World Colonial

No, not really. I infer from my prior posts he knows what I mean. What you are describing is a form of rarity under modern (financialized) US collecting. From our prior post exchanges, you know my thoughts on the future financial prospects for this type of coin. If someone doesn't care if they lose a noticeable proportion of their purchase price, great. At any price the collector deems "meaningful", the available evidence (mostly from coin forums and coin articles) indicates the vast majority do. To believe otherwise is to concurrently believe that collectors miraculously experienced a collective epiphany in the late 1980's. They didn't.

I know people do that. It's substantially an outcome of the financialization of collecting. Treat it as a consumption expense and it doesn't matter. At any "meaningful" price point as determined by the buyer, anecdotal evidence indicates they usually don't. It's based upon the belief that they will recover most, all, or more of their money back.

Yours are reasonable. Availability is more important. That's what I was explaining with the three factors in my post. Because of the price level and numismatic "infrastructure" (such as auction and dealer network), any US coin with 50 can usually be bought within a year or less close to "market price".

There is never any point in paying "strong money" for common coins. I don't collect any common coins by most collector's standards, but by my definition, most supposedly scarce or rare coins are common. There is also a big difference in availability. US coins are invariably more available than those from elsewhere even with the same scarcity. The value also makes a difference, as many owners see no point in selling inexpensive coins that are actually hard to buy for the amount they can obtain. A low to very proportion also sell (very) infrequently due to the affinity (for lack of a better term) collectors have for it. As an example, comparably scarce or even (somewhat) more common US colonial and territorial gold in my observations are much harder to buy than most US federal coinage. The 1804 dollar and 1913 LHN are both rare, but not really that hard to compete for, for the limited number who have the funds. Both come up for sale every few years. The reason? The buyers like it a lot more, even if most collectors do not.

I have consigned to GC twice but never to another. I have no complaints with my experience at Heritage (or Stacks, Sedwick...) as a buyer but would be more interested in those who have sold with any of these firms.

The epitome of class too, as opposed to the increasing barbarism I see in modern society.

That's really expensive. I assume it must be the ones for full sets like the Indian Head QE and HE. Or, maybe 20th century US type set. I owned the singles back in the 70's. I believe it cost between $1 and $2.

PCGS has graded about 10000. There are several thousand "high grade" in the pops (to my recollection) though undoubtedly numerous duplicates.

It's a common coin. It would be easy to buy 100 within a relatively short time, in the sense that the coins are available to be bought.

False dilemma fallacy. There are more than two choices. Someone can also want the coins in lower grade without paying ridiculous prices when they don't care about marketing. The two coins are common and don't have a distinction consistent with the market price. Most US collectors find both interesting to some extent, but that doesn't mean they want to pay the money even if they have it.

It's in the Red Book and coin folders. I'm assuming that's the source of its original prominence. To those who use either as their standard of completion, it was necessary for a complete Buffalo nickel set.

Yes, overwhelmingly collected by "cherry pickers" at face value. I have looked in the Heritage archives at the error category a few times. Heritage is probably the most representative for aggregate US collector preferences, everything except modern NCLT which they sell less of outside of a coin like the 95-W ASE. 21,621 lots sold since the 90's, slightly less than 1% of all US coin lots sold by Heritage. This is for all US errors combined. It's also less than number of lots sold for the vast majority of individual US series. Of these 21,000+, five sold for over $100K, 174 for over $10K, and 3,100 between $1,000 and $10,000. The balance (over 85%) sold for less than $1,000 with about 60% (13,000+) for less than $300. By comparison, Heritage has sold 25,345 FDR dimes though the number by price tier is (somewhat) less for the more expensive. If categorized as a classic, the silver FDR is by my reckoning the US series with the lowest aggregate collector preference. The clad, far lower, with the exception of the "no S" proofs and the dates without MM. So, this should give you an idea how US collectors view errors generally. It's somewhat preferred to the FDR dime but not much else. It should also demonstrate to you that, if the general collector preference is so low, it's going to be even lower for a (prospective) collector who can afford to buy any coin they want, billionaire of not. Even worse for varieties generically most of which are also from post 1964 US circulating coinage. Varieties from non-circulating series sell for more but it's because the coins are worth more generically, not due to the variety.

Purportedly, 735 billionaires in 2021 in the US and 2665 globally, both according to Forbes. I'd guess maybe a few percent (both in and out of the US) are coin collectors at all, of some sort. Higher in the US than most or everywhere else but the absolute number from this small group is quite low or very low. Statistically, the probability is effectively zero that a single billionaire or anyone worth anything close to it (when money was worth a lot more) fits the profile the OP is asking about, either now or previously. Errors are even less interesting to the super wealthy than they are to the mainstream collector, affluent or not.

Not a valid comparison. Those are all modern NCLT. All errors are either rare or scarce by definition since it's supposed to be struck unintentionally. It's not a meaningful rarity. Even with "normal" coins, very few collectors pay high prices for a coin just because it has a narrow (or contrived) rarity. Most "rare" coins are expensive due to how collectors collect, not due to the rarity or "rarity". Any US coin with an actual (semi) scarcity is expensive but in world or ancients, there are many scarce or rare coins that are not. Most expensive coins are collected as part of a set, of some sort. Most error coins don't fit into traditional sets. From errors, one example is the few IHC struck on QE planchets. The coin is gold and presumably bought by bigger budget IHC collectors as a supplement. But there is no reason to expect someone outside of the low proportion of (US) collectors whose primary interest does not include errors (maybe as many as 10,000) to randomly pay "big money" for a coin they have no reason to want. I have also looked (on the CONECA website) at the full category list. It's a long one. Most lack the distinction you imply. Most (the overwhelming percentage) are US moderns, which have a very low collective collector preference. US classic errors aren't cheap or low priced. Why would you think a single billionaire would collect this niche when most collectors generally only collect it haphazardly? They have better ways to spend their money other than inflating the value of your collection.

No, not if what you want to buy isn't otherwise available. That's my situation since I lost interest in most of the coins I used to collect and never had much if any interest in most everything else. The coins I still collect almost never come up for sale. I've bought one this year (so far) and one or two last year. Outbid on two others. Four auctions for me: Bonham's 1996 sale of the Patterson collection Sellschopp, UBS sale #20 in 1988 Ortiz, UBS sale #27 in 1991 Heritage June 2nd, 2006 Pre-Long Beach, mostly Whittier Latin America. I bought nine but would have bought more if I could do it over again. Only other option is to try in a private sale through a dealer at presumably noticeable premium to "market".

You are the one who brought Grantham up to support your position. So, now you don't agree with him? Totally irrelevant to this discussion. The data is the data. We can debate what it means but that's what the data shows. The decision to buy into this historically overpriced market or not is a different consideration altogether. I'm aware of the counterarguments. I have heard it all: "It's different this time", TINA (There is no alternative), FOMO (Fear of Missing Out", Fed put...whatever. If anyone wants to buy into this market or any asset, great. But that doesn't change that it is historically overpriced. Just buy into (or not) and live with the consequences. The US stock market has been relatively overvalued for most of the time (literally) since the late 1990's versus prior history (all but mid-2002 and the low during the GFC) and hasn't been undervalued even once, except maybe by the distorted P/E ratio Wall Street uses (forward "adjusted"). To anticipate one reply, I'm aware that Wall Street also uses interest rates as a counterargument. That's why I told you that this argument is based upon the bond and debt mania which supporting this entire house of cards, both the financial markets and economy. So, these people use the rationalization of one mania (bonds) to support another one (stocks) claiming it's "fairly" valued or not particularly overpriced. Bonds are the biggest and worst mania. Aggregate credit quality both in the US and worldwide, given balance sheets and the economic "fundamentals", has literally never been lower in the history of human civilization. It's at the lowest interest rates ever, with the lowest credit standards ever, and the loosest terms (where it applies) in history too. Even the US government, at minimum the worst since WWII and probably since the US Civil War. Doesn't matter that they can "print" to pay it back. Everyone knows that and did. So can Argentina if they could borrow in their own currency. It's the value of what you are (likely) to get back. Financial and non-financials are totally different animals. You may be correct in the aggregate versus immediate experience prior to the GFC but not for non-financials. These companies have gutted their balance sheets since the GFC through share buybacks. It's also evident looking at any number of individual big cap stocks. I have looked at many of them. Balance sheets are stable rags and hardly pillars of strength. Companies like UPS and Coca Cola which used to be "AAA" are now loaded to the gills with debt. The interest coverage ratio is often low because of inflated profits (substantially or entirely from the fake economy) and artificially low interest rates but their balance sheets still suck. This is also evident from credit ratings which are lower than in the past, even though I'd never rely on them either. Credit ratings are low even with the agency's low standards. I'd call these stocks relatively good values but that's all.

Ok, last post on this topic, for now anyway. One thing I want to make clear is that I am not always uniformly bearish, even in this environment I call a mania. Over the last year, I have mentioned the oil stocks a few times. I didn't buy any because of my personal situation. It's not that I don't have the money but cannot afford to be wrong now for other reasons. The oil majors (CVX, RDS and XOM) were substantially depressed, historically on a relative basis. These examples more than doubled from the 2020 lows (somewhat more than the S&P 500) but were (and are) much better values despite the relative performance. Even buying noticeably above the 2020 lows would have been a big winner. Good cash yield for waiting with a strong (though weaker than previously) balance sheet, as opposed to practically everything else. Maybe next time, whenever it happens.

There is no absolute value, only relative. I can never justify Tesla's current value or any company similarly valued, as I consider it to be based upon complete fantasy. Those other businesses are competing with the utility industry. Same logic I used for the auto industry in my last post.

I can find numbers to agree with me too. It's not like its one-sided belief. I've read Jeremy Grantham (GMO) where he has claimed it's a bubble, including recently. I read Hussman regularly where he uses empirical data to support his claims. I presume you disagree with him too. I also read Elliott Wave International who are considered super bears because their long-term US stock market forecast has been wrong to this point. But they have been right on numerous in other markets and with US stocks over shorter horizons too, including identifying the peak pre-GFC and the exact low on March 9, 2009. If they were not, they'd be out of business now. They have cited numerous indicators (both valuation and sentiment) to support it's a bubble. Corporate debt levels are much lower compared to when? Certainly not pre-GFC.

We disagree again, except on crypto. So, Tesla is reasonably valued in the vicinity of a $1T market cap? Is this based upon earnings, revenues or some other fundamentals I don't know about? Or Wall Street hype using something which isn't tangible? The EV market is growing but it's at the expense of the ICE market. There is no volume growth in most auto markets and where there is, Tesla isn't either there at all or is a minor player with numerous competitors (like in China). Any revenue growth in the US is entirely from increasing MSRP which a noticeable proportion of the customer base can only pay due to basement level credit standards and artificially cheap money. It's entirely due to the fake economy. Tesla's market cap fell recently but last I checked was comparable to the seven largest auto companies (by market cap) in the world: Toyota, VW, GM, Ford, etc. If Tesla was of equivalent size to even one of them (meaning it's revenue and especially profits was a multiple of current levels), it would be considered a "mature" company just like the rest of them and its market cap would be worth a fraction of current levels. So yes, I can reasonably conclude Tesla is selling at bubble prices, just as its ratios demonstrate.

Today, "money" is mostly someone else's debt. It can also disappear into nowhere just as it appeared out of nowhere. What you are now admitting is that one mania (bonds) is supporting another asset class (stocks) which you claim is not in a bubble. I know there is less boom and bust than in the past. I addressed this in a prior post above in this thread. The belief you state is almost universally accepted.

I disagree with him. You are still only measuring it by earnings. That's why we continue to disagree. What I would like to know is, if today isn't a bubble, then what exactly is one? It's also not possible to separate the debt bubble (global debt, not just US federal) from the stock market. That makes no sense. Increasing debt and the debt mania is the enabler or at least a rationalization for the rising stock market. It lowers the P/E by inflating earnings from lower interest expense, borrowing for share repurchases, and sustaining the fake economy to inflate revenues. Since 2008, corporate America has effectively performed a collective leveraged buyout concurrently gutting its balance sheet. How do you not see that? I'm not specifically referring to US federal debt but global debt from all sources. If you want to make this argument, the US cannot prevent a "credit event" from occurring anywhere else in the world and neither can any other central bank. Whether any response "works" or not is psychologically determined. See my above response. You are joking right? Both fiscal and monetary policy have been anything but "normal" since 2008. There also isn't even a hint that there is any intent to do it, unless of course, your definition of "normalize" is entirely different than mine.

There aren't any specific sources. I do a lot of reading to obtain ideas from elsewhere but I don't need to rely on someone else to form my own conclusions. There is no "trigger event" or "black swan" necessary to end this mania because this mania (and the associated fake economy) aren't the result of any economic "fundamentals" but manic psychology. The mania will end when the psychology enabling it ends, it's as simple as that. When collective psychology changes, it won't matter what the government or any central bank does because anything they do will be viewed as inadequate or a failure. This is what happened during the initial stage of the GFC which is why both the government and FRB did what they did in 2020. It "worked" last year but with the side consequence of blowing the bubble even larger and distorting the economy even more by further "kicking the can" down the road.

There is absolutely nothing in history which guarantees that living standards should or will increase for most of the population, in or out of the United States. It may or may not happen but it's entirely a faith based assumption. It's predicated on circumstances specific to our time and recent past which may or may not last and are not within the control of any society or government. In the more recent past, it's actually primarily been from pulling demand forward by increased debt. Someone is going to have to pay it back, even if it's by inflation or default. It isn't going to increase forever either where there is no consequence. The depression did not happen due to any "policy mistake". I know every conventional economist will dispute this but it's a myth. It's the thinking that's driven post WWII monetary and fiscal policy under the false belief that government has the ability to prevent declining living standards. By some miraculous coincidence, this ability somehow only applies to developed countries and central banks, not anywhere else. What government is actually doing is distorting the economy and financial system to where when they "lose control", the consequences of these economic and financial distortions will be compressed into a shorter time period into one or a lower number of "events" instead of spread out as it was in the past. If anyone claims this isn't true, then they believe in something for nothing. Virtually no one believes it because the "fat tail" equivalent event hasn't happened yet. This is what leads practically everyone to believe it never will. I received a similar reply from someone on the PCGS forum last time I was there. The US of today and the recent past isn't the same "America" you infer and the change isn't an improvement either. On the PCGS forum, the other poster quoted Buffet using an argument from authority logical fallacy to supposedly rebut my comments. There has been substantial social decay over my entire life, back into the 1960's. That's one reason for 21st century fiscal and monetary policy. At least some of these policy makers must know it. They see what the Balkanization of the country and breakdown in the social order implies for the future of the country. This is a topic beyond the scope of this forum and it's one where even more disagreement exists than in finance and economics. The point I am making is that social decay is the actual primary root cause behind the deteriorating economic "fundamentals", including exponential increase in US federal debt. The more immediate question is, is there anything preventing this fake economy and bubble from continuing for the immediate future? No, because people aren't robots. It's possible the current manic optimism will allow the fake economy to persist for the rest of the decade (into 2030 or something like it). This isn't something I will bet my future on but anyone else is free to act otherwise.

Market prices aren't determined by the economic "fundamentals". Contrary to what most people believe, it has little if any predictive value. Priced are based upon collective optimism or pessimism. This is true for both individual securities and entire markets. Look at Bitcoin, Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPAC), and stocks like Tesla or Uber. None of these are priced based upon the "fundamentals". Bitcoin and crypto currency are literally nothing. SPAC are the equivalent of the 1720 South Sea Bubble example "an undertaking of great advantage but no one to know what it is", in spades. Tesla is a real business but has lost billions and faces entrenched deep pocket competitors in a mature market. Uber and all other similar companies are cash burn machines that should be worth zero and would be in any sane market. The US stock market is about the only market in a current bull run. It's on an island in deep outer space and has been post GFC. This valuation difference isn't supported by any meaningful difference in "fundamentals" either versus the rest of the world, but manic psychology.