@jonruns said:
I guess I don't really understand the point of the OP if it's not about the increase in value...personally I've always lived by a philosophy of "don't look back"...
The point of the OP is that just because a coin seems to have been sold at auction for a price that seems to not make sense to many here, don't be quick to condemn it. Akers pointed out the example in the OP as reflection that at the time the true rarity of the half eagle series in high grade was underappreciated. Akers appreciated the rarity while most collectors did not.
@jmlanzaf --you remind me of the guy in Annie Hall who stands in the line at the movie telling everyone what the movie means until the author comes up and corrects him. You say "But that's not what the Akers story means" and go on to say that the only meaning is that Akers mispriced the set of coins. How did you arrive at your conclusion? Because the set didn't sell! Just because a coin does not sell does not mean its mispriced (it may be but there are many other reasons).
Akers was very clear about the point of the story as I pointed out above (i.e. collectors did not understand yet the true rarity of the series in high unc). Here is exactly what Akers says: "The current popularity of 20th Century United States gold coins is a fairly recent phenomenon. As late as the mid 1970s there was very little interest in the four series, other than possibly the double eagles, and also VERY LITTLE UNDERSTANDING of how legitimately rare many of the issues are in high mint state grades." (emphasis added). He goes on to say later that after a decade since the mid 1970s " even now, in a market that most would consider highly sophisteicated in comparison to that of a decade ago, in my view, there is still a lack of knowledge or, at the very least, a lack of appreciation of the true rariry of most the of the 20th century US gold coin issues in various mint state grades."
Your free to come to your own conclusion what Akers story means but Akers is quite clear what he meant by it. The set did not sell because collectors did not understand the true rarity of the set (and he was proven right) not because it was mispriced.
@jonruns said:
I guess I don't really understand the point of the OP if it's not about the increase in value...personally I've always lived by a philosophy of "don't look back"...
The point of the OP is that just because a coin seems to have been sold at auction for a price that seems to not make sense to many here, don't be quick to condemn it. Akers pointed out the example in the OP as reflection that at the time the true rarity of the half eagle series in high grade was underappreciated. Akers appreciated the rarity while most collectors did not.
@jmlanzaf --you remind me of the guy in Annie Hall who stands in the line at the movie telling everyone what the movie means until the author comes up and corrects him. You say "But that's not what the Akers story means" and go on to say that the only meaning is that Akers mispriced the set of coins. How did you arrive at your conclusion? Because the set didn't sell! Just because a coin does not sell does not mean its mispriced (it may be but there are many other reasons).
Akers was very clear about the point of the story as I pointed out above (i.e. collectors did not understand yet the true rarity of the series in high unc). Here is exactly what Akers says: "The current popularity of 20th Century United States gold coins is a fairly recent phenomenon. As late as the mid 1970s there was very little interest in the four series, other than possibly the double eagles, and also VERY LITTLE UNDERSTANDING of how legitimately rare many of the issues are in high mint state grades." (emphasis added). He goes on to say later that after a decade since the mid 1970s " even now, in a market that most would consider highly sophisteicated in comparison to that of a decade ago, in my view, there is still a lack of knowledge or, at the very least, a lack of appreciation of the true rariry of most the of the 20th century US gold coin issues in various mint state grades."
Your free to come to your own conclusion what Akers story means but Akers is quite clear what he meant by it. The set did not sell because collectors did not understand the true rarity of the set (and he was proven right) not because it was mispriced.
How was Mr. Akers "proven right"? Just because the set was worth much more, decades later, or by some other means?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jonruns said:
I guess I don't really understand the point of the OP if it's not about the increase in value...personally I've always lived by a philosophy of "don't look back"...
The point of the OP is that just because a coin seems to have been sold at auction for a price that seems to not make sense to many here, don't be quick to condemn it. Akers pointed out the example in the OP as reflection that at the time the true rarity of the half eagle series in high grade was underappreciated. Akers appreciated the rarity while most collectors did not.
@jmlanzaf --you remind me of the guy in Annie Hall who stands in the line at the movie telling everyone what the movie means until the author comes up and corrects him. You say "But that's not what the Akers story means" and go on to say that the only meaning is that Akers mispriced the set of coins. How did you arrive at your conclusion? Because the set didn't sell! Just because a coin does not sell does not mean its mispriced (it may be but there are many other reasons).
Akers was very clear about the point of the story as I pointed out above (i.e. collectors did not understand yet the true rarity of the series in high unc). Here is exactly what Akers says: "The current popularity of 20th Century United States gold coins is a fairly recent phenomenon. As late as the mid 1970s there was very little interest in the four series, other than possibly the double eagles, and also VERY LITTLE UNDERSTANDING of how legitimately rare many of the issues are in high mint state grades." (emphasis added). He goes on to say later that after a decade since the mid 1970s " even now, in a market that most would consider highly sophisteicated in comparison to that of a decade ago, in my view, there is still a lack of knowledge or, at the very least, a lack of appreciation of the true rariry of most the of the 20th century US gold coin issues in various mint state grades."
Your free to come to your own conclusion what Akers story means but Akers is quite clear what he meant by it. The set did not sell because collectors did not understand the true rarity of the set (and he was proven right) not because it was mispriced.
How was Mr. Akers "proven right"? Just because the set was worth much more, decades later, or by some other means?
He was proven right because high grade unc half eagles are far more rare than was thought of at the time.
@jonruns said:
I guess I don't really understand the point of the OP if it's not about the increase in value...personally I've always lived by a philosophy of "don't look back"...
The point of the OP is that just because a coin seems to have been sold at auction for a price that seems to not make sense to many here, don't be quick to condemn it. Akers pointed out the example in the OP as reflection that at the time the true rarity of the half eagle series in high grade was underappreciated. Akers appreciated the rarity while most collectors did not.
@jmlanzaf --you remind me of the guy in Annie Hall who stands in the line at the movie telling everyone what the movie means until the author comes up and corrects him. You say "But that's not what the Akers story means" and go on to say that the only meaning is that Akers mispriced the set of coins. How did you arrive at your conclusion? Because the set didn't sell! Just because a coin does not sell does not mean its mispriced (it may be but there are many other reasons).
Akers was very clear about the point of the story as I pointed out above (i.e. collectors did not understand yet the true rarity of the series in high unc). Here is exactly what Akers says: "The current popularity of 20th Century United States gold coins is a fairly recent phenomenon. As late as the mid 1970s there was very little interest in the four series, other than possibly the double eagles, and also VERY LITTLE UNDERSTANDING of how legitimately rare many of the issues are in high mint state grades." (emphasis added). He goes on to say later that after a decade since the mid 1970s " even now, in a market that most would consider highly sophisteicated in comparison to that of a decade ago, in my view, there is still a lack of knowledge or, at the very least, a lack of appreciation of the true rariry of most the of the 20th century US gold coin issues in various mint state grades."
Your free to come to your own conclusion what Akers story means but Akers is quite clear what he meant by it. The set did not sell because collectors did not understand the true rarity of the set (and he was proven right) not because it was mispriced.
How was Mr. Akers "proven right"? Just because the set was worth much more, decades later, or by some other means?
He was proven right because high grade unc half eagles are far more rare than was thought of at the time.
Thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf --you remind me of the guy in Annie Hall who stands in the line at the movie telling everyone what the movie means until the author comes up and corrects him.
gazes, don't be too hard on jmlanzaf. after all, you've spent the entire thread trying to explain what you meant in the OP.
Your free to come to your own conclusion what Akers story means but Akers is quite clear what he meant by it. The set did not sell because collectors did not understand the true rarity of the set (and he was proven right) not because it was mispriced.
This is a ridiculous statement on several levels.
By the very definition of sale, when bid=ask a sale takes place. If no bid matches the ask, it's because the ask is too high.
Rarity is at most half of value. I have a mug on my desk that is unique, who will bid $100,000 to open? Demand relative to supply creates pricing pressure.
Collectors can understand the rarity and still not want to own it at all or own it at that price. It is not a mistake by collectors to eschew market segments. It is a CHOICE.
Akers is proven right about the rarity based on the populations and only the populations. In world coins, there are numerous examples of coins with single digit populations in ALL GRADES that sell for $1000 or under. Price does not solely reflect rarity, it reflects demand relative to rarity.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Your free to come to your own conclusion what Akers story means but Akers is quite clear what he meant by it. The set did not sell because collectors did not understand the true rarity of the set (and he was proven right) not because it was mispriced.
This is a ridiculous statement on several levels.
By the very definition of sale, when bid=ask a sale takes place. If no bid matches the ask, it's because the ask is too high.
Rarity is at most half of value. I have a mug on my desk that is unique, who will bid $100,000 to open? Demand relative to supply creates pricing pressure.
Collectors can understand the rarity and still not want to own it at all or own it at that price. It is not a mistake by collectors to eschew market segments. It is a CHOICE.
Akers is proven right about the rarity based on the populations and only the populations. In world coins, there are numerous examples of coins with single digit populations in ALL GRADES that sell for $1000 or under. Price does not solely reflect rarity, it reflects demand relative to rarity.
I will address your three numbered paragraphs:
1) You are wrong. Just because there is not a buyer at a price does not mean the price is too high. There is much more to it. You said you sell coins---is every coin in your inventory overpriced since it has not sold? Is it overpriced if it is in your inventory more than a week, a month, two months? Of course a coin may not sell if it is overpriced but there are plenty of properly priced coins that may not sell within a certain time frame for other reasons.
2) Don't have much to say about your $100,000 mug example
3) Your third point shows your lack of understanding of Akers point (which I have quoted the language from the book so anyone can make up their own mind what it means). You ASSUME that collectors back in 1977 understood the rarity of high grade half eagles. You then state it is a choice whether they wanted the set at that price. Akers point which I have said over and over is that collectors didn't understand the rarity of those coins in 1977 and therefore that was the reason the set wasn't purchased. Later when the rarity became clear, the prices on those same coins went up considerably.
And of course I do agree that rarity alone does not dictate price but one also has to factor in demand. High grade UNC half eagles currently have both rarity and a high degree of demand.
Your free to come to your own conclusion what Akers story means but Akers is quite clear what he meant by it. The set did not sell because collectors did not understand the true rarity of the set (and he was proven right) not because it was mispriced.
This is a ridiculous statement on several levels.
By the very definition of sale, when bid=ask a sale takes place. If no bid matches the ask, it's because the ask is too high.
Rarity is at most half of value. I have a mug on my desk that is unique, who will bid $100,000 to open? Demand relative to supply creates pricing pressure.
Collectors can understand the rarity and still not want to own it at all or own it at that price. It is not a mistake by collectors to eschew market segments. It is a CHOICE.
Akers is proven right about the rarity based on the populations and only the populations. In world coins, there are numerous examples of coins with single digit populations in ALL GRADES that sell for $1000 or under. Price does not solely reflect rarity, it reflects demand relative to rarity.
I will address your three numbered paragraphs:
1) You are wrong. Just because there is not a buyer at a price does not mean the price is too high. There is much more to it. You said you sell coins---is every coin in your inventory overpriced since it has not sold? Is it overpriced if it is in your inventory more than a week, a month, two months? Of course a coin may not sell if it is overpriced but there are plenty of properly priced coins that may not sell within a certain time frame for other reasons.
2) Don't have much to say about your $100,000 mug example
3) Your third point shows your lack of understanding of Akers point (which I have quoted the language from the book so anyone can make up their own mind what it means). You ASSUME that collectors back in 1977 understood the rarity of high grade half eagles. You then state it is a choice whether they wanted the set at that price. Akers point which I have said over and over is that collectors didn't understand the rarity of those coins in 1977 and therefore that was the reason the set wasn't purchased. Later when the rarity became clear, the prices on those same coins went up considerably.
And of course I do agree that rarity alone does not dictate price but one also has to factor in demand. High grade UNC half eagles currently have both rarity and a high degree of demand.
OK, I'll stick to the two points:
1. No, I am correct. It's basic economics. There is a visibility issue which I am taking for granted: if I put a coin out at a garage sale at half melt and no one buys it, it's not the price. But this was Akers at a major show. And, YES, every coin that I have in inventory for more than the duration of the listing IS OVERPRICED because it didn't sell despite lots of eyeballs in a global marketplace. Consult your economist friend for more details.
Every oil painting by everyone from an Old Master to the velvet Elvis my aunt painted is UNIQUE. But if I slap a $10,000 price tag on a painting in 1977 and it doesn't sell only to be worth $1 million today, it isn't because no one knew it was unique in 1977 - it's that no one cared. And my $10 price for the FUTURE $1 million painting was TOO HIGH.
I didn't assume the collectors knew anything. I said that a collector "could" understand the rarity and still not want it. YOU ASSUME they didn't buy it from ignorance of rarity rather than simply because the price was too high for the market. You keep trying to wheedle out of the fact that you are justifying everything by "future value". The fact is, Akers was WRONG about the price in 1977 even if he was right about the rarity. And if the market continued to not care about those issues, the fact that they were rare would not be reflected in a price increase. If the price had gone down between 1977 and 1989, it wouldn't be because the coins were suddenly not rare but simply that the market (collector interest) didn't exist.
And, though I was avoiding the mug, it is a perfect illustration of the value trap. The mug is UNIQUE. I know, because I made it. You wouldn't even give me $100 for it despite its absolute rarity. But that is not because you don't know that it's unique. It's because you don't CARE.
Look at exonumia. Many many scarce tokens and medals with very reasonable price tags. It's not because people don't know they are scarce. There's just not enough people that care.
Look at the stamp market. $5 Columbians went from $5000 to $1000 in 20 years but the supply did not go up nor did the understanding of the supply. There is simply insufficient demand.
Look at the paper money market. There are numerous obsoletes banknotes and National Banknotes that have single digit pops. The prices have been dropping lately on much of that material. Everyone KNOWS the populations, there's just insufficient demand due to the way people collect paper money.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Recognizing rarity at the time is extremely important.
I will come at this from my perspective since I do not collect nor know about the coins in the OP....
I started collecting major error coins in the year 2000. I was fascinated by the unique eye appealing coins that I could buy at what I thought was a great price for what I perceived was a one of a kind rare coin. I started out slowly but soon became obsessed with collecting one of a kind error coins.
Fast forward to the year 2002 when the US Mint drastically changed its policy on major mint error coins. The US mint put in machines to sort out almost all major mint error coins. The US mint also started requiring the bulk rolling companies to return the major mint error coins that they sorted out.
Upon hearing this news of the multiple ways the US mint wanted to cut down on major mint errors escaping, I thought to myself, well the supply will soon dry up and the prices are sure to go up. The supplies did drop dramatically and the prices went up
Since then, I have only bought major mint errors. I really go after the mint errors dated 2002 and beyond because those coins are extremely rare.
Recognizing rarity at the time is extremely important.
@ErrorsOnCoins said:
The US mint also started requiring the bulk rolling companies to return the major mint error coins that they sorted out.
This part made me giggle a bit.
Do you have any idea how this is done?
No. Fred knows way more about this than I do.
This is what I think use to happen .... Big rolling companies like Brinks would roll coins for banks and the rejects (errors) could be sold to error coin dealers. As I understand it, in 2002 it changed and in order to keep the contract with the US mint, the rolling companies had to return the error coins.
There are a number of aspects to the example used by the OP, which I think cloud the (perfectly legitimate) point he was trying to make:
1) The example he used was the lack of a private transaction, rather than a completed public sale.
2) While I had/have the utmost respect for the knowledge and integrity of David Akers, as a would-be seller of the set of coins, he was likely biased.
3) A value from a much later point in time was provided in the example, yet that value tells us nothing about what the set was worth at the time it was offered for sale.
4) We don’t know why buyers passed on the set at the time it was first offered. It might or might not have been (significantly) overpriced. And potential buyers might or might not have been aware of the scarcity of the coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ErrorsOnCoins said:
As I understand it, in 2002 it changed and in order to keep the contract with the US mint, the rolling companies had to >return the error coins.
OK, this thread has reached the point where it needs a score-keeper. I volunteer!!
1). Gazes.
2). jmlanzaf.
3). jmlanzaf with time in the penalty box to Gazes for being condescending.
@oldabeintx said:
Do you mean ancient coin show people?
No... It was snow people
The colonel showed up and was going to stab him with a carrot or something.
Figured it was safer over here in the 'perspective' thread.
@oldabeintx said:
Do you mean ancient coin show people?
No... It was snow & getting weird fast.
The colonel showed up and was going to stab him with a carrot or something.
Figured it was safer over here in the 'perspective' thread.
LOL. The Colonel has an...er….interesting quote from Aristotle about the use of a snowman's carrot nose to commit murder. Apparently Aristotle had seen a photograph of a snowman.
And good fun was had by all...
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
_The coin market? It's over, finished, fini, it's all done, finito, no one cares any longer there are no new collectors. There will never be a gimmick like third party grading again. No, not ever, It won't work. ADVICE: From here on out study Stoicism and be glad you can still breathe air for free. _
@oldabeintx said:
Do you mean ancient coin show people?
No... It was snow & getting weird fast.
The colonel showed up and was going to stab him with a carrot or something.
Figured it was safer over here in the 'perspective' thread.
LOL. The Colonel has an...er….interesting quote from Aristotle about the use of a snowman's carrot nose to commit murder. Apparently Aristotle had seen a photograph of a snowman.
And good fun was had by all...
That quote is great, I love it because it still works today.
@oldabeintx said:
Do you mean ancient coin show people?
No... It was snow & getting weird fast.
The colonel showed up and was going to stab him with a carrot or something.
Figured it was safer over here in the 'perspective' thread.
LOL. The Colonel has an...er….interesting quote from Aristotle about the use of a snowman's carrot nose to commit murder. Apparently Aristotle had seen a photograph of a snowman.
And good fun was had by all...
That quote is great, I love it because it still works today.
It works today better than then since Aristotle never said it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Comments
The biggest impact on the future inflation adjusted price will be the shrinking collector base!
@jmlanzaf --you remind me of the guy in Annie Hall who stands in the line at the movie telling everyone what the movie means until the author comes up and corrects him. You say "But that's not what the Akers story means" and go on to say that the only meaning is that Akers mispriced the set of coins. How did you arrive at your conclusion? Because the set didn't sell! Just because a coin does not sell does not mean its mispriced (it may be but there are many other reasons).
Akers was very clear about the point of the story as I pointed out above (i.e. collectors did not understand yet the true rarity of the series in high unc). Here is exactly what Akers says: "The current popularity of 20th Century United States gold coins is a fairly recent phenomenon. As late as the mid 1970s there was very little interest in the four series, other than possibly the double eagles, and also VERY LITTLE UNDERSTANDING of how legitimately rare many of the issues are in high mint state grades." (emphasis added). He goes on to say later that after a decade since the mid 1970s " even now, in a market that most would consider highly sophisteicated in comparison to that of a decade ago, in my view, there is still a lack of knowledge or, at the very least, a lack of appreciation of the true rariry of most the of the 20th century US gold coin issues in various mint state grades."
Your free to come to your own conclusion what Akers story means but Akers is quite clear what he meant by it. The set did not sell because collectors did not understand the true rarity of the set (and he was proven right) not because it was mispriced.
How was Mr. Akers "proven right"? Just because the set was worth much more, decades later, or by some other means?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
He was proven right because high grade unc half eagles are far more rare than was thought of at the time.
Thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf --you remind me of the guy in Annie Hall who stands in the line at the movie telling everyone what the movie means until the author comes up and corrects him.
gazes, don't be too hard on jmlanzaf. after all, you've spent the entire thread trying to explain what you meant in the OP.
This is a ridiculous statement on several levels.
Akers is proven right about the rarity based on the populations and only the populations. In world coins, there are numerous examples of coins with single digit populations in ALL GRADES that sell for $1000 or under. Price does not solely reflect rarity, it reflects demand relative to rarity.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I will address your three numbered paragraphs:
1) You are wrong. Just because there is not a buyer at a price does not mean the price is too high. There is much more to it. You said you sell coins---is every coin in your inventory overpriced since it has not sold? Is it overpriced if it is in your inventory more than a week, a month, two months? Of course a coin may not sell if it is overpriced but there are plenty of properly priced coins that may not sell within a certain time frame for other reasons.
2) Don't have much to say about your $100,000 mug example
3) Your third point shows your lack of understanding of Akers point (which I have quoted the language from the book so anyone can make up their own mind what it means). You ASSUME that collectors back in 1977 understood the rarity of high grade half eagles. You then state it is a choice whether they wanted the set at that price. Akers point which I have said over and over is that collectors didn't understand the rarity of those coins in 1977 and therefore that was the reason the set wasn't purchased. Later when the rarity became clear, the prices on those same coins went up considerably.
And of course I do agree that rarity alone does not dictate price but one also has to factor in demand. High grade UNC half eagles currently have both rarity and a high degree of demand.
OK, I'll stick to the two points:
1. No, I am correct. It's basic economics. There is a visibility issue which I am taking for granted: if I put a coin out at a garage sale at half melt and no one buys it, it's not the price. But this was Akers at a major show. And, YES, every coin that I have in inventory for more than the duration of the listing IS OVERPRICED because it didn't sell despite lots of eyeballs in a global marketplace. Consult your economist friend for more details.
Every oil painting by everyone from an Old Master to the velvet Elvis my aunt painted is UNIQUE. But if I slap a $10,000 price tag on a painting in 1977 and it doesn't sell only to be worth $1 million today, it isn't because no one knew it was unique in 1977 - it's that no one cared. And my $10 price for the FUTURE $1 million painting was TOO HIGH.
And, though I was avoiding the mug, it is a perfect illustration of the value trap. The mug is UNIQUE. I know, because I made it. You wouldn't even give me $100 for it despite its absolute rarity. But that is not because you don't know that it's unique. It's because you don't CARE.
Look at exonumia. Many many scarce tokens and medals with very reasonable price tags. It's not because people don't know they are scarce. There's just not enough people that care.
Look at the stamp market. $5 Columbians went from $5000 to $1000 in 20 years but the supply did not go up nor did the understanding of the supply. There is simply insufficient demand.
Look at the paper money market. There are numerous obsoletes banknotes and National Banknotes that have single digit pops. The prices have been dropping lately on much of that material. Everyone KNOWS the populations, there's just insufficient demand due to the way people collect paper money.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Recognizing rarity at the time is extremely important.
I will come at this from my perspective since I do not collect nor know about the coins in the OP....
I started collecting major error coins in the year 2000. I was fascinated by the unique eye appealing coins that I could buy at what I thought was a great price for what I perceived was a one of a kind rare coin. I started out slowly but soon became obsessed with collecting one of a kind error coins.
Fast forward to the year 2002 when the US Mint drastically changed its policy on major mint error coins. The US mint put in machines to sort out almost all major mint error coins. The US mint also started requiring the bulk rolling companies to return the major mint error coins that they sorted out.
Upon hearing this news of the multiple ways the US mint wanted to cut down on major mint errors escaping, I thought to myself, well the supply will soon dry up and the prices are sure to go up. The supplies did drop dramatically and the prices went up
Since then, I have only bought major mint errors. I really go after the mint errors dated 2002 and beyond because those coins are extremely rare.
Recognizing rarity at the time is extremely important.
This part made me giggle a bit.
Do you have any idea how this is done?
My Saint Set
No. Fred knows way more about this than I do.
This is what I think use to happen .... Big rolling companies like Brinks would roll coins for banks and the rejects (errors) could be sold to error coin dealers. As I understand it, in 2002 it changed and in order to keep the contract with the US mint, the rolling companies had to return the error coins.
There are a number of aspects to the example used by the OP, which I think cloud the (perfectly legitimate) point he was trying to make:
1) The example he used was the lack of a private transaction, rather than a completed public sale.
2) While I had/have the utmost respect for the knowledge and integrity of David Akers, as a would-be seller of the set of coins, he was likely biased.
3) A value from a much later point in time was provided in the example, yet that value tells us nothing about what the set was worth at the time it was offered for sale.
4) We don’t know why buyers passed on the set at the time it was first offered. It might or might not have been (significantly) overpriced. And potential buyers might or might not have been aware of the scarcity of the coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm the wrong person for that job
My Saint Set
OK, this thread has reached the point where it needs a score-keeper. I volunteer!!
1). Gazes.
2). jmlanzaf.
3). jmlanzaf with time in the penalty box to Gazes for being condescending.
jimlfngsanf is having a big argument about ancient snow people on another thread.
That's why I came here.
My Saint Set
Do you mean ancient coin show people?
No... It was snow people
The colonel showed up and was going to stab him with a carrot or something.
Figured it was safer over here in the 'perspective' thread.
My Saint Set
LOL. The Colonel has an...er….interesting quote from Aristotle about the use of a snowman's carrot nose to commit murder. Apparently Aristotle had seen a photograph of a snowman.
And good fun was had by all...
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
_The coin market? It's over, finished, fini, it's all done, finito, no one cares any longer there are no new collectors. There will never be a gimmick like third party grading again. No, not ever, It won't work. ADVICE: From here on out study Stoicism and be glad you can still breathe air for free. _
That quote is great, I love it because it still works today.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
It works today better than then since Aristotle never said it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.