World Colonial

I didn't look everywhere. I was using California Numismatic Investments (golddealer.com), a PNG dealer, as a proxy. This was a few days ago. They offer ASE, AGE and all similar products. Not referring to obsolete world coins or jewelry. But yes, their buy price for the 2021 ASE was $32+ and their sell was $40+. That's 20%. Somewhat less for the others but still more than 15%. I did not check every single dealer and yes, there are likely lower spreads somewhere, if you can find it. But I doubt they are that far off, or else they wouldn't be in business anymore. APMEX was somewhat less (though I did not check at the exact same time) but I did not see their bids, only ask prices. It's not possible to buy AGE or ASE from the US Mint as a retail buyer, except proofs.

Most buyers of the "paper" metal don't want physical metal. Shorting "paper" gold and silver doesn't suppress the price, except temporarily. For every short, there is a long. Reducing trading in the "paper" metals doesn't automatically translate into increased demand for physical, especially when this institutional trading might not be connected to retail demand anyway. If inflation increases noticeably, those who own the metals will be better off then those who don't, but owning the minimal amounts most either can or will buy isn't going to make any material difference to the financial position of more a minimal proportion of those buy it. The physical metals aren't as liquid as most coin collectors and metal bugs seem to believe either, especially now. Sure, it's easy to sell but the spreads aren't low relatively versus actually liquid assets. Buy an ASE now and you immediately have a "paper" loss of 15% to 20%. That's horrible liquidity. Gold is 6% to 8% last I checked for AGE, much worse than previously.

Compared to the things people buy, gold isn't cheap now. It is expensive. It's advocates state it is cheap compared to the flood of fiat currency being "printed" but most of it is actually someone's debt, not money. This doesn't mean that gold can't increase 150% to 400% by 2030, it just means that unless most of the things people need to buy increase at least as much, it will be more overpriced than it is now. At some point, I think it will spike a lot higher. However, longer term which may be beyond my lifespan, I expect it to lose a lot of relative value.

In my lifetime, it's been all about timing. If you bought in 1980, you are underwater adjusted for price changes, even by the CPI which many consider understated. If you bought in 2011, you are about even nominally (about -5% as of today) and negative adjusted for price changes. If you bought in 1999 or 2001 and held to 2011, it outperformed practically every other asset class. (Underperformed silver and a low proportion of individual stocks.) If you bought some other time, it depends. Silver is still underwater from 1980, NEGATIVE 48% in NOMINAL TERMS since 1980. Hard to do worse than that and most couldn't do it if they tried. There was inflation (measured by the CPI) each and every year since 1980.

Remember the anecdote from the South Sea Bubble? The IPO titled "an undertaking of great advantage but no one to know what it is"? Purportedly it was for 5,000 GBP. Crypto is backed by nothing, exists only in cyber space, and isn't useful as a functioning currency due to wild volatility. A specific crypto like BTC has a limited supply but collectively the supply of all "cyber coins" is theoretically infinite. It has value solely due to speculation. I hear the same thing about fiat currency but with USD or any other major currency, it must be accepted to pay debts, taxes, and if you want to do business with any government. I have yet to hear of anyone who turned down a government contract because they refused to accept it.

I expect most Americans to be noticeably poorer in the distant and maybe not so distant future. Saints are a much better value relative to the spot price than equivalently available Morgan dollars. Sure, the latter is "popular" but the premiums to spot are exorbitantly inflated for such common coins.

Doesn't he work for or is a principal at DLRC? If so, either he or someone from this firm made a comment on the PCGS forum in the Hansen mega-thread about coins being "under valued" by comparing it to prominent art. Or he claimed Hansen said it and the reaction of "wide eyed" bankers absorbing this supposed wisdom. It's complete BS, just as the earlier NGC article on financial prospects for fractional ownership. I agree it's more total BS. Coins aren't an inflation hedge and the idea is absurd. I believe ethnic demographic (not age) changes are a likely big negative for aggregate US coin prices longer term, but not for the high(est) end. The number of coins is too low where it makes much difference.

Per my first post here, I think you are right.

Could be, but it would help if non-collectors actually know this coins exists. The overwhelming indication is that they do not.

Agree. I consider this coin highly significant as a coin collector, just not to the level of the hype reflected in the price or what the US coin industry makes of it. It's still one I have no interest in owning even if I could afford it, but I "get" why it's significant to US coin collectors. No actually significant coin primarily depends upon minor quality differences reflected in TPG grades for its prominence.

Totally different motivation versus buying any coin. I heard that a non-collector might have bought it again this time, just as Weitzman wasn't purportedly a collector when he bought it in 2002, though had been a casual one as a youth. The island has some practical usage. The buyer can build on it for use as a private resort. The other two have general status value, of a sort. The 1933 DE doesn't have status value or utility to anyone, except a coin collector. No one needs to spend $18.9MM to impress a non-collector with a "trophy" object. They can buy most of the items displayed in first class museums for a low fraction of the price. I've been a coin collector all my life and to me, it's so what? If a non-collector bought it, it's presumably for diversification (a supposed inflation hedge) and "investment". I think it will turn out to be a lousy or mediocre "investment" at the price paid, but time will tell.

I presume it has some downstream impact on some of the highest priced eight figure ($MM) coins. Other than that, I don't believe it has any relevance to the price level either.

The only reason I can see for pushing this theme is to convince everyone else that what they own should be more valuable. Why else would anyone care what anyone else thinks about it?

I see most of the motivation as financial, to inflate the price level as much as possible and exaggerate the significance for the rarity even though it's the norm.

Yes, exactly. You summarized my long winded post.

They know the pillar design. It circulated over there. The Mexico pillar dollar is one of the more counterfeited coins. I presume professional counterfeiters treat it like any other business, at least to a point. It's much easier and more profitable to produce large numbers of fakes for the coins you listed, common US key dates, and some ancients than anything I collect, whether they know it exists or not. A 1916-D VG dime sells for more than all but a very low number of coins (less than 10) I have ever bought. Somewhere over $1000. Or any others like it. It's a very common coin where a noticeable number could (and to my knowledge have) been sold without the buyer being aware of it, until years later if ever. I have heard there are potentially more fakes than real ones. Nothing like this will ever happen for what I collect, where the numbers matter to a counterfeiter. Recently, I compiled a list I know exist in my series that I would like to buy: from the TPG populations, auction catalogs and my reference books. 67 total coins for 49 different date/mint combinations. More out there but it isn't many. A few on this list would be worth counterfeiting as singles but mostly. not worth the effort. Sure, I could be fooled into buying one or a few at nominal prices. Anything more than a minimal number showing up in any close proximity would be noticed. The coins just do not show up, except in isolation. I wouldn't buy a coin at any meaningful price from an unknown source where I have never heard of one like it.

Not just popular, but also common or common as dirt. It's a lot more profitable to fake a (very) large number of moderately priced coins than a (much) lower number or a handful or scarcer and/or more expensive ones. There is limited profit in faking most coins, including those I collect.

It's a reasonable proposal but the lower mintages in your examples would likely still result in flippers trying to buy most of the supply, with a coin like these at least.. If the mintage is "low", I don't see another option other than the Mint offering it to the highest bidder at auction. Many collectors might be priced out, many would complain (mostly because the profit would be eliminated), but anyone who wanted it who has the money would get one. One of these might work, depending upon the mintage and coin. You have more direct insight through your selling on eBay. Anecdotally, I see the same thing you do for the ASE and modern US gold NCLT. Same goes for world equivalents. This is mostly from coin forum posts but also an inference on how I read collector preferences based upon the coin attributes. I don't see these buyers as primarily (if at all)) collecting. The reason I do not is because these aren't "real" coins. For silver US modern commemoratives, I infer that there is a lot more cross over but don't know this as fact. I infer this coinage is competing with world NCLT in the same price range, ASE, and US classic coinage which is the closest substitute: common Morgan and Peace dollars, late date Walkers, cheaper classic commemoratives, and maybe the Franklin half.

True But in addition to the complaints commonly aired, there is another negative financial factor which I almost never read but which numerous others must know exists. All US Mint products take "share of wallet" from previously existing coinage. If the supply collectively is "limited" and the collector base or financial inflow is increasing, it isn't noticed. But in a stagnant market which is the reality I read for US coinage collectively until the last year, not only are buyers mostly losing money on their Mint purchases, the flood of US and world NCLT elsewhere is also depressing the value of their existing collections. Many of the buyers are buying one or the other (NCLT or everything else) but many buy both.

I don't see how the Mint would be in a position to know the "correct" number. A few but only a few of the coins had limits too low, such as the 2019-S ERP ASE but it's an outlier. It's hard to know the "correct" number when so much current demand (maybe most of it much of the time) is from speculators and flippers. I agree with the rest of your post. The combination of the scenarios you outlined make it plainly evident that most (potential) buyers don't really like US Mint products that much. It's my opinion that most of the (supposedly) low mintage products are actually bought mostly for financial reasons, in the hope that demand will increase later to increase the price (noticeably). Comments on coin forums imply that this appears to be true with a noticeable percentage of buyers, First Spouse being the best example. It's a numismatically mediocre series which has essentially zero collector demand selling at an uncompetitive price due to the metal content. The other primary buyers appear to be those who buy US Mint products through rote habit. With these particular coins (and the Peace dollar), there is legitimate collector interest, but it isn't a better or more interesting collectible than a real Morgan or Peace dollar. It's a novelty (for now) but one that is almost certain to lose much of it's appeal later, definitely if either turn into a on-going series.

Wouldn't be because he doesn't want to understand , would it? No, that would never happen.

Are US Mint employees compensated on profits and if so, is it meaningful to them? Never heard that they are and if so, doubt it makes much difference to their compensation. I don't believe they care about the profitability, except to the extent that it gets someone else off their back. My guess is that they would rather deal with dealers and wholesalers because there are fewer of them and presumably less of an annoyance. Reading coin forums and posts in Coin Week, I wouldn't want to deal with the collecting public either. Mostly complaints where I see no possibility to satisfy most of them. The buyers want the impossible. They want low(er) mintage coins which are always available to them (often in multiple for "flipping") and don't lose value in the secondary market.

Yes, I'd guess most would have had QE and half eagles at some point but it wouldn't surprise me if a noticeable minority did not and most did not have any most of the time either. There were a lot of poor people at the time, even as US income and living standards to my knowledge were (among) the highest on earth, on average. I believe the minimum wage was 25c when first instituted in 1938 (?). That's $10 a week, or less. Earlier though do not remember when, typical daily wage was $1, I think late 1800''s or early 20th century. Second is a vague recollection and might not be fully accurate.

Yes, I would have thought that mostly everyone who is old enough to have used your examples when it was in circulation would have seen it.. With the $20 gold, not sure how widely it actually circulated. My assumption is, not much. It was more than most people (the vast majority) made in a week or however often they were paid. I'd also guess that at least a noticeable minority didn't even have this much in savings at the time, whether they used banks or not. It also wasn't practical for most purchases, just as a near $2000 coin wouldn't be now.

Probably my 1770 NGC AU-53 Peru 4R. It's the coin I would be most interested in owning if it wasn't mine now and I could acquire it from my current collection.