For a coin to become more valuable...

STONE

does it need to be bought and sold more or will the story behind the coin ((i.e. 1933 DE) (+ grade, popularity of coin type, and provenance)) allow the coin to gain in value?

I think a little of both are at works here with several outliers like the 1933 DE. It seems the everytime a 1913 V-nickel comes to auction that it trumps its prevous value. So, do the major numismatic treasures really become more valuable with every sale or do the other factors take effect when considering the value of a coin?

1794half1839

All depends on the demand for the coin. The finest known 1817/4 is a great example. Remember at the time there were only 8 known specimens, there are now 9.

From the Stack's sale of the Buddy Byers Collection of Half Dollars: "PCGS AU50. O.102a. The Present Example and Finest Known. Last offered in The Richmond II Collection (David Lawrence Rare Coins, November 2004, lot 1388); The 2003 ANA Sale (Bowers and Merena, July 2003, lot 1443, unsold); Juan XII Suros Collection (Superior, February 1999, lot 180); Louis E. Eliasberg Collection (Bowers and Merena/Stack's, April 1997, lot 1735); purchased privately from Al C. Overton in 1953 for $1,500 by Eliasberg and earlier from the Pratt Collection purchased by Overton in 1951; Likely the Wallis and discovery coin published in 1930 and offered in a Fixed Price List by Wallis in 1934 for $2,500. Said by Wallis to have been held in a family collection since 1846."

In the Richmond Collection it sold for $333,000 with the 15% BP. It sold in the Byers sale at $270,000 plus 15%. Here is an example of an extreme rarity that comes up and does not sell for more each time it comes up.

TahoeDale

I agree, that for most rarities, there need to be trades, and some publicity concerning thier provenance.

For several years, 1996 to 2000, not many 1796 and 1797 halves traded hands. At the Portland ANA, 2 of the Eliasberg coins hammered way too low, for there had not been any trades for several years.

Then at the Atlanta ANA, a 1796 in 55 and 1797 in 45 sold for very reasinable sums( 50,000 for the 96 and 45,000 for the 97).

Finally, in the last 6 years, these rare dates have traded frequently, with many setting new highs.

Same with the 1801 and 02 halves. AU 50's sold for between 10 and 15,000 til 2003. Now they have doubled, or more, and lower grades are also getting nice prices. All because they are now available.

Concerning the 1817/4, the history of this coin(now an AU50) is sporadic. It didn't sell several times it was tried, and sold recently for less than the previous price realized. I think it might have to do with the appearanve of the coin--while rare, it is not original, toned, or special.

tradedollarnut

I disagree that there need to be trades of a specific coin in order for that coin to increase in price. Look at the two Brasher doubloons that came up in Heritage a few years ago - they hadn't traded in at least a decade. Yet they sold for huge increases. Three factors associated with ultra rarities are at play here:

1) The ultra rarities move in concert with each other - any time any of them trade, they raise the bar for the others. In the past, each traded so infrequently that you couldn't point to a 1913 nickel (for example) and say it's worth X because one of them traded last month for y. But you could say it's worth at least x because an 1894-S dime traded last year for y and the values are related.

2) You almost always have to 'overpay' to get an ultrararity. The price guides are updated by each new sale, not necessarily annually as other coins are [I've seen the redbook list the same price for over a decade before!]. Many times opportunity is more important than price on these coins - so you hold your hand up until you buy it and then the price guides catch up.

3) Generally, they go into very strong hands who refuse to sell unless they turn a profit down the road. If trades are rarely made at a loss, the [semi] illusion of constant increases in value is created. This then reinforces #2 above.

TahoeDale

TDN,

For the uber rarities you mentioned, it is more the story behind the coin than trades, that will allow for increases every time they are sold/traded. So I do agree that trades are not necessary.

For lesser rarities, the prices realized, hopefully higher than the last one, really helps dealers sell them, or collectors pay the higher prices.

I doubt that I would have ever paid over $150,000 for that "trade dollar" if it had not ever realized 100,000 before I bought it.

See you at dinner.

tradedollarnut

What was that eagle that sold for nearly $2M? 1920-S? That's not an uber rarity - not even a classic rarity. It's not really a storied coin. It hadn't sold for decades. Yet it sold for ALL the money. The only way to value that coin was to look at other similar condition rarities for rare [but not ultra rare] dates and decide on a number.

SmallEagle

<< <i>I disagree that there need to be trades of a specific coin in order for that coin to increase in price. >>



I agree. I think you could even make a case that the less often an item comes to market the more likely it is to make strong advances each sale.

tradedollarnut

A few years ago, I graphed a handful of the ultra rarities on a chart with all auction prices realized from the 1940's to the present. Each line had exactly the same slope [except the 1913 liberty nickel... it had a quantum jump. About the time of the reunion and reappearance of the lost specimen, there was a jump in price... I suspect that it now has returned to the same slope after a few years of abnormally high value due to all the publicity].

Since I had no other information available such as recent prices realized, I used the slope of these coins to guess what the price of the Brasher doubloons would be - the prices realized fell exactly upon the projection!