World Colonial

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

    4,358
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by World Colonial

  1. I live on the east coast now but used to live in Phoenix and Salt Lake City. I have never considered attending an ANA seminar. I prefer to spend my limited coin budget on coins but that is just my preference.
  2. I presume you are referring primarily if not exclusively to condition census coins or others in currently in favor specialization such as toning. My review of the Heritage archives doesn't indicate it applies to other US modern coins.
  3. I used to be an ANA member but only because it was a requirement to purchase insurance through Hugh Wood. As for the value proposition, I agree with Jason, though I presume it depends upon what you collect. For my collecting interests, the ANA has little if any benefit. I have never used the ANA library but doubt it has anything related to my collecting interests anyway, including other series that I like enough to study but don't collect. I already own the best reference books for the pillar coinage and none exist for my other series. Another example would be the Mexican Cap & Ra
  4. If you are referring to the types of coins predominantly bought by forum members here or on PCGS, then gradeflation makes sense as a contributing factor. If this is happening to the general US coin market, it doesn't. My explanation for it is that there is little or no incremental flow of funds into coins by US based collectors since 2014 and little if any even prior to that, probably since at least 2008. Funds which otherwise used to go into this coinage instead are used to buy NCLT which world mints keep on producing and to a much lower degree, world coinage. NCLT because it is a lo
  5. If you want to submit the coins yourself, you will need to join the Collectors Society. The link is here on the NGC website where there are online forms for NGC and NCS. If you know other collectors in South Africa whom you can trust, I would also consider submitting through them or a local dealer. I don't buy much from South African coinage anywhere but have collected the Union series and know several collectors/dealers in your country whom you could ask.
  6. I have mostly submitted silver but my experience doesn't differ with the few copper-nickel NCS conserved.
  7. Outside of specialization (die varieties and such), I would think so because the number of potential buyers (mostly collectors but not always) are large enough where it I wouldn't think it happens often. For world coinage, a lot less often. First, some coins are sold where the prospective collector isn't aware of the sale. For example, I bought the 1752 Peru NGC XF-40 2R from a Swiss auction in 2015 which isn't where this type of coin usually sells. Second, many coins still sell ungraded since non-US collectors generally dislike TPG. This is decreasing versus the past. I don't believ
  8. I don't know how often dealers use this Heritage feature. On occasion, I have seen coins I bid on or tracked offered on eBay. Regardless, what both have in common is the prices are excessive and the coins sit unsold for months. I know Heritage charges the buyer's fee. I don't know if they also charge one for the seller. If both, I presume this partly accounts for the proportionately much higher price versus the auction.
  9. I am not a large submitted but have probably used NCS with 20 to 30 coins, at least. I have never had a coin ruined though there are some I thought might have benefited grade wise (and presumably the value) but didn't use this option because I was worried I might not like the result. My experience with the service has been positive.
  10. Your sentiments are the same as mine, you just said it better. I do agree with Lincolnman though that the FH on LSQ is more significant than the designations for other series. I don't collect any of these coins but seems to me the primary motivation today for creating a new one would be another artificial challenge and further inflate the price level. None of these coins are hard to buy even in "high quality" except with the application of contrived scarcity and quality criteria.
  11. I have no idea how you claim my arguments are hard to follow. My posts are predominantly a description of how people actually act and nothing more. Unlike you, I haven't interjected my personal preference into my claims. If there was a reason to believe your theory or any of your premises, I would admit it. I disagree with you because you haven't provided any reason to believe your claims. As for the future, I will tell you exactly what I told you before. There is a difference between believing everything is "fixed forever" as you insist I do and your claims. It isn't an "either" or
  12. I have never questioned how you will perform financially. I don't see where you get this from my posts. My suspicion is that because you almost certainly don't know the actual prices except maybe for a very low number of coins and seem to refer to the Krause guide for value, that you will possibly find that most of your world coins are worth less or a lot less than what you believe. As you know, with most coins being very illiquid with a limited number of buyers, it depends a lot upon timing. Not just of market conditions but being able to match what you own with one or more buyers
  13. My argument comes down to the fact that your premises have no merit whatsoever, yet you act as if they do. Lack of infallibility on my part doesn't remotely lead to any accuracy on yours. I mean, it isn't like any of your claims are credible because your premises are completely contrary to how people are known to act. You expect me (or anyone else) to accept your premises when there is no basis for any of them whatsoever. I have already demonstrated to you that your premises are either flat out false, such as your demographic claim. Or, they are unsubstantiated and there is no reaso
  14. I don't expect you to agree with me if you have a difference of opinion and I know you won't. I expect you to accept verifiable facts and not ignore it. In the past, you have told me my claims are illogical yet there is almost no logic in any of your claims. My position includes verifiable facts which contradict or refute your claims, you have no rebuttal and then you proceed to repeat the same unsubstantiated premises. Your demographic claim is one, your claim about wealth being a noticeable factor in the size of the collector base is a second, your "natural state" is a third and your
  15. All of your premises which I have had to identify for you in our prior message exchanges are unsubstantiated. This is why you have been wrong since 1972 by your own admission. As usual, you didn't try to answer the examples I gave or those in the past because you cannot. To supposedly support your theory, you again write in the abstract. If your claims had any validity, you would be able to provide specifics. The idea that future collector preferences are unpredictable is totally false. Here and in a in a prior debate, you listed art bars and tax tokens. Earlier in this thread,
  16. The whole point of my comment is that today's financial climate is not remotely normal which concurrently means that your comment about future wealth isn't remotely as significant to collecting as you imply because when the credit mania deflates, the purchasing power of most people is going to decrease with it if not collapse. This is aside from the fact that there is effectively zero causality between financial affluence and collecting anyway, yet you continue to claim otherwise. As I told you, in the United States, it has a somewhat higher correlation with white men but almost no corre
  17. Are you referring primarily to collectors or the general population? If collectors, then maybe but otherwise no, because financial affluence has no predictive value on whether anyone will become a collector. It is a necessary precondition but no causality exists. A collector who is financially more affluent may certainly return to collecting or increase their budget but there is no evidence that except for financial buying, anyone else will do so except by random chance. Unlike you though, I don't expect retirees to be wealthier in greater numbers because most supposed "wealth" today i
  18. Are you ever going to understand what determines collector preferences? Apparently not. This preference has nothing to do with generations or age. You claim you aren't making this claim yet you are still making it now. And if you aren't, then how else exactly do you expect moderns to remotely become as popular and preferred as you claim? As a minimal precondition, the only way it is ever going to happen is if people come to prefer base metals over gold and silver, by a lopsided proportion since most of the coins you like are common except under contrived US standards. I'm telling you
  19. There is no correlation between your demographic claim and collecting, not within collectors and not people generally. You keep on acting as if your claim has predictive value but it doesn't and you have never provided any data to support it, except for your anecdotal claim of nostalgia which is irrelevant to your broader claim. This applies to both the United States and even more elsewhere. This is why I provided my prior explanation with my "seven questions" in the Krause thread, to show that there is nothing unusual about how collectors perceive moderns now or in the past. Same prin
  20. I didn't write the extract from the post you quoted to be difficult. What I have been trying to tell you in all of our post exchanges on this subject is that if you put your whole theory together, the "math doesn't add up". I don't think you have ever done that. Let me go back to your comment about future preferences for gold. There is nothing that requires humans to view gold as they do and have. I am aware of this as it is self evident. At the same time, this doesn't remotely mean that the public and collectors are about to just wake up one day and randomly abandon an inher
  21. You are the one who has been exaggerating the scarcity of moderns, not me. I have also never claimed any of the most widely collected US classics are remotely scarce either. I agree with you that all of them are common, most practically as common as dirt. However, the combined population count for the 16-D dime isn't 25,000. It is still a lot less.
  22. What cause and effect? If you are referring to the comment I made on financial markets, yes I disagree with the conventional view, such as the Efficient Market Hypothesis and those of market commentators who use external events to supposedly explain financial market price action because it is false. As for the price increase from dimes to thousands of dollars, are you referring to the low proportion of moderns? If you are, I'm not rejecting self-evident facts, as the prices are what they are. I am disagreeing with your claim of cause and effect which you claim for your theory b
  23. Most coins are a lot more common than is apparent. Let me give you two examples. Krause lists the 1977 Rhodesia 1/2 cent at $1500. Five years or so ago, Heritage sold an NGC AU-55 for $1645. In writing this post, I found a Noble Numismatics listing where they sold one ungraded in 2004 for $680 AUD where they also claimed less than 10 are known. Both stated most were melted and didn't enter circulation. Well, the NGC census has 10 in it right now and I doubt any are duplicates because the price difference doesn't make it worthwhile. By common sense, this coin is still scarce but almo
  24. More of your nonsense. I don't miss anything in your theory and claims. I know the historical context you posted and I am fully aware of the psychology of participants in financial markets, as I have demonstrated a lot better than you in my prior posts. The price of gold 600 years ago is irrelevant to this discussion because you and I will be long dead before your claims occur, if ever. In your example, if the US government were secretly buying gold, it may or may not make any difference because it would just mean they owned it instead of someone else. There are lot of people who beli