World Colonial

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by World Colonial

  1. I took a brief look at this link and wanted to follow-up on it. The prior post introduced it in the context of key dates. I didn't read read all the commentary but I believe enough to comment on it. I disagree with their conclusions because: 1) It seems to linearly extrapolate prior trends by ignoring the internet. 2) It ignores demographic trends where the future proportion who predominantly or exclusively collect US coinage is almost certainly going to be lower than now. 3) Like literally every other source (and coin forum post)
  2. Interesting articles. I read the second one at some point but not the first. Most of it is off topic (for another thread) but I will comment on one aspect. I don't believe the typical collector age in the US is in the 60's. I definitely believe that the coins predominantly collected by this generation are going to continue to lose relative preference. Coins typically collected out of circulation in the 50'S and 60'S are presumably mostly a one way market. It's also my expectation that decades from now, the vast majority of date/MM combinations from post-1933 US regular issue coin
  3. Thanks, my views are presumably unpopular. I don't claim to be infallible, I just know that my reasoning is better than those who disagree with me. If someone believes that the public finds coin collecting a lot more interesting than is evident and collectors like what they collect a lot more than is actually evident from the evidence, then it's easy to come to a different conclusion. If the collector doesn't care about the future price of what they buy, then nothing I write on this topic is of any relevance to them. At any "material" outlay, the evidence proves they usually do car
  4. I am not aware of many hoards, of any size anyway but someone else might know. I heard many or most 1931-S cents were bought either directly from the mint or shortly after but don't know if true. Have heard of a specific hoard of the 1972 DDO cent, on this forum years ago. Otherwise though, tons of this coinage dated 1933 and later was saved by the roll in (better) UNC grades; many cents, presumably the 1938D Buffalo nickel (TPG count is over 60,000 MS), and all silver denominations. There was also one or a few reported BU rolls of the 1912-S or 1912-D LHN within the last 10 years.
  5. When I have read this type of "article", it's almost invariably marketing hype and nonsense. Someone is promoting "the hobby", a coin or series with tunnel vision and rose colored glasses. When I have time, I will read your links (I may have done so previously) and also look at the link from the initial post on Barber halves.
  6. There seems to be a totally different mentality between buyers of metal substitutes (Morgan dollars, maybe Peace dollars, pre-1933 US gold and US NCLT) versus all other US coinage. Due to what you buy, you fall into this group. If financial considerations are most important, the buyer should buy this coinage or not collect at all. If I were concerned about losing much or most of my outlay for the coins I collect, I wouldn't buy it. The census counts for the other series you listed are much lower than the most common Morgan dollars and Saints but still high and in most cases (at minimum
  7. Since I wrote the earlier posts in this thread (including this one), my thinking has evolved somewhat in the sense that I believe I understand the collector behavior underlying the price structure a lot better. Not picking on Barber halves though it may seem like it, as i only used it as an example since someone mentioned it first. What I invariably see though is that someone likes or collects a series, they think others should or will also, and therefore, it will become wroth more or a lot more. This isn't how reality actually works because it does not align with collector motivati
  8. Sounds about right. But if you look longer term back to the 1960's at the peak of collecting out of circulation, I think you'll see that the relative preference has declined noticeably or collapsed. That's what I saw with Key date Lincoln cents, other then the 1955 DDO.
  9. My inference is it's more of a cultural thing. Not exactly the same but a similar reason why people prefer music or their own cuisine. This is when the coin is bought primarily for non-financial reasons. To a very limited extent, I believe there is some "arbitrage" (for lack of a better term) but coins aren't commodities. There are more affluent collectors with a Latin Heritage now versus before and I believe this accounts for the noticeable increase in this coinage now. Concurrently I also believe that more than a few have unrealistic and misplaced financial expectations. The mo
  10. Basically every single one from Lincoln cents to Indian Head half eagles in the 20th century. Specific examples? 09-S VDB cent 1918-D overdate (it's a die variety), 1916-D dime, 1916 SLQ,. The Barber key dates (excluding the 1913 LHN and 1894-S dime which I presume almost no collector considers necessary for a "complete" series) are also very expensive. 1885 and 1886 nickels, 1895-O dime, 1896-S and 1901-S quarters. The latter coin is ridiculously overpriced in the lowest grades. If it were practically any other, it would be considered "dreck". 1907 High Relief Saint is overpriced as
  11. Personally, I don't consider any of the Barber halves as a key date because the difference in scarcity is much narrower than other series from this point forward. The other denominations,. yes. It's also a series that seems to be (or is) harder to complete in mid to higher circulated grades than MS which is what most collectors normally buy for a series of this scarcity. I know I can buy the entire series in nice enough UNC now (yes, literally in one day) but doing so in "original" VF or XF almost certainly not. It would take some looking to do that. The series is too scarce and e
  12. I doubt many (proportionately) have been melted for scrap. Mostly, I infer it's collectors buying it as a bullion substitute, including by those who don't otherwise buy coins in this price range. I don't buy any US but have considered and may eventually buy this coinage for the same reason. I don't own it now. The exception to my above comments are the dates with huge populations such as the 1904DE and a few Saints. With hundreds of thousands already graded and no reason to believe many duplicates, I don't believe there are anywhere near enough collectors buying it for any reason.
  13. Sounds similar to the British "proofs of record" from about the same time period. At least, that's the term Heritage has used in auction descriptions.
  14. I don't believe it has anything to do with collector turnover. The better explanation for why it was "popular" with the post-WWII generation is because there wasn't much else available to easily buy at the time. If the internet had been around at the time, it would almost certainly have been a lot less "popular" which is why I believe it will lose some or much of its current preference later. I don't pay attention to this series particularly but suspect it will lose "share of wallet" (somewhat) to world and ancient coinage which is enough at the margin to at minimum keep it from increas
  15. Generically, the most widely collected US key dates are way overpriced for the scarcity. 20th century key dates are disproportionately common and not even close to being rare. It's also my inference that the coins you consider to be tougher dates I would consider common or very common. Why do you believe the Barber half has good price potential? The Barber half is not common but it isn't even close to really being scarce. It's in the middle where nicer examples are somewhat harder to find while concurrently the series doesn't really have that high of a collector preference. I
  16. Correct, all the way up to at least MS-62. I have not seen the article. I have looked at the NGC and PCGS population data occasionally directly. Once the count gets beyond 10,000 for any gold coin, I'm dubious most of it is owned as a collectible. If it is, it is probably "impulse" buying where it occurs. However, "impulse" buying doesn't explain the ability to absorb 300,000 1904 DE or any number close to it. There aren't anywhere near that many collectors who can both afford and want the coin as a collectible.
  17. Could be as many as several hundred thousand buying generic pre-1933 gold predominantly for financial reasons but I suspect there are also a noticeable number who own this coinage in larger number. Last I checked, the 1904 DE had a TPG count of about 300,000, the price spreads indicate a very low proportion of duplicates, and there are possibly many more. The most common Saints have a similar number. Your collector population estimate seems a reasonable one., as I presume most of the scarcer dates (like 1932) are owned by those collect the series, though a noticeable minority might als
  18. Yes, I have read it too. The question I always ask is cheap compared to what? If it's in the context of high priced art, it's totally BS. Like years ago in the Coin Week article comparing the Brasher doubloon to "Scream". Supposedly it was "cheap" due to the "history" of this coin, as if anyone would ever buy an expensive painting for this reason.
  19. It's my inference that most of these coins are losing "share of wallet" due to the internet and NCLT. It was one to collect this coinage when it was mostly done at FV and there wasn't much else readily available. It's another thing entirely when presumably somewhere in the vicinity of 95% of all coins ever struck can be bought on demand or short notice, except in some arbitrary quality. Previously, I have commented on key and semi-key date Lincoln cents whose relative preference has mostly collapsed from 1965. It hasn't happened for the 16-D dime - YET - and probably a few others but it's
  20. My recollection is that this series was both promoted by telemarketers and targeted for inclusion in the LLP we previously discussed. My inference is that many people (collector and non-collector both) bought it at the time by being told the coins were "scarce" due to the "low" mintage. However, I don't know this definitively. It's evident that most buyers are buying individual coins and not even attempting to complete the series. There is also a lot of this with the common "key dates" such as the 09-S VDB, as I'd be really surprised if there are anywhere close to enough wheat cent col
  21. I find many coin prices absurd but no coin in the same price range has anywhere near an equivalent supply. $700K is a totally ridiculous price for a piece of cardboard with at least 316 where this "limited" supply is still only based upon a label. And who knows how many more are just waiting to end up in a GM-10 holder later. It's potentially more than the 316 currently graded now. No duplicates there, that is for sure. That's why I used St Gaudens artwork as a point of comparison earlier. We all hear of the headline prices in the eight or nine figures but that's a tiny portion of th
  22. Not a baseball card but I would call a Michael Jordan rookie card (two apparently) selling for $700K+ with 316 GM-10 and 11500 graded "mass produced", even accounting for duplicates. There are potentially many more out there also.
  23. Buyers just adjust their bids to pay whatever they planned. Seller presumably got well over 100% of hammer for a coin like this one. It's evident from the price level that very few US collectors who can afford to buy the "mega priced" coins will seriously compete for it. Apparently Hansen didn't buy it and at least two PCGS forum members who are understood to be able to do so admitted they did not either. Through a process of elimination, I'd guess the buyer could be narrowed down to a very small number, unless lightning actually struck and a non-collector bought it. If they did, i
  24. Presume many saw or heard the 1822 $5 sold for $8.4MM. It will be interesting to know who the buyer was, assuming it is disclosed. On the PCGS forum, one member claimed again it was a non-collector. He is buyer of "mega priced" coins and maybe knows through a process of elimination who did not from those who can afford it, but I still doubt it. His theory was that it was bought as an inflation hedge. If true, I consider it a very poor one, as coins are not an inflation hedge. The inflated price level is the result of credit conditions and the fake prosperity that goes with it. I