World Colonial

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

    4,219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by World Colonial

  1. My error. I did not read the commentary completely. I don't consider it a real coin either, similar to several China NCLT.
  2. Might be it but I did not know it had a mintage of four. I did not look it up, only that I saw it was a 2019 and a 5 Sovereign. Most overpriced coin ever (not even close) is the South Africa 2008 Mandela 90th BD 5R NGC MS-69 purportedly sold by the South African Coin Company for the equivalent of $338,000.
  3. Most of the coins are distinctive though a few quite overpriced as far as I am concerned, except compared to the closest comparable US coinage. The one coin which is most overpriced is the 2019 5S. The price is absurd and I presume due to the COA #1. I'd rate it as one of the most overpriced and worst numismatic values in the world, literally.
  4. If the buyer had a lot money, it doesn't seem to me that buying any US coin was much more difficult in the past than now, unless it's for specialization or specific quality. For the actually rarer more expensive coins, I suspect most of these could have been tracked down through dealer contacts. The Hansen mega thread on the PCGS forum has certainly once again showed that buying practically any US regular issue coin (MS or proof) isn't difficult at all. In less than five years, he is only missing a very low proportion. With non-US coinage, it's more difficult for the scarcity but t
  5. Being a metal advocate is the equivalent of financial religion to some. I was that way for a short time in the 80's in my early 20's. Eventually, I figured out I wasn't going to get rich with the limited amount of silver I could buy and then later concluded the hyperinflation scenario many of them expect is a lower probability event too. I don't believe it is particularly expensive now but don't believe it is cheap either. If anyone has evidence to show it, I am all ears to hear it. I have never seen such evidence, only that it's cheap compared to gold (which is significantly overpric
  6. Two different stockpiles. Those held by the commodity exchange are one and those held by private individuals are another.
  7. It's shrinking if someone assumes those who buy it will never sell which they will at some price, higher or lower. (Maybe voluntarily or maybe not which is what I believe is coming later since there is no reason to believe most silver bugs are affluent.) That's what metal advocates implicitly imply or claim. Fact is, most who speculate in paper silver (SLV and futures) don't actually want the physical metal. It's no different to them than buying anything else. They just want to sell it for more later. I believe in owning some of the metals as a hedge and form of insurance but no
  8. Prices were not high in the 80's except during the mania. I don't remember the prices throughout the entire decade but don't believe it was much above $10 about 90% of the time. (Close to or somewhat higher than now adjusted for price changes.) I bought a few hundred ounces in 1984 or 1985 for $7.65, including fabrication premium which was 60 cents at the time.
  9. In a global financial calamity, there will be few or no safe havens. However, having your assets geographically diversified is still a prudent strategy for those who can afford it and have some idea of what they are doing.
  10. Yes, that's why both crashed into October in 2008, after holding up until May. Initially viewed as a "safe haven" and then had to be sold when the margin calls came and job losses occurred. In any future financial crisis, the result is likely to be similar, at least initially. There is far too much debt in the financial system and too many people are either actually too financially marginal (think many or most "metal bugs") or too leveraged who will lack the solvency and liquidity necessary to hold onto their stash, assuming they even want to do it. To my recollection, the minin
  11. Partly depends upon definition of "collector". I have frequently estimated up to 2MM US collectors with the concurrent assumption that the majority have annual budgets of $500 or less. It's a guess but it should be evident that most collectors are of relatively modest means. So in this sense, presumably more egalitarian. Concurrently, the participation rate by the most affluent is either modest or very modest and certainly not remotely commensurate with their affluence but this has overwhelmingly been true to my knowledge in the past as well. It's more accurate to claim that art i
  12. Agree with both your posts but will just answer here. The inferred motive to suppress silver prices doesn't exist. What I would like to know is, how does anyone who believes it explain the current price of gold? If there has been a concerted effort to suppress gold as some of the same people believe, it has failed miserably, as no one can claim that it is relatively cheap versus hardly anything. Maybe services such as doctor or attorney fees but literally almost no physical goods except overpriced art, collectibles and real estate. Gold is a lot more important metal today an
  13. Don't get me wrong. I am interested in owning both. To my knowledge, silver is only significantly relatively underpriced versus gold but not generally. On one occasion, I attempted to look into it but only found limited data. As an example, to my recollection, silver is somewhat cheap now versus a barrel of oil (roughly 2-1 now versus somewhat less in February, 1976 when silver was $5.25) but not meaningfully so. Gold is at a multi-century relatively overvaluation versus at minimum other commodities. However, this doesn't mean that silver should be selling for a lot more just beca
  14. This has been discussed many times on many venues but it's waste of time trying to convince those who believe it. No one outside of metal advocates and some coin collectors care. A far more important indicator to me is the non-confirmation between silver and gold. The two don't always move in lockstep but any long term disconnect is not positive for prices.
  15. Taubman paid 3-4X but a much more reasonable price for what he bought. I don't remember when but it wasn't during a full blown asset mania like now. As to your second comment, I agree there is some opportunity but still not to any meaningful scale in the types of items I infer from your post. The margins can certainly be higher (charge a premium price) but the volume is likely to remain very low. I don't believe enough items are interesting enough to enough people where this will last either. I know you used Marvel only as an example. The franchise has staying power (especially u
  16. I believe it was Alfred Taubman who owned one of the two at one time. I suspect it was at least partly a status trophy. This private equity firm that bought or is buying CLCT could also buy one an auction firm taking it private. The primary point I was trying to make is that the limited history of this type of company (these two and CLT) doesn't provide any reason to believe it will ever have any scale. The art market is multiples in size to mass produced collectibles yet it also has no scale, financially. No reason to buy it for growth because it's always going to be a limited niche
  17. The price of collectibles is ultimately determined by collectors, not anyone else. @GoldFinger1969and I have discussed this in prior threads and for the most part, I think we are in agreement. Trying to turn any collectibles market into an asset class isn't sustainable longer term because it's an asset with no utility to anyone else and it produces no income stream. Some people claim the same thing about metals but even aside from the industrial purposes, gold is held as a reserve asset and silver has a long history of being used as money and is viewed this way still in some parts of the
  18. That's because they confuse an asset mania and speculation with wealth and collecting. In a prior post you mentioned the 80's sports card bubble. I remember it somewhat. A co-worker of mine (early 20's like me at the time) bought boxes of the stuff purely for speculation and he was hardly alone. Most of these cards (and later ones) must be incredibly common, except in some arbitrary grade like many coins where a large number exist essentially as made. :"Investing" in this stuff is like buying "widgets". I used to be an avid sports fan in all the major team sports (now just colleg
  19. This subject has come up numerous times before and we have discussed it. This is overwhelmingly abstract theory, as it doesn't happen in practice at any material financial level, A TPG label on a coin and on practically any sports card isn't sufficiently compelling to get someone who isn't a collector to pay noticeably higher prices as they have no motivation to do it. It's somewhat more realistic on Saints (per our prior discussions) since this is an "investment" substitute for gold bullion but nothing more. At least 30,000+ with the financial capability to buy the 1794 SP dollar at th
  20. My explanation for it is the perception that the medium (cable TV) is a dying business but the content is (supposedly) very valuable as one of the few to generate interest with a predictable (large) audience. This doesn't make any sense to me either, not just because of the money being paid for the sports rights, but because at least in some instances (which I will not name), the target demographic audience being marketed to is disproportionately broke anyway.
  21. I think we agree but this is why I see it as part of the mania. Many of these transactions (most in my opinion) don't make any sense, unless the mania continues and gets even bigger. With sports teams, it's my inference that really wealthy people who can afford it are willing to do it partly for nonfinancial reasons; for status to increase their social standing in the community. Someone may be willing to lose money (even if they do not) because they get something else out of it. This is a private equity firm right? If it is, it's presumably not some private buyer who loves sports
  22. Yes, that's the only angle that makes sense and I did sneak in one comment to that effect though most of my post was on coins. I am not particularly knowledgeable on this market but if the "classic" market isn't vibrant, don't see that this is going to last either. Anything modern in these collectibles is going to be a lot more common or very common, This is an inference but I am dubious that hardly anyone spending noticeable sums really likes the collectibles oyu described much, except if they aren't losing money. It's another contrivance.