World Colonial

I attribute most of what you describe to the surrounding asset mania. I'm not questioning your personal observations.

None of this has anything to do with actual collecting. It's pure speculation. I already attempted to answer this in my last post. So it's happening now with other areas? The best explanation for it is the greatest asset mania ever in stocks, bonds, real estate and so forth. What's going to happen when the mania eventually ends? Or are you one of those who might believe it's going to last forever? Because if you do, I'm one of those who doesn't. I see no basis for such a belief whatsoever. There is nothing remotely normal with current financial conditions, asset prices or economic conditions. Unprecedented speculation in every major asset class and varying levels in smaller ones, including collectibles masquerading as one. The loosest credit conditions, aggregate credit standards, and most overvalued asset markets in human history. A predominantly fake economy driven by artificially cheap money and government deficit spending, not just since COVID but going back to at least 2008 with the response to the GFC. What you are asking about here, this combination is what makes it (temporarily) possible because it's "normal" in the context of the surrounding insanity. Did you read my definition of "dead asset"? Where is the "yield" going to come from? Are these collectibles being lent out (similar to gold bullion) where the borrower pays a lender to use it? I can't imagine that this would have any meaningful appeal for any collectible where this fee is going to be more than a trivial amount relative to the value, if it is happening at all. The questions you need to ask yourself are these: What evidence is there that this has any long term appeal (outside of a raging financial mania like the one we have now) where anyone is going to trade this fractional interest like a "widget" at perpetually higher prices? Why would anyone do that? How are these fractional interests supposed to be competitive versus competing "investments"? Negative yield forever where all return comes from perpetually higher prices, including by people who aren't even collectors. The reason I disagree with what you are describing is that there is no evidence that people will exhibit the required behavior to make it successful. It's all in the abstract. In a prior thread, someone mentioned race horses as a comparison. There is no actual equivalence and neither are other high profile alternatives. There are a lot of horse lovers who might be willing to lose money on a fractional interest. It's been a round for a long time and I infer most lose money, so it must be something other than profit to motivate them to do it. There is status value associated with the social aspects within the social environment these people operate. None of this applies to coins, except as a temporary speculation. There is no such motivation with coins, other than maybe with a low minority of the existing collector base for a low number of relatively high profile coins. Even this is questionable, longer term.

Many coins are hybrid collectibles (an alternate form of partial consumption) and "investments". Attitudes toward each differ. With consumer goods, higher prices discourage demand while lower prices incentivize it. It's what we each studied in economics. I don't know what is taught now but from both what I learned in the classroom and what I read, the psychology of "investing" isn't considered hardly at all and not in this context. Looking at asset markets, it's evident that higher prices attract increased interest and lower prices less. It's the opposite behavior toward consumer goods. Higher rpcies make "investments" more desirable. That's how we ended up with the biggest asset bubble in the history of civilization. This is a generalization but it's evident somewhat in a lot in coin buying. I'm of the belief that it will have no meaningful success with coins. If it works with sports cards now, my assumption is that it has been successful because it's in another bubble, not necessarily due to that much interest in collecting. I commented on this subject at length in another thread. It may eventually be necessary for "growth" if by "growth" you mean inflating the price level as much as possible. Since there is unprecedented historical speculation in practically everything, it may work temporarily. Longer term, I'll take the "under" on this bet and predict (again) that any such attempt will fail spectacularly, just as it did in 1989 with the prior attempt to commoditize collecting. As "investment", coins are a dead asset. It's what Buffet says about gold but at least gold has some utility as jewelry, a central bank reserve asset and to some, an alternate form of money as a liquid store of value. Today, the most expensive coinage also has an outsized dependency on the TPG label (plus the CAC sticker for some US coins) which doesn't mean anything to the non-collector, except for the price. Coins generate no income in the form of interest, dividends, rents or royalties. The annual yield is negative due to carrying costs. Coins have no status value to non-collectors which, in the absence of "yield", is necessary to incentivize the non-collector to hold it. There is no basis to believe that anyone will perpetually trade coins or a fractional interest as a type of "widget" at higher prices which is the only way this concoction can be successful longer term. Without this behavior, coins will never be competitive versus other "investments". So to sum it up, the idea of fractional ownership sounds great to those who are motivated to inflate the price level as much as possible but it contradicts human motivation in the real world. It's only feasible longer term in the abstract.

Recap of the mega trends I see: Future appeal as a recreational activity - negative. However, this is a lot less important for some coins versus others. It's a lot more of a negative for the cheaper and cheapest coins, though lifetime collectors usually start at lower prices and spend more as their finances permit it. Bullion prices - positive for now, but mostly for a low minority such as pre-1933 gold, Morgan/Peace dollars and NCLT. The 2011 run-up in gold and silver did not correlate to the same price increases as in the 70's. Too much of run-up in one or (presumably) both will be a negative though, as it would price out an increasing proportion of collectors from numerous series they can afford now. The asset mania - big negative. An end of the asset mania will have the biggest impact on the most expensive coins versus any other factor I know. It will impact both the ability and willingness of these buyers to pay current or higher prices. Long term economic conditions - negative. There is a day of reckoning in store for the typical American's standard of living, which is substantially made possible by the asset mania and the unprecedented loose credit conditions that go with it. Most Americans are destined to become poorer or a lot poorer in the future as the pulling forward of future demand through debt finally catches up with this country. I don't see this as imminent but it's a factor I don't believe is mostly considered at all. Demographics - Age I think makes some difference but mostly in the content of recreational interests. The changing ethnic composition of the population is undoubtedly a negative for both coin collecting in the United States generally and the collecting of US coinage specifically. The core collecting demographic is non-Hispanic white males. Other groups have a much lower propensity to collect at all but when they do, will choose to collect US coins in lower proportion. Internet - positive. I agree with you.

I see it as a balance. The price level is very inflated for many coins now but too much of a price decline I agree would be a negative for collecting, since even those who are primarily motivated by the coin still reasonably consider the financial aspect. Conversely, I don't see and don't remotely believe that a perpetually higher price level which prices out more and more or most collectors out of the coins they want to buy is a positive either. Other than my posts, I don't recall anyone ever mentioning this even once. as if it doesn't matter. It's like well, they can just buy something else that is still affordable. This presume that what remains affordable remains interesting enough to enough collectors. Whether it is depends upon the interests and psychology of the individual but as a common sense principle, it should be evident that access to more coins will generate and maintain more interest than the opposite. No one knows whether the collector base is increasing or if so, how much. Since prices are set at the margin, it's easy enough for a very low number of buyers (relatively) to maintain the price level, as long as there aren't many sellers.

State Quarters, an equivalent to those collecting out of circulation which predominated until the 60's.

I know my comments are unpopular. Try seeing it from the standpoint of the non-collector. If the collector doesn't care about the financial outcome, then nothing I wrote should make any difference. The fact is, most of the time it does. That was my first primary point. The second point I was trying to make which I will repeat is this one. What's going to make collecting interesting enough to a large enough number of non-collectors to create "growth" in the "hobby"? The industry doesn't or didn't care about SQ collectors, except to the extent they can convert them to buying more expensive coins later. There is virtually no profit in the "traditional collector" base. That's one reason (not the only one) why B&M stores are either closing or have been forced to survive selling something other than coins, whether it is bullion, jewelry or something else.

The more expensive coins in these series are predominantly dependent upon the broader asset bubble. Yes, collectors find them interesting but the only reason for current prices is because the bigger asset classes are so hugely inflated. This isn't just true of coins but other areas too. The premiums on generic US gold aren't that high except in the higher TPG grades. But are very high on common Morgan and Peace across the board. Even if one of these two sell for spot, that's about a 40% premium to the metal content which is hardly low considering how incredibly common some of these coins are. Current premiums are a lot higher than that. Considering how common the most common dates are in grades at least up to MS-65, as a collectible, a more "reasonable" general premium would be a few dollars between one point increments. The differences are minor, except to US collectors and anyone else who has been conditioned by the TPG culture. So what I am telling you is that, as long as the broader asset bubble continues and living standards don't take a big hit, I don't expect much if any change. But watch out if otherwise.

If you disagree with me, that's fine. I don't see any tangible connection between coins and history, much less one which is meaningful. I know a lot of collectors do. The point I was trying to make is that yes, I do believe the industry uses the history aspect as a marketing point. It works for collectors mostly or exclusively because they are already interested in collecting. I don't see any analogy with your car example. Maybe some classic car buyers buy it for this reason but 99% of the time, I'd guess it's either for nostalgia, as a status symbol and partly as an "investment". A classic car has some utility. No one needs one but at least you can drive it. With the MM card, I'd guess it's mostly those who grew up as avid fans of the game, might have been Yankee followers, and presumably admired him as a player. I don't see much similarity either, other than the price is also substantially driven by the label holder.

I was attempting to define US collecting, not others. I used South Africa as an example. Collecting elsewhere has not been financialized nearly to the extent as the US, if at all. I also specifically said there could be other categories I did not list. I also specifically stated it was a generalization. I'm not claiming money was never a factor, but my bigger point which underlies the title of this thread is that collecting has been driven more by money since coins came to be bought as "investments" starting in the 70's than previously. I know my view is a very unpopular one, as I see in your reply. Well, what's going to make actual collecting interesting enough to a meaningful number of new participants to increase the price level, other than mostly speculation? I ask because that's what is driving this acquisition, to the extent it has anything to do with coins at all. Collectively, dealers, TPG and auction firms are primarily interested in attracting new collectors to spend as much money as possible. To the extent they actually care about coin collecting as a hobby, it's a distant second to inflating the price level.. I presume you read coin articles regularly. That's the inferred measure of the "health of the hobby", the price level. Partly it might be because it's a single visible data point but mostly, I reasonably infer that's what they actually care about. The industry has somewhat (at least) painted itself into a corner. The marketing variables I listed (TPG labels, registry sets and CAC stickers) aren't remotely interesting enough to maintain interest by the majority (I never said any) of current collectors at any "meaningful outlay, much less for those who aren't, unless the price level is at least mostly stable if not increasing. Look at what (predominantly US) coins cost and what it actually is as a collectible. Look at it from the point of view of the non-collector and then tell me why any meaningful number should be interested in paying current (much less far higher) prices for what they actually get? That is, unless they can get most, all or more of their money back.

I attribute this to the global asset mania and it's nothing positive if by positive someone is in favor of a perpetually higher price level. The global asset mania is the single best explanation why so many assets (including coins) sell at such inflated prices. Some of it is general inflation but not most of it. Coins are a luxury discretionary purchase which no one needs for any purpose. The price trend up to 1971 (before Nixon closed the "gold window) or maybe the mid-70's is a much better indication of hobby demand. The US coin price level was already an outlier (versus other countries) but that's when coins were first widely bought as "investments". Steady consistent price increases to the early 70's (per the Red Books) and then the explosion we see in the PCGS 3000 index from speculative buying and TPG.

I would expect the price to decline significantly, as I would for any other coin. It would probably also happen to other currently unique objects, such as the Faberge Imperial Easter Eggs I have used as examples numerous time too.

The history aspect is mostly used as another marketing angle. No one needs to buy a high grade or expensive coin for the historical connection and the best reason to believe it is used is to inflate the price level, which has nothing to do with collecting whatsoever. Other than being struck in the year which the coin bears and existing, most coins have nothing to do with contemporary events or any event any collector can identify or knows anything about. Lower priced lower quality coins actually have a more tangible connection than higher quality and more expensive coins for the obvious reason that it at least functioned for its intended purpose. Most high quality coins (including those I own) sat in a coin cabinet for decades or centuries until it ended up in a TPG holder. How exciting is that? Someone either likes coins and coin collecting, enough or they don't. Using contrived connections to "history" when the real industry intent is to try to inflate the price level doesn't sound like a winning long term formula to me, but maybe it does to many others.

Generically, three groups of buyers: 1) Recreational collectors or hobbyists who buy coins predominantly as an alternate form of consumption. This doesn't mean they are throwing money away or don't try to get value. It means they will buy a coin anyway even if they know or have a reason to believe it may or will result in a loss. They are overwhelmingly "low budget" buyers though I would put myself in this category, to a point. I'd never buy what I do if I was mostly motivated to recover my outlay or make a profit. 2) A combination of collector and "investor". This is most buyers with any "material" outlay or who buy most of the more expensive coinage, arbitrarily coins usually worth above $300 and maybe in the better quality if below it. I'd describe these buyers as actual collectors but that doesn't mean they really like what they buy that much, not enough enough to lose "a lot" of money or a noticeable proportion of their outlay. 3) Speculators and "investors". These may be collectors but are more interested in making money than collecting. I infer this both from what they buy and the attitudes they express on coin forums or coin articles. It's subjective but I would place most buyers of NCLT, common gold, and common crowns (like Morgan dollars) in this category, at least to the extent this dominates their collecting. Some are a combination of more than one. Or maybe there is a fourth classification I am excluding. The number one thing to remember when discussing this subject is what I have written countless times. When "collecting" and the price level is driven predominantly by a marketing concept (the TPG label, registry ranking, and/or CAC stickers) under the collective pretense (which is exactly what US collecting is actually doing) that minor differences in predominantly actually common coins supposedly creates distinction, why would anyone ever expect that most buyers would be more interested in actual collecting than the price trend and at least recovering their outlay? So many (mostly US) coins with limited if any actual distinction sell for such inflated and exorbitant prices, there is no reason to believe that most collectors remotely like what they buy enough to see it any other way. This is, of course, a generalization but entirely consistent with what anyone can see in the psychology illustrated on coin forums or coin articles. I saw this first hand with South African "collectors" which was much worse than anything I have ever seen on any US forum but I have seen it on these forums too.

This mostly sums it up. This is what the crowd says during every bubble or mania. It's "always different this time". I agree with @GoldFinger1969to a point in his last comments. There is a much stronger cultural affinity. Sports is a much bigger part of people's lives than coins will ever be. What you described in your post I see as predominantly speculation. I do not follow this hobby segment but particularly anything of more recent vintage (like Michael Jordon or even worse, LeBron James) is way too common. 316 GEM-10 Jordan rookie cards already and it's selling for $700K? That's nut's, far worse than the price of any coin and I find the price spreads on the most common condition census coins ridiculous.

I have only bought at auction from England. The TPG grades did not correlate consistently with the description. But in your case since you bought it in person, I'm going to guess in advance that the NGC grade will be higher, or else you would not have bought it.

There is little interest in "finest known" outside of US coinage; due to the holder label. Where it does exist, it's almost certainly almost exclusively from a US based collector, if the premium is "meaningful". There are some exceptions such as for South Africa but that's because South African collectors have a demonstrated preference for TPG which doesn't exist for almost any other country as is evident from the TPG data.

I can see the image of the coin but have not received it back. Once I do, I'll look at it under magnification. My assumption is that the spot I THINK I saw didn't go into the surfaces as I thought it might. Also, the coin must have been dipped as part of conservation, as it looks a lot more lustrous. I'd prefer the coin with color but it was already untoned (and somewhat dull) prior to resubmission.

Yes and in my limited experience, their grading is really strict. One coin I missed which they graded "Good VF" is now in a PCGS MS-63 holder. I consider the actual grade to be somewhere in-between but I don't see it as a true MS.

I think we are in agreement, mostly at least. Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference and the collectors attitude toward collecting. There is no "one size fits all." I agree with you that those who spend more money are more inclined to collect as you describe, because they are more able to afford it and the amount of the outlay motivates them to do it. But the availability also has a lot to do with it. You know this better than I do. More prominent US coins in very low grades, many of which I consider "dreck" regardless that US collectors see it differently. These coins cost four and sometimes five figures, even with problems or in "market acceptable" grades of AG-3 or G-4. A coin like the 1796 quarter or 1796-1797 half. These coins are scarcer than those I collect as a type, because the combined mintages are very low and much lower than my series. It's several thousand versus several million. But in decent circulated grades, higher grades, or even "choice", mostly not really rare most of the time. I don't see 1794 dollars, 1796 half cents or 1802 half dimes often. I do see most early US federal type in "high quality" (regardless of date) and often in multiple most or every time I look. If I insisted on collecting with similar exacting quality standards or tried to enforce a uniform look, I'd hardly ever buy anything.

It's somewhat of a mystery other than they can get away with it. Part of it might have to do with the shrinking number of firms. There are essentially two large firms (Heritage and Stacks Bowers) but Heritage is larger than all others combined. The other firms are either niche or aren't serious competition for these two. Several firms have disappeared since I resumed collecting in 1998. Bowers and Merena and ANR are now part of Stacks. Superior Galleries suddenly went out of business around 2006. Goldberg was a more serious competitor but now seems to be almost invisible. They are still around but don't see them as much of an alternative to the big two. Same trend to some degree in world coins, though Heritage and Stacks Bowers are the two largest generalists. Everyone else (US or elsewhere) I would describe as a specialist firm. eBay was a more viable option at the lower price points in the past but I'd never sell using a true auction format now unless it was a relatively liquid coin.

I'm at the point in my primary series where I am about to run out of coins from the TPG population data to buy. There are five dates remaining (from a series broadly defined with 104 coins) in a quality I will accept (that is, not dreck) that I currently do not own. However, I have not seen most of these coins and there are some real "head scratchers" out there where I have no idea how that grade was assigned. There are also additional upgrades but that's less of a priority. So yes, in an example like mine, it will be beneficial to attempt to acquire through private transaction because it's essentially the only option. If I ever decide to attempt it, there is one dealer on the PCGS forum and the author/collector of the reference book I will approach as a starting point. When I collected South Africa Union as my primary series, I also sold most of my better coins privately about 10 years ago. However, that's because there is almost no market for these coins in the US, except at or near Krause list which is well below the value in South Africa. It's one of the reasons I changed my focus, too much trouble to sell.

If a collector wants one with the highest number on a TPG label, with a very specific strike, with a very specific color or color pattern ("eye appeal", some die variety, or a combination, such a coin might be hard to find. So are 99% of all coins ever struck outside of NCLT, modern proofs, and maybe circulating coinage from the last 10-20 years. Most collectors don't find any difficulty in buying 20th century US coins in "acceptable quality". Your description applies to a very low fraction of the collector base and the primary reason this behavior happens at all is that most of these coins are so common, they have the luxury to choose from a (relatively) large number: almost always dozens, hundreds, thousands or even more in "acceptable quality". Intermittently, I look at numerous US key dates or coins viewed as (somewhat) scarce or even rare. Invariably, I can find practically every one every time and it isn't "dreck" either. On a recent search, this included the 1796 and 1797 half dollars. Collectors Corner had six 1796 and three 1797 (including auctions) up to MS. I have found one or both of these dates in "high quality", every single time I have looked. It's not common but isn't a hard type to buy, even in "high" quality. I intended to use "acceptable quality" broadly as it describes how most collectors actually collect. They aren't willing to pay, can't afford, or don't care about what are actually minor attributes, outside of the price. Collectors have always preferred better coins, this kind of search was just a lot less important to them when the price level was a lot lower and price spreads were narrower. The broader point I was trying to make is the one I made before. I don't see much motive for a buyer to bypass public auction where the coin is readily available, though I was only using 20th century US as an example. They might as well buy it from a dealer instead of another collector, unless they can split the savings with the seller or buy it a discount, at minimum. Another alternative to auctions is consignment. If I had the coins inferred in the prior posts meeting this narrow quality criteria and price range, I'd consign to a dealer like CRO. It's much easier and less risky than hoping you can find another collector who wants what you have when you don't even know them.

You're bringing up a point which has been discussed previously where posters seem to have different opinions. The buyer's fee won't in and of itself increase the final price to the buyer. It depends upon the bidder. They can just lower their bid to stay within their limit. It's buyer specific but I doubt bidders at this level are completely ignoring it in deciding how much to pay. One point which I did not successfully make in my last post is that I don't see most buyers having much incentive to engage in a private transaction, UNLESS they can "split the difference" , buy at a discount to the "retail" price. I'd buy directly and pay (somewhat) more for a coin in my series but that's only because these are actually hard to buy. But if I do, I'd be guessing at the value, as there is no established price. Also, take a look at the "Make an Offer" available in Heritage. Even for coins which sold recently, mostly (hugely) inflated ask prices for overwhelmingly common coins, If you remember my prior posts, I noted that outside of a very low number of Indian Head eagles and Saints, any 20th century US coin outside of the 1913 LHN and patterns can be bought at any time, outside of some arbitrary TPG label or specialization. It's more difficult for 18th and 19th century, but still mostly in a narrow sense, as only a very low proportion can't be bought in "acceptable quality" on short notice, as in maybe a few months. A private sale creates a lot more uncertainty with elite coins like a 27-D Saint. On the PCGS forum, one poster purportedly did that with the MS-67 Pacquet reverse DE less than a year ago and now it's coming up for sale. Did the prior seller misjudge the market and sell it cheap? Maybe and we're about to find out.

Well, at least it came back MS-65 which is an upgrade from MS-64. i was worried it might come back AU details with spot removal. Total cost though is $104 since I had to submit it alone.