what I previously bought. On occasion, I have also thought about working on one or more cheaper and much easier series so that I can buy more coins regularly. I don't do it because I know I will regret not spending the money on coins I would rather own.
  2. Stacks sold the Eliasberg world gold collection in 2005. It consisted of about 3600 lots, though I don't recall what was in it. I have not been able to find anything for world crowns and minors. I don't know what is in the Tyrant collection except by reputation. I'd put it above Simpson or Hansen precisely because the latter two collections only include US. The other collection many US based collectors would presumably consider a contender is Pogue. It's one of the best US federal collections ever put together but never heard it included US colonial or territorial gold and can't remember anything about patterns. To my recollection it's predominantly US circulation coinage (including some proofs) dated up to 1834. Versus the other consensus elite collections, it's claim to fame is quality measured by increments in the TPG grade and whether the coins in it are eligible for CAC stickers. There are numerous (though not an absolutely large number of) other collections which owned most of the coins in it, just in (slightly) lower quality. I don't place anywhere near equivalent emphasis on this type of quality difference as most of the more affluent US collectors do today and in the recent past. Ultimately, it is dependent upon someone's subjective criteria. However, I'd never rate a collection as elite if the primary criteria for acquiring it is an outsized checkbook to predominantly buy coins that aren't really that hard to buy except for having the money, and this includes exaggerations by US collecting since TPG grading came to predominate.
  3. How much is the change in the forum format and how much is the stagnant price level? I ask as to my recollection, the participation had already decreased substantially prior to the format change versus 2006 when I first joined. I don't post pictures but don't see that the format change should make any difference. It isn't any harder to type a post than before.
  4. Of those I know, I'd rate Eliasberg first or maybe Norweb, definitely above all the most prominent today except maybe Tyrant. My criteria gives a lot more weight to the scope and the number of rare and elite coins in the available quality versus using the TPG grade or "eye appeal". Common is common no matter how nice the coin looks. I also wouldn't ever rank any collection first which is was overly concentrated in one area. The Norweb collection was "world class" in many segments which is evident in how they sold it. B&M sold the US portion while multiple firms (to my recollection) sold the rest.
  5. I don't consider an AU-58 16-D in a Mercury set a hole filler, not if it's still a nice example. It's ultimately a matter of intent (to replace or not) but I don't consider the quality difference between AU-58 and MS-65 to be so great here where it isn't acceptable, unless someone is now going to tell me that most AU-58 16-D's are usually actually much lower quality which is another issue entirely. (That would be "gradeflation".) Conversely, I would consider practically any other date in the series in AU-58 to be one in a MS-65 set because the coins are both not particularly expensive and common or very common. The other exceptions would be the 21 and 21-D (semi) key dates. Both of these coins are still quite expensive (to most collectors) in AU-58 and somewhat scarce in this grade.
  6. You know this but there are different levels of quality in "details" coins. If the coin is a nice one (by my definition), I would rather own one with noticeably more detail than a numerically graded one with a lot more wear, especially in my primary series where most of the coins have no color or toning. Example: The first of the three 1755 Peru one real (JM variety) I bought is now in an "XF details" holder. It is a fully struck coin with gold and blue toning with the most noticeable wear on the two globes (on the pillar side) which are flat. It has hairlines on this side but there is nothing wrong with the coin and it's easily better than the overwhelming majority of the low proportion from the original mintage which survive today.
  7. I am never going to complete any of my primary sets, so by the US definition hardly any of the coins I buy are "hole fillers" since nothing or hardly anything better is available to be bought. I have several duplicates which are all among the likely best known. I keep all because the proceeds won't make any real difference to me. The OP coin is much better than I have normally seen for a VG of this coin but it's an example of what I would never buy even if I collected the series. Since most coins are not hard to buy, I would rather save up and buy an example I want to keep, as upgrading usually results in "slippage" which I would rather avoid.
  8. I submitted one medal but don't think it is usually necessary. I'd never pay a noticeable premium due to the grade either. Most of my better coins are graded, none of which are US. It takes me a while to accumulate enough for a submission and only do so every few years, probably including 2020. I have slightly over a dozen Bolivia and Peru pillars to send in.
  9. Agree but an inference from my prior post is that most of these coins will never be submitted because there is no point to it. If by 10G you mean classic eagles, I could see a lot more being prior to sale (especially with higher gold prices) for authentication. Proportionally, there are potentially (probably in my opinion) more 19th century and earlier US classics outside of the population data than in it going by the survival estimates such as Coin Facts. My opinion of these estimates varies but the variance with the counts even considering resubmissions is proportionately large. As one example, Coin Facts claims 35 survivors for the 1802 half dime while the TPG data records 14 (excluding PCGS details coins which I haven't see included) and there are probably some duplicates since NGC records three AU-50. However, even if most of the remaining US classics economically worth grading are ultimately submitted, the total number probably isn't that meaningful relative to current total volume. I didn't mention it before but if the TPG are pinning their hopes on much higher meaningful volumes from world coins, it isn't going to happen. First, most non-US collectors outside of a handful of markets (China and South Africa) don't really like TPG. But even if they did, for most countries, the coins economically worth grading don't exist in sufficient numbers where the volume will ever be meaningful. In Europe outside of the highest TPG grade eligible coins, there is also the likely reality that the supply is far too large to be absorbed by any forseeable increase in the collector base. The coins are "cheap" because most are too common or are lost in a sea of obscurity.
  10. It is yet another marketing gimmick. Much of TPG grading is marketing and has nothing to do with collecting anyway. I keep on wondering how long it will be before submissions and then revenues don't start declining noticeably. There is a finite population of coins where it makes sense to have it graded. For many years, I have assumed that NCLT represents an increasing share of submissions with much of it at bulk discounts. Both services are trying find additional revenue sources from somewhere and these labels and holders are one way to do it. From my standpoint, it sure beats raising grading fees which have increased noticeably since I first submitted. Doing that consistently in the current flat or falling market will discourage submissions.
  11. For my primary series (pillar minors from Bolivia and Peru), I will buy coins that otherwise do not match with those I own since that's all that is available. This can be a low quality coin without problems or a higher grade one (based upon wear) with minor problems. I don't buy noticeably damaged coins no matter how rare, such as holed. I'd never buy fillers for a coin or series which I consider to be common, including those which US collectors consider to be scarce, due to price. I'd just do without.
  12. The examples in Mark's post are actual rarities and very prominent coins. "Rarity" as predominantly used in US numismatics for the last several decades? Not even close. As for this grading tier, I presume the fee will reduce the incentive to have every or even most condition census coins in it.
  13. I presume part of the reason for the US Mint's recent releases is to offset revenue loss from crashing sales of proof sets. I know this has occurred in the last few decades but don't recall for others. I don't know about anyone else, but I consider the coin examples used in the OP as gimmicks. (The Liberty medal is a medal.) A reverse proof is a novelty when issued in isolation but not interesting when offered repeatedly. Same for different finishes such as satin. A 5oz "coin" isn't a real coin but a bullion round and a mintage of 100,000 isn't remotely "low" especially with an issue price of $224.95. In 2600 years of coin history prior to NCLT, a handful near this size (or larger) have been issued but at least it was a real coin, like the Spanish 50 reales or 100 escudos. For commemoratives, it's also mediocre art work and themes mostly of dubious merit issued to satisfy some minor political constituency. The 50th anniversary Apollo coin (1oz silver and maybe gold $5) is one of the few recent ones (as in the last few decades) which I think will have lasting appeal, though it's still to common to appreciate substantially. In writing this post, I found the Coin Week article below. Apparently, the author couldn't find a better reason to buy this coinage either other than future "flipping" opportunities. Decades from now, most of this coinage is destined to be mostly forgotten, lost in obscurity buried in a sea of endlessly mediocre material. https://coinweek.com/modern-coins/falling-commemorative-coin-mintages-why-it-happened-and-how-to-profit/
  14. I don't believe the prior demand came from real collectors but mostly from speculator flippers. None of the mintages you listed are anything but extremely common and I'd rate the likelihood as nil that anywhere near this number of actual hobbyists really want it. This equally applies to the 2014 gold Kennedy, First Spouse series and all low mintage modern commemoratives. It's not like hardly any of these designs or themes are actually compelling. I don't buy any US coins (last time I did was about 20 years ago) but I hold the same opinion for practically all 20th century to date US series for both circulation strikes and proofs. It was one thing back in the 1960's and pre-internet (or maybe up to 1999) when this was all that most US collectors could buy but that's not true any more. I hear these coins have mostly been losing value and given how incredibly common practically all are and the available alternatives today, I expect prices to fall a lot more as the marginal buyer chooses something else. Lastly, the US Mint has issued far too much product and it's also generally viewed as inferior to NCLT from other countries such as Pandas, Libertads and Brittanias. I presume that, outside of those who buy this stuff as a substitute for bullion, a noticeable percentage (if not most) of the collector base is of relatively modest means. They almost certainly cannot afford to keep sets complete, assuming they want it.
  15. There is no organized collecting in the Congo that I have ever heard or if it exists, it is immaterial. To my knowledge, the only African country with anything resembling "critical mass" measured by the collector base in Africa is South Africa. Overwhelmingly, most collecting of African coins (concentrated in colonial and earlier such as this one) occurs mostly elsewhere. To "read between the lines" in the OP question, the coin may be rare but there is nothing unusual about the scarcity or rarity of die varieties. I don't know anything about this coin but it's unlikely to be worth much. I'd grade the coin as average circulated to somewhat higher measured by wear and the surfaces look ok, but not particularly attractive. It looks like it has been scratched on the obverse and the reverse cleaned.