World Colonial

Many insightful posts here but I'll respond to this one because you made one point i want to add to. The collectors you used as examples bought long before the beginning of financialized collecting, prior to the 70's when coins were first widely bought as "investments" and then in the 80's when TPG first became prevalent. If you look at the PCGS 3000 which I consider representative for most US coins, most US coinage received a two time surge from the two drivers I listed and since then have mostly flatlined. First, a broad surge in the 70's which is reflected in Red Books of the time and then a noticeably higher quality premium from TPG. The other point I have made before which I never see mentioned (though some agree with it somewhat) is that the price level is substantially inflated from the prices of the major asset classes. It's what I call the asset mania. Few now were around or had meaningful amounts of money to buy cheap in the 70's. Somewhat more prior to or maybe right after the TPG crash but even that was over 30 years ago now. I've looked at a lot of (mostly US) coins in the Heritage archives where some have gone up a lot in the last 20 years but it's not many proportionately to my knowledge. Early US gold and somewhat later 19TH century British proof gold also exploded. I recall a then ungraded 1839 British 5 Sovreign sold by Goldberg in 2004 or near it for about $25K. In PR-62, It's a $300K coin now. I should have "stretched" for it then but did not because I don't buy coins as "investments".

Thanks What I cannot stand is obvious or intentional exaggeration, especially when I can reasonably infer it's for financial promotion. There is a thread on the PCGS Forum which may not be active now. The OP was asking about the financial potential of "world" coinage. No specifics of course. As usual, I was the only "naysayer", even though this includes everything I collect. Another example of me providing specific arguments and evidence contradicting (implied) financial hyperbole while everyone else writes in the abstract to disagree with me. Financially, I have taken the opposing side on pretty much everything. (Haven't ever discussed ancients, tokens, or medals - yet.). This includes South African coinage on that's country's forum during their bubble, US moderns multiple times, different US classic series, and "world" coinage ("modern" or "classic") also multiple times. The one common theme with this subject is that others (who don't collect it yet) don't find the coins nearly as interesting as those who are advocating it. This especially applies to any claims for non-collectors supposedly interested in some "mega priced" coin.

Yes, there are one or two mega threads on the PCGS forum though I have not read either. I can infer from it and the existence of the Barber Collectors Society that you are correct. The OP has asked a series of questions, first on errors and more recently on varieties. I have attempted to explain why it isn't a mystery that this type of collecting isn't more "popular", as in widely practiced.

By die variety? Given the size of the US collector base, I presume there is someone (at least one) collecting every US series in this manner but overwhelmingly, the number is immaterial due to lack of interest, cost, or feasibility. For a US series, look at the Barber coinage as an example. It has a respectable core following but not sufficient to create meaningful interest for die varieties. Jeff Garret has an article in Coin Week advocating the design (not variety collecting) but his own words provide the best argument against it. It's a rather long article but the part which matters most is the table with the estimated cost. $5K to $50K from fine to AU. There are still those who do it but in the 21st century, this type of collection is not competitive in this quality at anywhere near this cost. I'd describe these grades in "no man's land", too expensive for low(er) budget collectors while those who can afford it mostly prefer better quality coinage or more design variety. Collecting it by die variety makes it way too expensive for what the collection actually is as a collectible. Jeff Garrett: Collecting Barber Coinage (coinweek.com)

Yes, a very low proportion. These are the ones collected most, being also included in reference books and registry sets. Only a very low number of series have a high enough collector preference while also being affordable to a large enough collector base. I'd rate US early large cents first followed by Capped Bust halves and early half cents. Capped Bust halves are generically both common enough and cheap enough even in mid-circulated grades. Early US copper has a high enough preference even in the lowest grades. Good demand for early federal silver coinage across the board. Earlier US gold is both too scarce and too expensive while Liberty Seated is a long series with too many scarce dates. It's pointless to even attempt collecting a series by variety when the collector can't even (afford to) collect it by date. That's the reality for practically every single world coin series I have attempted to collect since 1998, including those I collect now. I never completed a single one. The rest of US coinage isn't interesting enough. That's what the evidence shows.

Yes, of course. Example is 69-S/S cent. As for your original question, there must be hundreds at minimum for the "low" mintage years and thousands for the highest mintage dates. Remember, we're talking about some years with something like 7 billion Lincoln cents from each mint, Philadelphia and Denver. I've seen many (though a very low proportion) in the Heritage archives with the reference number in the description. It must come from a reference book. But like I told you (along with a few others), it's numismatic minutia of no interest to practically anyone, especially where they will pay any "meaningful" premium for at least 99% of these. No different for most coinage. How many want to collect hundreds or thousands of the same date/MM/denomination where the difference can only be identified under a microscope?

Was this related to the discovery of the Comstock Lode and indirectly, the California Gold Rush? I only know when the silver content in US coinage was adjusted (by the arrows on the design) but don't how the relative supply of these discoveries impacted availability of silver coinage or melting. I don't consider many Seated dollars scarce (except in grade) but most aren't (very) common either.

Makes sense. If the grade matters to you, I'd buy the highest one before a big price jump. Or buy one in a lower grade but with positive attributes which matter more to you. On this series, I think I'd rather have a better strike and good luster and accept slightly more contact marks. That would be a tough one for me, as I don't find the series attractive in lower grades, at all. By lower, I'm including up to at least XF. It's one which doesn't wear well. It's the same problem with one of my previous ones, South Africa Union. Not sure if this matters to you but depending upon how long you intend to hold it, I think it's one more likely to lose value than gain it. Exception is primarily due to potential changes in silver spot. I hold this opinion for a variety of reasons expressed in prior posts. I hold the same view for practically all 20th century and later US coinage.

Personally, I would not upgrade if choosing a set like this one. Upgrading involves noticeable potential proportional "slippage", especially if working on a limited budget. I infer from the OP that (many of) the earlier dates will be bought in AU. The 44-D was mentioned where the counts are low because most submitted are in an MS grade. I'd be inclined to just wait or, buy the coins ungraded submitting it myself. I haven't checked prices in a few years (consistently anyway) but it's also one which I think isn't going to increase much proportionately. So, I wouldn't be in a hurry for this reason either.

Agree. The other point is that it still has to be removed from the ground which isn't free. Second, the article is using a false dilemma fallacy argument. BTC is not a legitimate alternative to gold. It's literally nothing inflated to absurd heights due to mania psychology. What the author didn't mention is that it is entirely possible (and far more likely) for BTC to crash to zero (or near it) even if gold collapses. This is what I would expect before believing this marketing piece masquerading as an article.

I have a Spanish colonial quarter real attributed to Colombia as Restrepo 2.1, not dated but believed to be struck from or between 1756-1796. It's an entry in the census meaning the coin exists in the DB with others listed but just not mine. It's in an old holder and I bought it sometime around 2008. I've seen it on occasion in the past too. I presume it happens because there is/was no automated entry and someone didn't add it manually.

If you are using the prior CAC pop data I referenced, those numbers are not low for an MS-66. It's common. For post-1933 US coinage, the populations for late 30's and later are what I would call very high, especially 38-D Buffalo nickel and 40's Mercury dimes. Concurrently, I also assume the number not graded is usually probably greater and in some instances a (large) multiple of the TPG pops. More so for Lincoln cents, Jefferson nickels, and later 40's to 1964 for the silver coinage. The difference with these Saints dates is that first, as a large denomination it circulated much less or not at all. Second, some or all are hoard coins. Third, the coins are more likely to be graded due to the much higher market value. If every or most potential MS-66 post-1933 US silver or base metal was graded, the market price would be a nominal premium over silver spot, less than the grading fee, or both. That's never going to happen because it makes no sense. Mintages didn't reach one billion until the end of the Lincoln Wheat cent series.

When did you buy most of your coins? I think the conclusion is somewhat or noticeably different if mostly after 2009 versus mostly before due to the (much) higher spot price. For the CAC, I presume the populations were noticeably lower, but the spot price is a bigger factor. The premiums aren't that large for higher grades proportionately but the much higher spot prices since around 2010 make it far less competitive as a collectible. As an "investment", it's got the potential to appreciate due to both rising spot and expanding premiums. That's what makes it appealing for predominantly financially motivated buyers along with its much better relative liquidity. What I described also usually applies for other large size gold, US or world.

I can understand that. The decision of what goes on the label, including a 69 or 70, is a business marketing decision. It's not like NGC couldn't change the mix between the two grades to align with PCGS, if they wanted to do it. They presumably do not.

Yes, I assume so. To my knowledge, NGC has consistently assigned higher proportion of 70's which accounts for the price difference. Regardless, it's marketing and paying for the label. There is a more noticeable difference in the label than in the coin with these assigned grades, much bigger.

Not really, as it has nothing to do with collecting. It's marketing.

Yes, agree with that, all other things being equal. I guess it just depends upon how you want to look at it. I don't believe more than a low minority buying one of these CAC 66 common dates are primarily buying it primarily for collecting reasons but obviously, not something I can prove. It's a combination of collecting and "investment". All of these coins are "widgets" as far as I am concerned. The HR Saint is also very common, but it's had a high collector preference (almost) from the beginning which makes it different. These dates used to be viewed as bullion and that's what it really is still, regardless of the grade. It's bullion selling at an inflated premium. The price spreads aren't that high percentage wise between grades versus "collector" coins, but that due to the high generic price and that as a 66, it's still actually very common even with the sticker.

My understanding is that CAC ignores "+". Might be wrong about that but didn't see it in their pop report. Under this assumption, I wouldn't assume that any "+" coin with a CAC sticker is a candidate for a 67. It's presumably already "nice" for the grade. That's not even close to rare for any coin in this grade, even ignoring other grades. Look at the TPG data and you'll see that other than Morgan and Peace dollars, it's only common Saints and Liberty Head double eagles that virtually ever have this many among pre-1933 US. Yes, I get that. I also assume that there are many more not sent in still eligible. There might be 25,000 upscale type collectors of common US gold coinage (12 coin set), maybe. I don't believe there are this many for US coinage as type collectors generically.

Just looked up the pops for these dates. Even with a CAC sticker, none of the counts are low in those grades: 286, 725, 605, and 358. Maybe some duplicates if someone cracked it out of the holder for regrading and sent it back to CAC.

Agree It's easier and usually more profitable to pass fake common coins of low-moderate value than a few more expensive coins. Examples include circulated 09-S VDB cents, 16-D dime, Spanish cobs, and Mexico pillar dollars. There are millions of the last two each worth several hundred or somewhat more. Most never see a TPG grading room, so it's easy to sell thousands of fakes.

The problem I have is with the subjective application of "market acceptable", with the coins I collect. I have had it go both ways on my submissions and it makes no sense. The worst example was two coins of the exact same mint, year, and denomination. The first is graded XF-40 which was 50-50 to me whether it would receive a numerical grade. It's not a particularly attractive coin but is for this mint and design since practically all are complete "dreck". The second is much better but came back "AU details" due to "surface hairlines". I was aware this might happen but hoped it wouldn't because of what I am writing here. Yes, it's been cleaned at some point (virtually all have) but it had nice peripheral toning on one side and light hairlines in the fields on the other. It's water under the bridge now since the USPS lost the package on the way back from NGC. I also have a third coin which is in an "XF Details" holder with gold and blue toning on both sides with somewhat more noticeable hairlines in the fields on one. I consider it "market acceptable" to anyone who actually collects this series.

He didn't mention AU. I consider AU-50 to be XF. There is a noticeable gap with AU58 and sometimes AU-55 and it isn't really "almost uncirculated". I also assume it wasn't a coincidence he didn't mention MS grades. The price differences between circulated grades are narrower than between one point MS increments, not always proportionately but in amount. If it were up to me, I'd go back to four MS grades as I first remember in the late 70's: 60, 63, 65, 67. I'd also get rid of the Sheldon scale for series that I think would be better using the one used for NGC Ancients, strike, wear and surfaces. In US coinage, that would be colonials and territorial gold.

This subject has come up before. In my primary interest now, I don't consider it more than a negligible risk. I mostly buy from known reliable sources, but most of the coins are too scarce to be counterfeited as more than a "one off" without raising suspicion. (Many I have either never seen or only in "dreck" quality in almost 20 years.) I have even less concern about counterfeit holders with a genuine coin.

As of now, BTC has recovered to just under $20,000. Exhibit one why it will never be a functioning currency. No one can possibly use it to finance an organization with volatility like that.

BTC last print $18550, down 9.35%. Ether $960, down 11%.