Is the collecting of early gold a "mainstream" thing or a highly specialized field?

Longacre

I tend to think of collectors of US gold as members of three catagories: 1. collectors of early gold; 2. collectors of no motto gold, and 3. collectors of with motto gold. Based on my experience, people tend to concentrate on one of the three catagories, and there is not a lot of overlapping (I could be wrong, though). When "overlapping" occurs, usually a collector of no motto gold will buy some with motto coins. However, I think it is fairly unusual for a motto or no motto collector to actively collect early gold. To me, early gold seems like a very concentrated specialty, and not very "mainstream". What do you think the reasons are for this? Is it mainly just because of price? The historical aspects of early gold are generally superior to the other catagories. What do you think?

CarsonCityGold

Lots of "branch mint" gold collectors out there. Whenever I'm trying to buy a new piece it seems like it is extremly mainstream!

BillJones

You are totally forgetting about a third group, which is very important in the numismatic market, the type collector. I'm one of those, and I view early gold as the crème de la crème for advanced type collectors. I love the stuff, but I can’t afford to purchase very much of it. Currently I’ve got four pieces, an 1804 quarter eagle (PCGS AU-60), an 1806 half eagle (PCGS AU-58), an 1811 half eagle (PCGS AU-55) and a 1799 eagle (PCGS AU-55).

I’d love to get more types, but I’d have to give up parts of my collection to do it, AND I’d have to find coins that worked for me without paying a totally ridiculous price. When I say “work for me” that means, dead on for the grade, which would have be EF-45 to AU-58 AND NOT CLEANED. With some dealers, the sky has become the limit on early gold.

TahoeDale

Longacre,

I totally agree with your catagories, but do not know the reasons why most collectors stay with one area. But they do.

My concentration is in early gold, and I do not seek out or know well any other area (of Gold). No Saints, Libs, or any other series where the dates are later than 1807. I am guessing that the information necessary for each series is complex enough, and the prices are high enough, that one area will be enough to satisfy the budget and the mind.

The difference in quality of a MS 63, or an AU 55 for $5 gold in the years 1795 to 1807 is amazing. And the possibility of disturbed surfaces is also a concern. So you need a lot of viewing, and an good expert on the sidelines to assist. But it is definitely worth the effort. Most of my purchases over the last 10 years are now paying off.

Mainstream? No. Most look for type, and do not attempt to complete a series. But the attempt to do so will consume one for years. The upcoming $3 in the ANR sale is really a delight to behold. Congrats to the owner for such persistence.

RYK

I would subcategorize gold differently:

1. Early gold
2. No Motto Gold (including branch mints)
3. Motto Gold (including branch mints)
4. $20 Libs
5. 20th century gold (Saints and Indians)
6. Proof gold
7. Type gold, however you choose to define it
8. (maybe) Gold dollars and $3's--oddball series that do not fit elsewhere

BillJones

The only thing I can add, TahoeDale, is that one has to be a multimillionaire to be able to afford to collect early gold by date let alone variety. My collection is worth a little over half a mil, wholesale, and I definitely do not consider myself to be anywhere near that class. I love to look at early gold and study it in my reference books and auction catalogs, but I’m like a 3 foot tall kid looking up at a cookie jar on a 6 foot high shelf. There is no way that I’m going to reach the jar with out a step latter (i.e. a lot more money).

If a part of the market can only be populated by multimillionaires, I guess you have to say that it is out of the main stream relative to the rest of the population.

BillJones

You could add one more category, RYK.

Modern commemorative gold. VERY cheap, VERY collectable, AND there are some very pretty coins in the series.

Longacre

RYK-- I agree with your additional categories (overachiever)

TheRaven

I would say early gold would be highly specialized or at least reserved for those with alot more money then most people.

I would love to get an example of such coins but it is likely never to happen for me.

I have to save up the cash to purchase the gold coins I do own such as a 27-Saint PCGS MS-63 and the such.

After I finish the 20th century type set of 8 I will probably expand that, but never that old

michael

proof gold is the poor mans "early gold" and the creme of the gold coins

scher

michael thats a short response for you..what do you mean by poor mans/creme..seems contradictory to me..both expensive..??
bruce scher

Baley

I'll vote "highly specialized"

nothing is mainstream if each piece starts at mid-four figures and goes up from there.

FatMan

<< <i>I'll vote "highly specialized" nothing is mainstream if each piece starts at mid-four figures and goes up from there. >>

I concur. 'nough said.

mrearlygold

Many of the people I work with in the realm of early gold have put together or are putting together date sets and to a lesser extent are exploring varieties. Quite a few look to do type sets although most of those folks are in the large eagle type set category.

While it certainly seemed to be difficult at one time for the average collector to consider early common tens for 6-7 grand in AU-58, the same people seem to have had no problem buying them up for 15g's. Trouble is that they are higher than that now and are don't stay in inventory for longer than a day and if really nice then they only get offered to certain customers That's merely one example.


Tom

mrearlygold

<< <i>proof gold is the poor mans "early gold" and the creme of the gold coins >>









That's a new desciption on me!

Tom