Jim Bisognani: Saints Alive! A 1933 Double Eagle Soars to a Record $18.9 Million! 1 1

[Matt G]

With the recent record-breaking sales, experts weigh in on what it means for the numismatic hobby. Read more

 

[RWB]

It means nothing. It is an isolated event related to a coin the government has declared "unique," and supported by millions spent in litigation.

[World Colonial]

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.

[gmarguli]

As much as some dealers of high priced coins would like you to believe, it says nothing about the coin market. Money is super cheap right now and investors are begging to find places to park it. It'd be very interesting to know the motivation for the bidders. We don't know if any of them were actual coin collectors. 

[Alex in PA.]

27 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

We don't know if any of them were actual coin collectors. 

Often we cannot fathom why people do the things they do.  Wealth, exceptional wealth, is a great motivator.

The world's ultra-wealthy spend money on things that most people can't even fathom buying.

One tech billionaire bought his own Hawaiian island, and a hedge fund manager spent at least $8 million on a 14-foot preserved shark.  Some unknowns are buying tickets for trips into space even though they are not astronauts.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Alex in PA. said:

One tech billionaire bought his own Hawaiian island, and a hedge fund manager spent at least $8 million on a 14-foot preserved shark

I hear the Pebble Island, the 3rd largest island in the Falklands, is for sale. Comes with breeding ground for four species of penguins, two self-catering holiday cottages, and over 8,000 sheep. Shall I call my real estate agent? Anybody got any real nice mutton recipes?

Edited June 16, 2021 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

[Just an observation... I was privileged enough recently to examine superlative, highly-detailed, pinpoint focused,  photographs of the coin in optimum lighting conditions, both pre-Farouk, post-Farouk and quickly came to the conclusion this now egregiously damaged piece would have little appeal to a true numismatist and connoisseur of coins.]

[VKurtB]

6 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[Just an observation... I was privileged enough recently to examine superlative, highly-detailed, pinpoint focused,  photographs of the coin in optimum lighting conditions, both pre-Farouk, post-Farouk and quickly came to the conclusion this now egregiously damaged piece would have little appeal to a true numismatist and connoisseur of coins.]

That’s because you live in a world of nearly flawless gold pieces, not a very large world at all, other than in mint-issued capsules. 

[World Colonial]

2 hours ago, Alex in PA. said:

Often we cannot fathom why people do the things they do.  Wealth, exceptional wealth, is a great motivator.

The world's ultra-wealthy spend money on things that most people can't even fathom buying.

One tech billionaire bought his own Hawaiian island, and a hedge fund manager spent at least $8 million on a 14-foot preserved shark.  Some unknowns are buying tickets for trips into space even though they are not astronauts.

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.

Edited June 16, 2021 by World Colonial

[World Colonial]

9 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

That’s because you live in a world of nearly flawless gold pieces, not a very large world at all, other than in mint-issued capsules. 

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.

[Alex in PA.]

You 'collectors', at present, have no idea who or what bought this coin.  As I said, people who are worth billions often get bored.  Perhaps Exxon-Mobile or China National Petroleum bought it.  Would be the first time a major corp bought a valuable item.  Get a picture of this coin everyone is so enamored with and stare at it.  That often helps.  

[GoldFinger1969]

It brought some nice publicity for the coin hobby via the sale.  That's about it as far as I can see.

[GoldFinger1969]

2 hours ago, World Colonial said:

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.

It will probably be a lousy investment as an inflation hedge, unlike art which has a much larger base of buyers.

It didn't even return 5% a year over the 19 years that Weitzman owned it (4.9% a year).  This is my experience with other trophy coins as well, like the Norweb 1908-S.  

Unless you market-time perfectly -- buying at a depressed price, selling at an inflated or high price -- you're not making any decent investment returns and are probably getting low-single digits per annum OR you are flat OR you are losing $$$.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 6/15/2021 at 3:14 PM, RWB said:

It means nothing. It is an isolated event related to a coin the government has declared "unique," and supported by millions spent in litigation.

One exception, Roger:  I do think it will drag up the prices of MCMVII UHRs as a more beautiful coin with a very limited but more available coinage.   A 1907 UHR is a very nice consolation prize.

Anybody who wanted this coin at $10-$15 MM would be smart to grap one of the Top 10 UHRs at less than half of that price.

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, Alex in PA. said:

You 'collectors', at present, have no idea who or what bought this coin.  As I said, people who are worth billions often get bored.  Perhaps Exxon-Mobile or China National Petroleum bought it.  Would be the first time a major corp bought a valuable item.  Get a picture of this coin everyone is so enamored with and stare at it.  That often helps.  

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

[World Colonial]

15 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

One exception, Roger:  I do think it will drag up the prices of MCMVII UHRs as a more beautiful coin with a very limited but more available coinage.   A 1907 UHR is a very nice consolation prize.

Anybody who wanted this coin at $10-$15 MM would be smart to grap one of the Top 10 UHRs at less than half of that price.

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

[Henri Charriere]

QUINTUS ARRIUS:  Any comment about the 1933 Double Eagle that was just sold?

HEATHER LANGBORD:  ....This is a phenomenon most often seen among the super-rich who routinely acquire damaged goods because they are lacking in knowledge of what constitutes good taste and depend on "experts" to tell them.  Walter Hoving of Tiffany's knew this; he had standards. He refused to sell diamond rings to men, anything plated with silver and customers who had been rude to his salespeople. Under his 25-year stewardship as Chairman of Tiffany & Company, sales skyrocketed from about $10 million to $100 million.....

On the matter of the coin, I think it fair to say ours were much, much nicer.

[VKurtB]

3 hours ago, Alex in PA. said:

You 'collectors', at present, have no idea who or what bought this coin.  As I said, people who are worth billions often get bored.  Perhaps Exxon-Mobile or China National Petroleum bought it.  Would be the first time a major corp bought a valuable item.  Get a picture of this coin everyone is so enamored with and stare at it.  That often helps.  

Maybe one of Putin’s oligarchs bought it so that they could carve his initials into the obverse devices.  

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

Maybe one of Putin’s oligarchs bought it so that they could carve his initials into the obverse devices.

Many buyers have to be vetted beforehand and many of Putin's allies are on those NO BUY LIST for real estate and other items in NYC and the U.S.  Fears of terrorist ties and/or money laundering, and that.

[GoldFinger1969]

5 hours ago, Alex in PA. said:

You 'collectors', at present, have no idea who or what bought this coin.  As I said, people who are worth billions often get bored.  Perhaps Exxon-Mobile or China National Petroleum bought it.  Would be the first time a major corp bought a valuable item.  Get a picture of this coin everyone is so enamored with and stare at it.  That often helps.  

Can't speak for foreign corps, but U.S. corporations would have a problem justifying such an expenditure.  Witness the blowback some CEO's are getting for BitCoin, which at least is a quasi-digital currency.

A single expenditure on a trophy asset which is clearly illiquid (and probably a very small % of your cash balances so it can't move the needle on performance) might be deemed a waste/theft of company assets by the CEO or CFO, similar to the mess Tyco got into in the early-2000's.

Such a purchase just brings more headaches for any public company than it is worth.  A private company, de facto controlled by a family or individual, is another matter as the person and company are interchangeable to an extent and no SEC, shareholder, or press questioning are likely if the company/individual wants anonymity.

[GoldFinger1969]

As for the specific comments: 

I disagree with John Brush that coins at the high-end or in their entirety are now an asset class, they are most certainly NOT.  Too few....too small in $$$-size....too illiquid.

I disagree with Jeff Garrett that it signifies a new bull market in coins.  Again, I think the price is great and that it is nice hype for the hobby....but the overall return from 2002-2021 lags behind virtually all financial and tangible asset returns, including other collectibles.

I agree with Bob Green that it will help grow collectors for the Saint series.  But if it drags up the prices across the board down to commons in the MS66/67 area, it will tee off rather than be applauded by other collectors.

I agree with Mark Feld and said so as much by listing MCMVII UHRs as a clear beneficiary (I'm surprised there hasn't been a run on them yet though the prices HAVE been rising strongly the last 12 months).  

I TOTALLY disagree with James Sibley that this is a move predicated on wanting "hard assets" before hyper-inflation hits.  Nobody with Big $$$ buys a single coin for $20 MM or so to protect against inflation.  You buy TIPs or gold or commodities or even BitCoin or even sell short fixed-income instruments.  I also think he is too definitive on demographics being a major depressant on prices and being long-term bearish on prices.  I do think demographics MIGHT be a headwind -- but that is all.  Other forces could offset that negative.  It's unclear if coins -- or at least the major coin types -- will follow stamps or art in 20 years or so.

[MarkFeld]

8 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

As for the specific comments: 

I disagree with John Brush that coins at the high-end or in their entirety are now an asset class, they are most certainly NOT.  Too few....too small in $$$-size....too illiquid.

I disagree with Jeff Garrett that it signifies a new bull market in coins.  Again, I think the price is great and that it is nice hype for the hobby....but the overall return from 2002-2021 lags behind virtually all financial and tangible asset returns, including other collectibles.

I agree with Bob Green that it will help grow collectors for the Saint series.  But if it drags up the prices across the board down to commons in the MS66/67 area, it will tee off rather than be applauded by other collectors.

I agree with Mark Feld and said so as much by listing MCMVII UHRs as a clear beneficiary (I'm surprised there hasn't been a run on them yet though the prices HAVE been rising strongly the last 12 months).  

I TOTALLY disagree with James Sibley that this is a move predicated on wanting "hard assets" before hyper-inflation hits.  Nobody with Big $$$ buys a single coin for $20 MM or so to protect against inflation.  You buy TIPs or gold or commodities or even BitCoin or even sell short fixed-income instruments.  I also think he is too definitive on demographics being a major depressant on prices and being long-term bearish on prices.  I do think demographics MIGHT be a headwind -- but that is all.  Other forces could offset that negative.  It's unclear if coins -- or at least the major coin types -- will follow stamps or art in 20 years or so.

There aren't nearly enough 1907 Ultra High Reliefs and they don't trade frequently enough for there to be a "run on them".

[Alex in PA.]

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

but U.S. corporations would have a problem justifying such an expenditure.

Surely you don't mean this.  Are we talking about the same giant corporations who used their 'Bail Out' funds to party in Las Vegas?  Or perhaps the ones who used our tax dollar Bail Out gift to vacation in the Caribbean?

Lehman Brothers, the financial services firm that filed for bankruptcy protection in 2008, had that problem. Its 3,500-piece art collection, with works by such bankable artists as Jasper Johns and Andreas Gurky,

Edited June 17, 2021 by Alex in PA.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

There aren't nearly enough 1907 Ultra High Reliefs and they don't trade frequently enough for there to be a "run on them".

I just mean a bit higher turnover, which I think you might be able to make the case for (2 trades through April 2021 for record prices).

Getting an MCMVII UHR or even an MS67 CAC or higher High Relief is a nice consolation prize if you missed out on the 1933 Saint or didn't bid because you wanted to spend $5 MM or less.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, Alex in PA. said:

Surely you don't mean this.  Are we talking about the same giant corporations who used their 'Bail Out' funds to party in Las Vegas?  Or perhaps the ones who used our tax dollar Bail Out gift to vacation in the Caribbean?

Lehman Brothers, the financial services firm that filed for bankruptcy protection in 2008, had that problem. Its 3,500-piece art collection, with works by such bankable artists as Jasper Johns and Andreas Gurky,

Lehman's art collection was smaller and mostly a result of Roy Neuberger (of the same money management division) and his decades-long passion for art.  You could also use art to appeal to super-wealthy clients.  Not sure how an oil company benefits.

I saw nothing about bail out funds from C-19 being used to party in Vegas but maybe it was a business trip disguised as such.  Or not.  There's always fraud and questionable uses of $$$ in any government expenditure.

[MarkFeld]

23 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I just mean a bit higher turnover, which I think you might be able to make the case for (2 trades through April 2021 for record prices).

Getting an MCMVII UHR or even an MS67 CAC or higher High Relief is a nice consolation prize if you missed out on the 1933 Saint or didn't bid because you wanted to spend $5 MM or less.

I think that's unlikely. As I've heard that one collector owns at least a few of them, has had them for a long time and doesn't seem inclined to sell. 

[World Colonial]

10 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

As for the specific comments: 

I disagree with John Brush that coins at the high-end or in their entirety are now an asset class, they are most certainly NOT.  Too few....too small in $$$-size....too illiquid.

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.

10 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I TOTALLY disagree with James Sibley that this is a move predicated on wanting "hard assets" before hyper-inflation hits.  Nobody with Big $$$ buys a single coin for $20 MM or so to protect against inflation.  You buy TIPs or gold or commodities or even BitCoin or even sell short fixed-income instruments.  

 

I agree it's more total BS.  Coins aren't an inflation hedge and the idea is absurd.

11 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I also think he is too definitive on demographics being a major depressant on prices and being long-term bearish on prices.  I do think demographics MIGHT be a headwind -- but that is all.  Other forces could offset that negative.  It's unclear if coins -- or at least the major coin types -- will follow stamps or art in 20 years or so.

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. 

[GoldFinger1969]

19 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I think that's unlikely. As I've heard that one collector owns at least a few of them, has had them for a long time and doesn't seem inclined to sell. 

Really ?  Interesting.....I think I read something along that line but can't recall.  Surprised that a serious collector would want more than 1 of a special type/pattern/coin but I guess if he liked the coin enough or maybe he wanted one each (or more) of the 3 varieties of UHR.

I guess anonymous buyers are the ones who cause the confusion with ownership quantities or specific coins, as you can't trace the lineage.

[GoldFinger1969]

21 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

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. 

Another factor:  rising net worth and income in the key demographic groups that do buy coins, PM's, etc.  Again, how you model positive and negative forces is beyond my pay grade, but I do know that the investor class today has much more $$$ to spend on Saints and Morgans than the same class did in 1980.

Though relative to the much lower-prices in the 1960's and earlier they may not have as much buying power if you go back to that period.

[World Colonial]

1 minute ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Another factor:  rising net worth and income in the key demographic groups that do buy coins, PM's, etc.  Again, how you model positive and negative forces is beyond my pay grade, but I do know that the investor class today has much more $$$ to spend on Saints and Morgans than the same class did in 1980.

Though relative to the much lower-prices in the 1960's and earlier they may not have as much buying power if you go back to that period.

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.