Ballpark retail (a real quick search) shows that you can get a Redbook for $20. The same time period (1700s-2020) for the Standard Catalog of World Coins will cost around $250, or 12x a redbook. The SCWC catalogs are 8 1/2" x 11" and stacked up, about 11" thick. A Redbook is 5 1/2" x 8", 1" thick. If it was printed in an 8 1/2" x 11" format, it would be no more than 1/2" thick. So- there is about 22x as much pricing information in the SCWC as in the Redbook, but this information costs only 12x more.
One more question- which do you think is easier to compile pricing for? I'd say the Redbook is. How about you? Ok- that's two questions.
Ballpark retail (a real quick search) shows that you can get a Redbook for $20. The same time period (1700s-2020) for the Standard Catalog of World Coins will cost around $250, or 12x a redbook. The SCWC catalogs are 8 1/2" x 11" and stacked up, about 11" thick. A Redbook is 5 1/2" x 8", 1" thick. If it was printed in an 8 1/2" x 11" format, it would be no more than 1/2" thick. So- there is about 22x as much pricing information in the SCWC as in the Redbook, but this information costs only 12x more.
One more question- which do you think is easier to compile pricing for? I'd say the Redbook is. How about you? Ok- that's two questions.
Redbook likely way more sales volume too. The extra pricing info could easily be justified if the SCWC had the circulation numbers to justify it.
@Gazes said:
For decades people have pushed international stocks using a variety of narratives that they have more room to grow than the mature US economy. For decades the US stocks have been the place to be. Even Warren Buffet has largely stuck with US stocks and he is a value investor. In my opinion US coins are very similar and expect they will always out perform World coins regardless of the latest narrative.
US collecting has a unique combination of factors which other countries lack mostly or entirely. The above post challenged my assertions, but someone's anecdotal experience doesn't contradict anything I said.
Here is a simplified version of my position.
In most countries, little if any of this exists. Limited to no tradition of collecting which means that the supply, even though usually common by my standards, is a lot lower and the quality isn't equivalent either. Outside of a low number of countries (mostly in Europe), few if any dealers, auction firms, coin clubs, publications or books...nothing.
This is important because, lacking adequate supply and quality distribution, there can be no meaningful scale, even assuming the local population is interested in collecting which they overwhelmingly are not.
In Europe, the opposite problem exists, there are too many coins (even in better grades) for any realistic collector base to absorb at much higher prices. This doesn't apply to every single coin but does to most.
I think you underestimate the collector base in most of the world and vastly overestimate the supply of coins. I also think that there are many markets throughout the world with huge upside potential. Especially when you consider that the world is becoming a much smaller place, and even a schoolboy in Montevideo can viably pursue a collection of Medieval Lithuanian if he has an internet connection and a PayPal account.
Sorry for the long post but Its necessary to attempt to explain myself.
I don't think I overestimate the supply of coins, not the ones with the highest preference. You don't seem to realize it but you are actually supporting my claim. Excessive scarcity and limited supply is more of a negative for the price level because it limits the size of the collector base (and hence demand) which is necessary to increase prices.
Most coins simply don't have a high enough collector preference to increase as much as you imply - not at any meaningful scale - and if there is any reason to believe non-collectors who become collectors will find more than a very low proportion that interesting, I'd like to know it, in specifics. I intermittently read claims about the financial future of world coins generally and every time I have, it's always in the abstract. Anyone can make any claim they want but it's another thing to support it from what motivates people to buy it at the prices someone else thinks it should be worth.
With your comment about the world becoming a much smaller place, there isn't much evidence that collectors are collecting hardly any coinage from elsewhere (outside their home country) - at any meaningful financial scale - and I'd also like to know what motive they have to do it given they have no cultural preference for it. That's effectively dart throwing. It's predominantly US collectors who do so across the board at what I would describe as meaningful prices. US collectors are also used to being able to buy most coins from a US source and logistically it's much easier to sell most coins here too at "market". The internet has changed this somewhat but not entirely because coins are physical objects.
To close my long post, I didn't state that it's not possible for an individual or a (very) low number to make meaningful returns. Concurrently, since there is a (very) limited scale for most series and most countries, it's not going to be what I would consider financial meaningful for any noticeable number because the scale doesn't exist (due to the scarcity) and attempting to achieve it by acquiring coins from a broad range of series is more likely to mean the buyer doesn't know much if anything about the coinage.
Strongly disagree with this. Your not a player in the world market are you? Many US collectors like deer in headlights. Slabbed low pop world coins very scarce and a fantastic buy. Many US collectors ignorant of opportunity in the world arena like deer in the headlights. Many I buy for what it costs 2 people go out for dinner then realize cost x 2 (keystone markup) on bourse.
I recently got $450 at show for Mexico single digit pop 1900 silver coin I picked up for $65 from non eBay online auction. Certainly a super deal for the buyer. Look at the outrageous premiums paid on US coins bc of sticker. A scarce Rhodesia banknote I got $350 for (and this discounted below Krause CV) picked up at auc for $26. Yes go ahead and bid up your US coins like that guy pd $11000 for $3500 US stickered coin.
More anecdotal examples. Read my response to Mr. Eureka.
Just like a prior poster, you're also dealer. How does your experience apply to most collectors? You are effectively buying at "bid" and selling at "ask". Most collectors can't do that.
World coins super investment and have great potential. As far as your comment “no world market” I have to rofl. No it’s not something the big gun US players can control it’s just a REAL market.
No, there is no "world" coin market because coin collectors don't collect that way. Did you even read my prior post? Apparently, you did not. Even though I have replied to numerous posts of yours, you also don't remember that I only collect non-US coinage.
Outside of "name" collections like Eliasberg, most collectors - including larger budget collectors - are buying one or more specific series or from a few countries. Otherwise, the only generic (across the board) collecting of "world" coinage is by low budget collectors at immaterial prices.
My primary interest is pillar coinage now. Previously, it was South Africa Union and ZAR. The prices and demand for one is irrelevant to the other, as I am potentially the only person (literally) to ever try to collect both to the extent I do and did. What I just described, it also applies to most other "world" coinage, the vast majority.
At a recent show recently discussed my price of $2500 on a Mexico second republic 19th century 20c PCGS 65 pop 2/0 with world expert I have known for years. Can’t find any on eBay or anywhere even raw Uncs is my price too high? He said “NO not too high or too low these were spent by people needed money to eat not saved like generic Morgan dollars with their huge 10,000 plus pops.”
Not sure what point you are trying to make. If you are implying the coin is (really) rare because you can't find it, almost certainly not. Look at the populations for any number of other much older coins and you will see my point. Not familiar with the availability of this coin specifically but no reason to believe it's scarcer than any number of other examples I can give you.
As for your ask price on that coin, I think it is too high, way too high. The coin isn't remotely interesting enough compared to other coinage in the same price range, certainly not due to the TPG label. I don't know what the coins are worth now, but I have only paid $2500 or more once for any coin in my pillar collection including those I bought recently. A few are ion the same grade and numerous others near it. For this series, it's a fairly substantial collection which has taken me over 15 years to accumulate.
You also missed one of my points in my prior post. Morgan dollars aren't expensive because the coins are rare. That has little to do with the price level because rarity alone isn't meaningful enough to induce hardly anyone to pay a "high" price. My claim is that the series would possibly be worth less if it were much scarcer since I don't believe the design is really liked that much. it's a common "investment" coin in high grades that is easy to buy in volume and where collectors can choose their price points and upgrade as their finances permit.
In most of the scarcest and desirable "world" coinage, the coins are too scarce where a (very) low number can outbid everyone else leaving all others to buy the "leftovers". That's what applies to pillar minors which is why the collector base can't be large which also means there isn't likely to ever be demand to comparable US coinage, early federal 1794-1807.
Clearly, he expresses an Amerocentric view. There are vibrant collecting histories in many European countries. In fact, you could argue that modern coin collecting started in Renaissance Italy. The British Commonwealth has a well developed market with 2500 years of history to collect. The Germanic countries are vibrant collectors. Japan has a well developed historic market.
Recently, China got very hot and the collector base their boomed. I've seen increased interest in India and Mexico. Russia booked for a while though it has cooled recently.
Put it all together and you have historic, well developed collector bases in the developed wealthier countries (Europe and the British Commonwealth, the US, and Japan) and you have nascent collector bases in the BRIC counties and Mexico.
It needs a new thread, but if I were going to "invest" in coins (and I wouldn't) it would be outside the US. There are some tremendous rarities that are still inexpensive by US standards.
Not a US centric view at all. I can't answer a generic question with specifics without writing a book.
One point which has been ignored here in all the posts I have read is that there is little "investment" buying by collectors outside the US. I infer it's happened with a very low proportion and it's more common now but not as implied by others in this thread who disagree with me.
Chinese buyers seem to do it more as is evident from some of the high prices and preference for TPG. I also see it with British coins, mostly gold. Gold and crowns have a higher preference versus minors and financially, that's where I would expect the prices to increase most generically. Ancient Greek, Roman, and Judaica also have strong demand. There are some others, but these are only examples and a very low minority Most of these coins are also among the more or most expensive now.
For most countries, what I see in replies to my posts is also a complete disregard for the supply limitations due to the lack of prior collecting. Mexico is an example. I doubt more than a (low proportion are actually rare or even scarce by my standards but the supply in "high quality" is a low to immaterial fraction of most contemporary US and European which means there can be no meaningful scale because the coins don't exist in the quality which collectors are likely to want and most of the coins also aren't likely remotely interesting enough to a noticeably larger collector base where they will bid up the prices of the better examples a lot while everyone else buys the "leftovers". There is no evidence of that, except with the very low proportion of the most preferred coins.
It's easy enough to make claims in the abstract. The real questions is, how does this view align with how collectors actually collect? My answer is that is mostly doesn't, which I why I have given the answers you see here.
Clearly, he expresses an Amerocentric view. There are vibrant collecting histories in many European countries. In fact, you could argue that modern coin collecting started in Renaissance Italy. The British Commonwealth has a well developed market with 2500 years of history to collect. The Germanic countries are vibrant collectors. Japan has a well developed historic market.
Recently, China got very hot and the collector base their boomed. I've seen increased interest in India and Mexico. Russia booked for a while though it has cooled recently.
Put it all together and you have historic, well developed collector bases in the developed wealthier countries (Europe and the British Commonwealth, the US, and Japan) and you have nascent collector bases in the BRIC counties and Mexico.
It needs a new thread, but if I were going to "invest" in coins (and I wouldn't) it would be outside the US. There are some tremendous rarities that are still inexpensive by US standards.
Not a US centric view at all. I can't answer a generic question with specifics without writing a book.
One point which has been ignored here in all the posts I have read is that there is little "investment" buying by collectors outside the US. I infer it's happened with a very low proportion and it's more common now but not as implied by others in this thread who disagree with me.
Chinese buyers seem to do it more as is evident from some of the high prices and preference for TPG. I also see it with British coins, mostly gold. Gold and crowns have a higher preference versus minors and financially, that's where I would expect the prices to increase most generically. Ancient Greek, Roman, and Judaica also have strong demand. There are some others, but these are only examples and a very low minority Most of these coins are also among the more or most expensive now.
For most countries, what I see in replies to my posts is also a complete disregard for the supply limitations due to the lack of prior collecting. Mexico is an example. I doubt more than a (low proportion are actually rare or even scarce by my standards but the supply in "high quality" is a low to immaterial fraction of most contemporary US and European which means there can be no meaningful scale because the coins don't exist in the quality which collectors are likely to want and most of the coins also aren't likely remotely interesting enough to a noticeably larger collector base where they will bid up the prices of the better examples a lot while everyone else buys the "leftovers". There is no evidence of that, except with the very low proportion of the most preferred coins.
It's easy enough to make claims in the abstract. The real questions is, how does this view align with how collectors actually collect? My answer is that is mostly doesn't, which I why I have given the answers you see here.
I don't see why I need Morgan level UNCs to support price rises and rising collector interest. You mention ancients. There are very few UNC coins and many very scarce types yet they are widely collected at very solid prices. People collect the highest available affordable grade. If that is a VF or XF coin, it is not at all limiting.
Clearly, he expresses an Amerocentric view. There are vibrant collecting histories in many European countries. In fact, you could argue that modern coin collecting started in Renaissance Italy. The British Commonwealth has a well developed market with 2500 years of history to collect. The Germanic countries are vibrant collectors. Japan has a well developed historic market.
Recently, China got very hot and the collector base their boomed. I've seen increased interest in India and Mexico. Russia booked for a while though it has cooled recently.
Put it all together and you have historic, well developed collector bases in the developed wealthier countries (Europe and the British Commonwealth, the US, and Japan) and you have nascent collector bases in the BRIC counties and Mexico.
It needs a new thread, but if I were going to "invest" in coins (and I wouldn't) it would be outside the US. There are some tremendous rarities that are still inexpensive by US standards.
Not a US centric view at all. I can't answer a generic question with specifics without writing a book.
One point which has been ignored here in all the posts I have read is that there is little "investment" buying by collectors outside the US. I infer it's happened with a very low proportion and it's more common now but not as implied by others in this thread who disagree with me.
Chinese buyers seem to do it more as is evident from some of the high prices and preference for TPG. I also see it with British coins, mostly gold. Gold and crowns have a higher preference versus minors and financially, that's where I would expect the prices to increase most generically. Ancient Greek, Roman, and Judaica also have strong demand. There are some others, but these are only examples and a very low minority Most of these coins are also among the more or most expensive now.
For most countries, what I see in replies to my posts is also a complete disregard for the supply limitations due to the lack of prior collecting. Mexico is an example. I doubt more than a (low proportion are actually rare or even scarce by my standards but the supply in "high quality" is a low to immaterial fraction of most contemporary US and European which means there can be no meaningful scale because the coins don't exist in the quality which collectors are likely to want and most of the coins also aren't likely remotely interesting enough to a noticeably larger collector base where they will bid up the prices of the better examples a lot while everyone else buys the "leftovers". There is no evidence of that, except with the very low proportion of the most preferred coins.
It's easy enough to make claims in the abstract. The real questions is, how does this view align with how collectors actually collect? My answer is that is mostly doesn't, which I why I have given the answers you see here.
I don't see why I need Morgan level UNCs to support price rises and rising collector interest. You mention ancients. There are very few UNC coins and many very scarce types yet they are widely collected at very solid prices. People collect the highest available affordable grade. If that is a VF or XF coin, it is not at all limiting.
There are no absolutes and this is a generic topic. That's why it is difficult for me to respond to those who disagree with me.
In the example of ancients (Roman, Greek, and Judaica), it's evident some or a noticeable proportion have a high enough collector preference where the buyers are willing to pay strong prices for less than stellar quality and the supply is large enough to accommodate it since many of these coins are from hoards. It's consistent with how US collectors view early large cents and early federal series generally.
This isn't true for more than a very low proportion. The coins simply aren't interesting enough to enough collectors. Those who disagree with me may or do claim this will change later but it's another abstract claim.
Coins with a (very) high preference have the potential to rise a lot since the (prospective) collector base may or will (mostly) ignore the price of alternatives. But it's not going to happen generically unless someone is going to tell me that there is going to a "surge" of (far) more affluent buyers in the future who will still be interested enough in the coins as collectibles, not "investments". The culture elsewhere doesn't support this as collecting most everywhere else has not been financialized much if at all.
@jmlanzaf said:
People collect the highest available affordable grade. If that is a VF or XF coin, it is not at all limiting.
Assuming it's a rare coin and has an appealing appearance, VF/XF is maybe not limiting. But what if it's G/VG or has problems? Even if the coin is excessively rare, those are indeed limiting factors.
This is not based on my own preference. Rather, it's the preference of people I know who spend big bucks on hard-to-find coins. One of the things I have learned is that buyers like them won't pay up for ugly coins. Even rare ones.
@jmlanzaf said:
People collect the highest available affordable grade. If that is a VF or XF coin, it is not at all limiting.
Assuming it's a rare coin and has an appealing appearance, VF/XF is maybe not limiting. But what if it's G/VG or has problems? Even if the coin is excessively rare, those are indeed limiting factors.
This is not based on my own preference. Rather, it's the preference of people I know who spend big bucks on hard-to-find coins. One of the things I have learned is that buyers like them won't pay up for ugly coins. Even rare ones.
But that is not the extent of the argument @WCC is making. In fact, he does a better job refuting himself than I do.
He mentioned ancients, see above. He also mentions federal copper. Porosity is accepted in early copper.
I'm pretty sure that a 1902-Cc dollar, bent with a hole in it, would still fetch high 6, low 7 figure bids.
@jmlanzaf said:
People collect the highest available affordable grade. If that is a VF or XF coin, it is not at all limiting.
Assuming it's a rare coin and has an appealing appearance, VF/XF is maybe not limiting. But what if it's G/VG or has problems? Even if the coin is excessively rare, those are indeed limiting factors.
This is not based on my own preference. Rather, it's the preference of people I know who spend big bucks on hard-to-find coins. One of the things I have learned is that buyers like them won't pay up for ugly coins. Even rare ones.
But that is not the extent of the argument @WCC is making. In fact, he does a better job refuting himself than I do.
Totally ridiculous.
Here is a question I have for anybody who disagrees with my general premise. How much more do you or anyone else who disagrees with me think whatever random coin you have in mind should be worth?
You and everyone else who disagree with me are theorizing in the abstract without presenting any evidence that this opinion represents how collectors actually collect.
As one example, four years ago I estimated the value of all "investable" South Africa Union and ZAR coinage (their "classics) at $32MM to $50MM. This is about 80 coins for all of ZAR and in the vicinity of 600 for Union plus hundreds of additional patterns. This market is probably somewhere in the top 30 for collecting scale.
It's a guesstimate but even if it's noticeably higher proportionately (almost certainly because the coins are more common than the prevailing opinion), it's financially irrelevant. It's enough for a relatively low number of buyers to make "serios" money and a somewhat larger number to make "meaningful" amounts. It's a reasonable test case of most countries and I acknowledged differences with others earlier, Europe and a few others which I can answer in a subsequent reply.
First, as I stated, there is no reason to believe that most coins (as in at least 95%) have the collector appeal to sell for "materially" higher prices where the profits are going to be financially meaningful. The coins simply aren't that interesting to collectors and only widespread buying as "widgets" where SA is a test case of how that failed spectacularly is likely to repeat it. I've attempted to explain why US coins do but practically no country has a similar profile. The US market is more financialized than any other which is one difference.
Second, in the Union series, a disproportionate percentage are scarce with a few rare. By the US definition of a series, there are as many as 66: 11 denominations, three portraits, circulation strikes and proofs. The vast majority are very difficult or close to effectively impossible to complete in any quality which has any prospect for material appreciation since practically all lack the necessary collector appeal to sell for "high" prices otherwise. Most of these series have numerous "key" dates by US standards with some having more "key" than non-key.
Type collecting would alleviate the supply constraints noticeably, but I have never seen any indication anyone does it there. To the extent it happens elsewhere, it changes my opinion at least somewhat.
Third, the supply constraints could be alleviated if collectors were willing to buy non-SA coinage as an alternative, but they don't do that above immaterial prices. In Europe and a few others, this happens but outside of a small proportion (like ancient Greek and Roman), apparently infrequently at prices US collectors consider "meaningful". I am also not aware of a single country where local collectors are in the habit paying higher prices for other world coinage (maybe ancients) that exceed theirs.
So, as i asked South African collectors repeatedly, what exactly is a much larger collector base supposed to buy that they actually want at a price they will pay?
It's what I told you here before. It's a common example (very common) where a very low number can buy the better coins while everyone else is either "locked-out" or relegated to buying the "leftovers" at basement level prices. There is no basis to believe that a much larger (proportional) collector base will even attempt to collect this segment "actively" (as a primary interest) as a collectible (as opposed to "widget investing") as it contradicts how collectors are known to behave.
What I described, it appears to be the norm, not the exception. I'm sure somebody here who disagrees with me can find another example that differs from mine somewhat, like you did. Ancients and the US coinage you used as examples aren't representative of hardly any world coinage that more than a minimal proportion of collectors are going to buy. Ancient Greek, Roman, and Judaica are an exception due to cultural reasons which practically all other coinage lacks. As for the US, no legitimately rare or even scarce coin can be considered "undiscovered" and it isn't representative of world coinage either.
@jmlanzaf said:
People collect the highest available affordable grade. If that is a VF or XF coin, it is not at all limiting.
Assuming it's a rare coin and has an appealing appearance, VF/XF is maybe not limiting. But what if it's G/VG or has problems? Even if the coin is excessively rare, those are indeed limiting factors.
This is not based on my own preference. Rather, it's the preference of people I know who spend big bucks on hard-to-find coins. One of the things I have learned is that buyers like them won't pay up for ugly coins. Even rare ones.
It's more than this.
It depends upon the coin first since after all, we're talking about several hundred thousand "world" coins.
Someone could literally write a book on this subject, but few if any would buy it because if it's written to reflect how collectors actually collect generally (not always every single time), the conclusion would mostly contradict what most collectors who have a substantial financial motivation want to believe.
To your point specifically, anyone who is familiar with quality differences between US coinage and others will know it's more than just the grade or whether a TPG will assign it a numerical one.
From my observations, there are a noticeable proportion of US series that have a noticeable supply of decent looking low grade coins. With the non-US series I have followed most closely, most of it is disproportionately "dreck": holed, otherwise damaged, scratched, or "washed out". This includes Spanish colonial pillars, South Africa Union, Bolivian Republic decimals, Spanish colonial quarter real, Mexican Cap & Ray among others. A very low proportion of this coinage has high collector appeal where someone will pay a "high" price anyway (like they do for early US large cents) but it's not representative.
@WCC said:
With the non-US series I have followed most closely, most of it is disproportionately "dreck": holed, otherwise damaged, scratched, or "washed out". This includes Spanish colonial pillars, South Africa Union, Bolivian Republic decimals, Spanish colonial quarter real, Mexican Cap & Ray among others.
This is exactly where I was going with my earlier comment. Many buyers (not all, of course) will pass on an ugly coin even if they want/need one like it for their collection. And when it comes to world coins, there's lots of dreck (rare or otherwise) out there.
@WCC said:
With the non-US series I have followed most closely, most of it is disproportionately "dreck": holed, otherwise damaged, scratched, or "washed out". This includes Spanish colonial pillars, South Africa Union, Bolivian Republic decimals, Spanish colonial quarter real, Mexican Cap & Ray among others.
This is exactly where I was going with my earlier comment. Many buyers (not all, of course) will pass on an ugly coin even if they want/need one like it for their collection. And when it comes to world coins, there's lots of dreck (rare or otherwise) out there.
Yes, but one more point. This "dreck", a collector presumably usually owns it. BUt that's totally different than expecting it to become a lot more valuable.
In pillar coinage, all the 1732 Mexico denominations have high prices and I can see all five increasing a lot or even rivaling comporable US coainge later/eventually. OTOH, the 1766 Peru 1R of which I have seen three identified (never one for sale) but only in very low quality, probably not.
@WCC said:
Yes, but one more point. This "dreck", a collector presumably usually owns it. BUt that's totally different than expecting it to become a lot more valuable.
@jmlanzaf said:
People collect the highest available affordable grade. If that is a VF or XF coin, it is not at all limiting.
Assuming it's a rare coin and has an appealing appearance, VF/XF is maybe not limiting. But what if it's G/VG or has problems? Even if the coin is excessively rare, those are indeed limiting factors.
This is not based on my own preference. Rather, it's the preference of people I know who spend big bucks on hard-to-find coins. One of the things I have learned is that buyers like them won't pay up for ugly coins. Even rare ones.
But that is not the extent of the argument @WCC is making. In fact, he does a better job refuting himself than I do.
Totally ridiculous.
Here is a question I have for anybody who disagrees with my general premise. How much more do you or anyone else who disagrees with me think whatever random coin you have in mind should be worth?
You and everyone else who disagree with me are theorizing in the abstract without presenting any evidence that this opinion represents how collectors actually collect.
As one example, four years ago I estimated the value of all "investable" South Africa Union and ZAR coinage (their "classics) at $32MM to $50MM. This is about 80 coins for all of ZAR and in the vicinity of 600 for Union plus hundreds of additional patterns. This market is probably somewhere in the top 30 for collecting scale.
It's a guesstimate but even if it's noticeably higher proportionately (almost certainly because the coins are more common than the prevailing opinion), it's financially irrelevant. It's enough for a relatively low number of buyers to make "serios" money and a somewhat larger number to make "meaningful" amounts. It's a reasonable test case of most countries and I acknowledged differences with others earlier, Europe and a few others which I can answer in a subsequent reply.
First, as I stated, there is no reason to believe that most coins (as in at least 95%) have the collector appeal to sell for "materially" higher prices where the profits are going to be financially meaningful. The coins simply aren't that interesting to collectors and only widespread buying as "widgets" where SA is a test case of how that failed spectacularly is likely to repeat it. I've attempted to explain why US coins do but practically no country has a similar profile. The US market is more financialized than any other which is one difference.
Second, in the Union series, a disproportionate percentage are scarce with a few rare. By the US definition of a series, there are as many as 66: 11 denominations, three portraits, circulation strikes and proofs. The vast majority are very difficult or close to effectively impossible to complete in any quality which has any prospect for material appreciation since practically all lack the necessary collector appeal to sell for "high" prices otherwise. Most of these series have numerous "key" dates by US standards with some having more "key" than non-key.
Type collecting would alleviate the supply constraints noticeably, but I have never seen any indication anyone does it there. To the extent it happens elsewhere, it changes my opinion at least somewhat.
Third, the supply constraints could be alleviated if collectors were willing to buy non-SA coinage as an alternative, but they don't do that above immaterial prices. In Europe and a few others, this happens but outside of a small proportion (like ancient Greek and Roman), apparently infrequently at prices US collectors consider "meaningful". I am also not aware of a single country where local collectors are in the habit paying higher prices for other world coinage (maybe ancients) that exceed theirs.
So, as i asked South African collectors repeatedly, what exactly is a much larger collector base supposed to buy that they actually want at a price they will pay?
It's what I told you here before. It's a common example (very common) where a very low number can buy the better coins while everyone else is either "locked-out" or relegated to buying the "leftovers" at basement level prices. There is no basis to believe that a much larger (proportional) collector base will even attempt to collect this segment "actively" (as a primary interest) as a collectible (as opposed to "widget investing") as it contradicts how collectors are known to behave.
What I described, it appears to be the norm, not the exception. I'm sure somebody here who disagrees with me can find another example that differs from mine somewhat, like you did. Ancients and the US coinage you used as examples aren't representative of hardly any world coinage that more than a minimal proportion of collectors are going to buy. Ancient Greek, Roman, and Judaica are an exception due to cultural reasons which practically all other coinage lacks. As for the US, no legitimately rare or even scarce coin can be considered "undiscovered" and it isn't representative of world coinage either.
I don't think any coin is "underpriced". The question was the capacity for future price appreciation.
I don't think any coin is "underpriced". The question was the capacity for future price appreciation.
OK, but there is "realistic" appreciation and what so many US collectors seem to think is the potential. No one has given me any estimates, so I can only infer.
What I have been trying to tell you is that the prospects for the most part aren't anywhere near what I have read inferred on coin forums and on occasion the numismatic press.
I provided South Africa as a real time example of what happens in country with less interest in collecting (versus the US) and where an outsized proportion of the coins most collectors want are much harder to buy.
Those who disagree with me haven't explained how we get from "here" to "there". They haven't even described "there", just an abstract claim that it's going to happen, whatever that is which I have no clue.
For starters, it might help if those who disagree use the differences between the US and whatever other country they have in mind. Similar idea for a series or one in it.
@amwldcoin said:
Are you trying to drive away your competition who is outbidding you in auctions?
No, but I wouldn't mind if I did.
If I believed this theme, I would agree with it but I don't because it makes no sense generally, only selectively.
Most forum participants don't read my posts. So when they do on a financial topic, they think I am negative, like one poster who commented here who once claimed I was "trashing" US collecting because they didn't like what I wrote. I have contradicted inflated sentiments for all types of coins and here it includes those I collect too. But then, the next I think I am going to read is that I am "trashing" my own collection.
I don't think any coin is "underpriced". The question was the capacity for future price appreciation.
OK, but there is "realistic" appreciation and what so many US collectors seem to think is the potential. No one has given me any estimates, so I can only infer.
What I have been trying to tell you is that the prospects for the most part aren't anywhere near what I have read inferred on coin forums and on occasion the numismatic press.
I provided South Africa as a real time example of what happens in country with less interest in collecting (versus the US) and where an outsized proportion of the coins most collectors want are much harder to buy.
Those who disagree with me haven't explained how we get from "here" to "there". They haven't even described "there", just an abstract claim that it's going to happen, whatever that is which I have no clue.
For starters, it might help if those who disagree use the differences between the US and whatever other country they have in mind. Similar idea for a series or one in it.
I will say this. I have been around the World coin market for over 50 years. The movement in prices are just like the tides. Up and down, up and down depending on when and where you are. I have seen the German market flip at least 3 times. Prices are higher here then prices are higher there.
I don’t think anyone is saying or thinking the world coin market is as liquid as the US coin market. But with holding power and patience there is money to be made.
I attribute your attitude from reading your posts here as being sore from heavily investing in South African coins and the market tanking. I give better odds than not that the market will come back in time.
I don’t think anyone is saying or thinking the world coin market is as liquid as the US coin market. But with holding power and patience there is money to be made.
I never disagreed there is some potential. I am confident it isn't anywhere near the sentiments I infer from others here and elsewhere.
I attribute your attitude from reading your posts here as being sore from heavily investing in South African coins and the market tanking. I give better odds than not that the market will come back in time.
That might be true if I had lost money or a lot of money on my South African coinage, but I didn't. I knew it was a bubble prior to the YE 2011 peak and sold somewhat early. South Africa is where I made my money. I still have some coins (small proportion value wise) that I should have sold then too but did not because I am a collector first, not an "investor".
I don't think any coin is "underpriced". The question was the capacity for future price appreciation.
OK, but there is "realistic" appreciation and what so many US collectors seem to think is the potential. No one has given me any estimates, so I can only infer.
What I have been trying to tell you is that the prospects for the most part aren't anywhere near what I have read inferred on coin forums and on occasion the numismatic press.
I provided South Africa as a real time example of what happens in country with less interest in collecting (versus the US) and where an outsized proportion of the coins most collectors want are much harder to buy.
Those who disagree with me haven't explained how we get from "here" to "there". They haven't even described "there", just an abstract claim that it's going to happen, whatever that is which I have no clue.
For starters, it might help if those who disagree use the differences between the US and whatever other country they have in mind. Similar idea for a series or one in it.
China, Mexico, Russia...
Maybe South Africa didn't work but it has happened in other developing countries.
Mexico numismatics is a pretty big tamale and some areas have done well. Others, not so much. Aside from top pop slabbed, 20th century Mexico values haven't done any better than just keeping up with inflation for half a century.
Maybe South Africa didn't work but it has happened in other developing countries.
>
The South Africa price level is still much higher now (in the aggregate) than it was when I first attempted to buy in volume starting around 2002. There just isn't ever going to be any meaningful scale in that market for a variety of reasons, including what I posted here.
China and Russia I can agree with at least somewhat.
Mexico is an example which, in the aggregate, I think has a lot less potential than most US collectors think. Yes, a relatively high proportion of the coinage has a high preference among US collectors but most of the series they want to buy most has limited or very limited supply There aren't enough quality coins to go around for the current collector base, much less a much larger one.
I know this applies to all pre-decimal coinage in better quality since most of the lower quality doesn't have anywhere near a high enough preference. Prospects are better for crowns and gold generically.
Comments
Redbook vs. SCWC...
Ballpark retail (a real quick search) shows that you can get a Redbook for $20. The same time period (1700s-2020) for the Standard Catalog of World Coins will cost around $250, or 12x a redbook. The SCWC catalogs are 8 1/2" x 11" and stacked up, about 11" thick. A Redbook is 5 1/2" x 8", 1" thick. If it was printed in an 8 1/2" x 11" format, it would be no more than 1/2" thick. So- there is about 22x as much pricing information in the SCWC as in the Redbook, but this information costs only 12x more.
One more question- which do you think is easier to compile pricing for? I'd say the Redbook is. How about you? Ok- that's two questions.
Redbook likely way more sales volume too. The extra pricing info could easily be justified if the SCWC had the circulation numbers to justify it.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Sorry for the long post but Its necessary to attempt to explain myself.
I don't think I overestimate the supply of coins, not the ones with the highest preference. You don't seem to realize it but you are actually supporting my claim. Excessive scarcity and limited supply is more of a negative for the price level because it limits the size of the collector base (and hence demand) which is necessary to increase prices.
Most coins simply don't have a high enough collector preference to increase as much as you imply - not at any meaningful scale - and if there is any reason to believe non-collectors who become collectors will find more than a very low proportion that interesting, I'd like to know it, in specifics. I intermittently read claims about the financial future of world coins generally and every time I have, it's always in the abstract. Anyone can make any claim they want but it's another thing to support it from what motivates people to buy it at the prices someone else thinks it should be worth.
With your comment about the world becoming a much smaller place, there isn't much evidence that collectors are collecting hardly any coinage from elsewhere (outside their home country) - at any meaningful financial scale - and I'd also like to know what motive they have to do it given they have no cultural preference for it. That's effectively dart throwing. It's predominantly US collectors who do so across the board at what I would describe as meaningful prices. US collectors are also used to being able to buy most coins from a US source and logistically it's much easier to sell most coins here too at "market". The internet has changed this somewhat but not entirely because coins are physical objects.
To close my long post, I didn't state that it's not possible for an individual or a (very) low number to make meaningful returns. Concurrently, since there is a (very) limited scale for most series and most countries, it's not going to be what I would consider financial meaningful for any noticeable number because the scale doesn't exist (due to the scarcity) and attempting to achieve it by acquiring coins from a broad range of series is more likely to mean the buyer doesn't know much if anything about the coinage.
More anecdotal examples. Read my response to Mr. Eureka.
Just like a prior poster, you're also dealer. How does your experience apply to most collectors? You are effectively buying at "bid" and selling at "ask". Most collectors can't do that.
No, there is no "world" coin market because coin collectors don't collect that way. Did you even read my prior post? Apparently, you did not. Even though I have replied to numerous posts of yours, you also don't remember that I only collect non-US coinage.
Outside of "name" collections like Eliasberg, most collectors - including larger budget collectors - are buying one or more specific series or from a few countries. Otherwise, the only generic (across the board) collecting of "world" coinage is by low budget collectors at immaterial prices.
My primary interest is pillar coinage now. Previously, it was South Africa Union and ZAR. The prices and demand for one is irrelevant to the other, as I am potentially the only person (literally) to ever try to collect both to the extent I do and did. What I just described, it also applies to most other "world" coinage, the vast majority.
Not sure what point you are trying to make. If you are implying the coin is (really) rare because you can't find it, almost certainly not. Look at the populations for any number of other much older coins and you will see my point. Not familiar with the availability of this coin specifically but no reason to believe it's scarcer than any number of other examples I can give you.
As for your ask price on that coin, I think it is too high, way too high. The coin isn't remotely interesting enough compared to other coinage in the same price range, certainly not due to the TPG label. I don't know what the coins are worth now, but I have only paid $2500 or more once for any coin in my pillar collection including those I bought recently. A few are ion the same grade and numerous others near it. For this series, it's a fairly substantial collection which has taken me over 15 years to accumulate.
You also missed one of my points in my prior post. Morgan dollars aren't expensive because the coins are rare. That has little to do with the price level because rarity alone isn't meaningful enough to induce hardly anyone to pay a "high" price. My claim is that the series would possibly be worth less if it were much scarcer since I don't believe the design is really liked that much. it's a common "investment" coin in high grades that is easy to buy in volume and where collectors can choose their price points and upgrade as their finances permit.
In most of the scarcest and desirable "world" coinage, the coins are too scarce where a (very) low number can outbid everyone else leaving all others to buy the "leftovers". That's what applies to pillar minors which is why the collector base can't be large which also means there isn't likely to ever be demand to comparable US coinage, early federal 1794-1807.
Not a US centric view at all. I can't answer a generic question with specifics without writing a book.
One point which has been ignored here in all the posts I have read is that there is little "investment" buying by collectors outside the US. I infer it's happened with a very low proportion and it's more common now but not as implied by others in this thread who disagree with me.
Chinese buyers seem to do it more as is evident from some of the high prices and preference for TPG. I also see it with British coins, mostly gold. Gold and crowns have a higher preference versus minors and financially, that's where I would expect the prices to increase most generically. Ancient Greek, Roman, and Judaica also have strong demand. There are some others, but these are only examples and a very low minority Most of these coins are also among the more or most expensive now.
For most countries, what I see in replies to my posts is also a complete disregard for the supply limitations due to the lack of prior collecting. Mexico is an example. I doubt more than a (low proportion are actually rare or even scarce by my standards but the supply in "high quality" is a low to immaterial fraction of most contemporary US and European which means there can be no meaningful scale because the coins don't exist in the quality which collectors are likely to want and most of the coins also aren't likely remotely interesting enough to a noticeably larger collector base where they will bid up the prices of the better examples a lot while everyone else buys the "leftovers". There is no evidence of that, except with the very low proportion of the most preferred coins.
It's easy enough to make claims in the abstract. The real questions is, how does this view align with how collectors actually collect? My answer is that is mostly doesn't, which I why I have given the answers you see here.
I don't see why I need Morgan level UNCs to support price rises and rising collector interest. You mention ancients. There are very few UNC coins and many very scarce types yet they are widely collected at very solid prices. People collect the highest available affordable grade. If that is a VF or XF coin, it is not at all limiting.
There are no absolutes and this is a generic topic. That's why it is difficult for me to respond to those who disagree with me.
In the example of ancients (Roman, Greek, and Judaica), it's evident some or a noticeable proportion have a high enough collector preference where the buyers are willing to pay strong prices for less than stellar quality and the supply is large enough to accommodate it since many of these coins are from hoards. It's consistent with how US collectors view early large cents and early federal series generally.
This isn't true for more than a very low proportion. The coins simply aren't interesting enough to enough collectors. Those who disagree with me may or do claim this will change later but it's another abstract claim.
Coins with a (very) high preference have the potential to rise a lot since the (prospective) collector base may or will (mostly) ignore the price of alternatives. But it's not going to happen generically unless someone is going to tell me that there is going to a "surge" of (far) more affluent buyers in the future who will still be interested enough in the coins as collectibles, not "investments". The culture elsewhere doesn't support this as collecting most everywhere else has not been financialized much if at all.
Assuming it's a rare coin and has an appealing appearance, VF/XF is maybe not limiting. But what if it's G/VG or has problems? Even if the coin is excessively rare, those are indeed limiting factors.
This is not based on my own preference. Rather, it's the preference of people I know who spend big bucks on hard-to-find coins. One of the things I have learned is that buyers like them won't pay up for ugly coins. Even rare ones.
But that is not the extent of the argument @WCC is making. In fact, he does a better job refuting himself than I do.
He mentioned ancients, see above. He also mentions federal copper. Porosity is accepted in early copper.
I'm pretty sure that a 1902-Cc dollar, bent with a hole in it, would still fetch high 6, low 7 figure bids.
Totally ridiculous.
Here is a question I have for anybody who disagrees with my general premise. How much more do you or anyone else who disagrees with me think whatever random coin you have in mind should be worth?
You and everyone else who disagree with me are theorizing in the abstract without presenting any evidence that this opinion represents how collectors actually collect.
As one example, four years ago I estimated the value of all "investable" South Africa Union and ZAR coinage (their "classics) at $32MM to $50MM. This is about 80 coins for all of ZAR and in the vicinity of 600 for Union plus hundreds of additional patterns. This market is probably somewhere in the top 30 for collecting scale.
It's a guesstimate but even if it's noticeably higher proportionately (almost certainly because the coins are more common than the prevailing opinion), it's financially irrelevant. It's enough for a relatively low number of buyers to make "serios" money and a somewhat larger number to make "meaningful" amounts. It's a reasonable test case of most countries and I acknowledged differences with others earlier, Europe and a few others which I can answer in a subsequent reply.
First, as I stated, there is no reason to believe that most coins (as in at least 95%) have the collector appeal to sell for "materially" higher prices where the profits are going to be financially meaningful. The coins simply aren't that interesting to collectors and only widespread buying as "widgets" where SA is a test case of how that failed spectacularly is likely to repeat it. I've attempted to explain why US coins do but practically no country has a similar profile. The US market is more financialized than any other which is one difference.
Second, in the Union series, a disproportionate percentage are scarce with a few rare. By the US definition of a series, there are as many as 66: 11 denominations, three portraits, circulation strikes and proofs. The vast majority are very difficult or close to effectively impossible to complete in any quality which has any prospect for material appreciation since practically all lack the necessary collector appeal to sell for "high" prices otherwise. Most of these series have numerous "key" dates by US standards with some having more "key" than non-key.
Type collecting would alleviate the supply constraints noticeably, but I have never seen any indication anyone does it there. To the extent it happens elsewhere, it changes my opinion at least somewhat.
Third, the supply constraints could be alleviated if collectors were willing to buy non-SA coinage as an alternative, but they don't do that above immaterial prices. In Europe and a few others, this happens but outside of a small proportion (like ancient Greek and Roman), apparently infrequently at prices US collectors consider "meaningful". I am also not aware of a single country where local collectors are in the habit paying higher prices for other world coinage (maybe ancients) that exceed theirs.
So, as i asked South African collectors repeatedly, what exactly is a much larger collector base supposed to buy that they actually want at a price they will pay?
It's what I told you here before. It's a common example (very common) where a very low number can buy the better coins while everyone else is either "locked-out" or relegated to buying the "leftovers" at basement level prices. There is no basis to believe that a much larger (proportional) collector base will even attempt to collect this segment "actively" (as a primary interest) as a collectible (as opposed to "widget investing") as it contradicts how collectors are known to behave.
What I described, it appears to be the norm, not the exception. I'm sure somebody here who disagrees with me can find another example that differs from mine somewhat, like you did. Ancients and the US coinage you used as examples aren't representative of hardly any world coinage that more than a minimal proportion of collectors are going to buy. Ancient Greek, Roman, and Judaica are an exception due to cultural reasons which practically all other coinage lacks. As for the US, no legitimately rare or even scarce coin can be considered "undiscovered" and it isn't representative of world coinage either.
It's more than this.
It depends upon the coin first since after all, we're talking about several hundred thousand "world" coins.
Someone could literally write a book on this subject, but few if any would buy it because if it's written to reflect how collectors actually collect generally (not always every single time), the conclusion would mostly contradict what most collectors who have a substantial financial motivation want to believe.
To your point specifically, anyone who is familiar with quality differences between US coinage and others will know it's more than just the grade or whether a TPG will assign it a numerical one.
From my observations, there are a noticeable proportion of US series that have a noticeable supply of decent looking low grade coins. With the non-US series I have followed most closely, most of it is disproportionately "dreck": holed, otherwise damaged, scratched, or "washed out". This includes Spanish colonial pillars, South Africa Union, Bolivian Republic decimals, Spanish colonial quarter real, Mexican Cap & Ray among others. A very low proportion of this coinage has high collector appeal where someone will pay a "high" price anyway (like they do for early US large cents) but it's not representative.
This is exactly where I was going with my earlier comment. Many buyers (not all, of course) will pass on an ugly coin even if they want/need one like it for their collection. And when it comes to world coins, there's lots of dreck (rare or otherwise) out there.
Yes, but one more point. This "dreck", a collector presumably usually owns it. BUt that's totally different than expecting it to become a lot more valuable.
In pillar coinage, all the 1732 Mexico denominations have high prices and I can see all five increasing a lot or even rivaling comporable US coainge later/eventually. OTOH, the 1766 Peru 1R of which I have seen three identified (never one for sale) but only in very low quality, probably not.
Agreed.
I don't think any coin is "underpriced". The question was the capacity for future price appreciation.
Are you trying to drive away your competition who is outbidding you in auctions?
OK, but there is "realistic" appreciation and what so many US collectors seem to think is the potential. No one has given me any estimates, so I can only infer.
What I have been trying to tell you is that the prospects for the most part aren't anywhere near what I have read inferred on coin forums and on occasion the numismatic press.
I provided South Africa as a real time example of what happens in country with less interest in collecting (versus the US) and where an outsized proportion of the coins most collectors want are much harder to buy.
Those who disagree with me haven't explained how we get from "here" to "there". They haven't even described "there", just an abstract claim that it's going to happen, whatever that is which I have no clue.
For starters, it might help if those who disagree use the differences between the US and whatever other country they have in mind. Similar idea for a series or one in it.
No, but I wouldn't mind if I did.
If I believed this theme, I would agree with it but I don't because it makes no sense generally, only selectively.
Most forum participants don't read my posts. So when they do on a financial topic, they think I am negative, like one poster who commented here who once claimed I was "trashing" US collecting because they didn't like what I wrote. I have contradicted inflated sentiments for all types of coins and here it includes those I collect too. But then, the next I think I am going to read is that I am "trashing" my own collection.
I will say this. I have been around the World coin market for over 50 years. The movement in prices are just like the tides. Up and down, up and down depending on when and where you are. I have seen the German market flip at least 3 times. Prices are higher here then prices are higher there.
I don’t think anyone is saying or thinking the world coin market is as liquid as the US coin market. But with holding power and patience there is money to be made.
I attribute your attitude from reading your posts here as being sore from heavily investing in South African coins and the market tanking. I give better odds than not that the market will come back in time.
I never disagreed there is some potential. I am confident it isn't anywhere near the sentiments I infer from others here and elsewhere.
That might be true if I had lost money or a lot of money on my South African coinage, but I didn't. I knew it was a bubble prior to the YE 2011 peak and sold somewhat early. South Africa is where I made my money. I still have some coins (small proportion value wise) that I should have sold then too but did not because I am a collector first, not an "investor".
China, Mexico, Russia...
Maybe South Africa didn't work but it has happened in other developing countries.
Mexico numismatics is a pretty big tamale and some areas have done well. Others, not so much. Aside from top pop slabbed, 20th century Mexico values haven't done any better than just keeping up with inflation for half a century.
China, Mexico, Russia...
Maybe South Africa didn't work but it has happened in other developing countries.
>
The South Africa price level is still much higher now (in the aggregate) than it was when I first attempted to buy in volume starting around 2002. There just isn't ever going to be any meaningful scale in that market for a variety of reasons, including what I posted here.
China and Russia I can agree with at least somewhat.
Mexico is an example which, in the aggregate, I think has a lot less potential than most US collectors think. Yes, a relatively high proportion of the coinage has a high preference among US collectors but most of the series they want to buy most has limited or very limited supply There aren't enough quality coins to go around for the current collector base, much less a much larger one.
I know this applies to all pre-decimal coinage in better quality since most of the lower quality doesn't have anywhere near a high enough preference. Prospects are better for crowns and gold generically.