Options
"It's just bullion" why do some collectors need to put down others?
nycounsel
Posts: 1,229 ✭✭
Modern collectors have all heard it time and again: "It's just bullion."
A dismissive, numismatic insult to those who enjoy collecting modern coins, predominantly platinum and gold American Eagle coins, but also the Buffalo golds and whatever else the writer dislikes.
What does "It's just bullion" mean exactly?
Does the fact that a coin was not issued for circulation make it "just bullion"? If so, should proof issues be dismissed? Type coins? Commemoratives? How about the 1792 Birch cent or half disme?
Does a numismatic premium over melt remove a coin from "just bullion" status? If so, what about the American Eagle coins, like 2004 proof platinums, that have long enjoyed a numismatic premium? Does that premium elevate all the coins in the series to more than "just bullion"? Or just the standouts?
Conversely, does the lack of a premium over melt make a coin "just bullion"? If so, are circulated silver coins from the 60s not worthy of collection? Are circulated rolls of Morgan dollars "just bullion"?
The truth is that most coins had little or no numismatic premium over melt at some point. A number of Trade dollars carry scars bearing testament to that fact. The Morgan dollars so many now collect started off with no numismatic premium to melt; the same is true for classic gold coins.
A recent post I enjoyed reading shared some background on Fugio cents. Fugio Cent post The post explained how the Treasury disposed of the Fugio cents for melt value: The following July (1789), the Treasury decided to dispose of the coins, and sold them to Royal Flint, a New York merchant, for less than their face value. Even at melt, the coins proved to be a bad investment: when copper prices fell 75%, and Flint wound up in debtor's prison, later to be joined by bribe-taker William Duer. Clearly at one point in time, Fugio cents were written off as "just bullion" too.
Maybe "just bullion" is just a way for some to dismiss what they don't understand, an opportunity they lack the means or foresight to take advantage of. I enjoy collecting my "just bullion" coins, as well as classic coins. If they aren't your thing, I have no problem with that; we all pick and choose what interests us.
A dismissive, numismatic insult to those who enjoy collecting modern coins, predominantly platinum and gold American Eagle coins, but also the Buffalo golds and whatever else the writer dislikes.
What does "It's just bullion" mean exactly?
Does the fact that a coin was not issued for circulation make it "just bullion"? If so, should proof issues be dismissed? Type coins? Commemoratives? How about the 1792 Birch cent or half disme?
Does a numismatic premium over melt remove a coin from "just bullion" status? If so, what about the American Eagle coins, like 2004 proof platinums, that have long enjoyed a numismatic premium? Does that premium elevate all the coins in the series to more than "just bullion"? Or just the standouts?
Conversely, does the lack of a premium over melt make a coin "just bullion"? If so, are circulated silver coins from the 60s not worthy of collection? Are circulated rolls of Morgan dollars "just bullion"?
The truth is that most coins had little or no numismatic premium over melt at some point. A number of Trade dollars carry scars bearing testament to that fact. The Morgan dollars so many now collect started off with no numismatic premium to melt; the same is true for classic gold coins.
A recent post I enjoyed reading shared some background on Fugio cents. Fugio Cent post The post explained how the Treasury disposed of the Fugio cents for melt value: The following July (1789), the Treasury decided to dispose of the coins, and sold them to Royal Flint, a New York merchant, for less than their face value. Even at melt, the coins proved to be a bad investment: when copper prices fell 75%, and Flint wound up in debtor's prison, later to be joined by bribe-taker William Duer. Clearly at one point in time, Fugio cents were written off as "just bullion" too.
Maybe "just bullion" is just a way for some to dismiss what they don't understand, an opportunity they lack the means or foresight to take advantage of. I enjoy collecting my "just bullion" coins, as well as classic coins. If they aren't your thing, I have no problem with that; we all pick and choose what interests us.
Dan
0
Comments
Most private insurance is accepted.
Who cares what the others say? Collect what you like. If you like the modern US Mint products, or the bullion programs, or whatever; by all means, collect those. People will always have differing opinions. Your aim should be to please yourself, and not to please all the naysayers.
To support LordM's European Trip, click here!
I (and most others who make the "just bullion" statements) don't make them to denigrate anyone who wishes to collect them. They are quite collectable and often bring a very nice premium over melt. They definately have their place in numismatics. That still doesn't make them coins, however.
Don't let it bother you considering the number of people in the general population that think collecting any type of coin is crazy, at least considering the dollar amounts collectors are willing to pay for them.
(For the latter two categories, I don't distinguish proof from MS). I consider the state quarters to be business
issues (even though they are also commemorative, in a sense) because they were coins minted for
circulation.
Many modern commemoratives are so common that they are basically worth their bullion content, but
they are not technically bullion, though regarded by many as such.
Edit: I'll answer your question with a question: Why does anyone need to put anything down?
<< <i>The major reason people refer to modern bullion rounds as "just bullion" is because they are not coins. They are simply bullion rounds with an arbitrary number incribed on them. Coins are produced to facilitate trade. Bullion rounds are produced as an easy way for the public to participate in the precious metal market.
I (and most others who make the "just bullion" statements) don't make them to denigrate anyone who wishes to collect them. They are quite collectable and often bring a very nice premium over melt. They definately have their place in numismatics. That still doesn't make them coins, however. >>
what he said
I recognize the "it's just bullion" comment as the insult it is meant to be, but it has not changed what I collect in the slightest.
It's the lack of civility that's uncalled for.
if what others say about the series you collect bothers you then I might suggest that it is you who lacks confidence in your series.
There are a lot of coins I don't collect -- 3 cent silvers, Presidential dollars, state quarters -- but I would never seek out a thread written by those who do for the purpose of insulting them. Those who do ... well, that reveals a lot more about them than those they attempt to put down.
Edited to add: If anything, it seems to me that a few classic collectors feel threatened by how these "just bullion" coin threads generate so much interest that they are often at the top of the message board, while the classic coins don't get as much attention.
That doesn't make much sense. The 2006 w uncirculated platinum coins have mintages across the board of between 2,500 and 3,500 for any denomination. The total number of coins for all denominations ($10, $25, $50, $100) that year, added together, was about 11,500. The total number of coins for the uncirculated platinums from 2006 to 2008, for all denominations, is much smaller than the number of 1916-d dimes, or 1909 s v.d.b. cents.
There's no arguing that coins like the platinums aren't nearly as widely collected as Mercury dimes or Lincoln cents, but that doesn't seem a logical argument for dismissing them, since the collecting population evolves over time. A number of very collectible coins were not widely collected or appreciated at the outset; indeed, that very rejection is what contributed to the eventual desirability. Conversely, a number of coins that were widely embraced at the outset suffered as a result (for instance, 1950-d nickels).
<< <i>"why do some collectors need to put down others?" I don;t know but my coins are better than your coins, and my coins can beat up your coins, and my coins are ... >>
Just bullion.
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>The major reason people refer to modern bullion rounds as "just bullion" is because they are not coins. They are simply bullion rounds with an arbitrary number incribed on them. Coins are produced to facilitate trade. Bullion rounds are produced as an easy way for the public to participate in the precious metal market. I (and most others who make the "just bullion" statements) don't make them to denigrate anyone who wishes to collect them. They are quite collectable and often bring a very nice premium over melt. They definately have their place in numismatics. That still doesn't make them coins, however. >>
I guess we can all have our own definition of "coin". If you don't mean anything negative by this comment you are the exception here. --Jerry
<< <i>The total number of coins for the uncirculated platinums from 2006 to 2008, for all denominations, is much smaller than the number of 1916-d dimes, or 1909 s v.d.b. cents. >>
Apples and oranges. Of those 11,500 unc plats, how many are still uncirculated? Probably 11,500. Of those 11,500 how many are MS65++++? Probably 11,000+ When coins have a survival rate like that original mintages matter a lot less.
Collect what you enjoy and enjoy the newer bullion coins along with bust halfs, morgans and saints.
Well, that's kind of a different point. It doesn't go to collectibility per se, but on whether it makes sense to pay a big premium for a 70 over a 69. Of course, grading IS part of coin collecting, and paying a premium for a flawless coin versus one with nick that distinguishes between a 69 and 70 holds true for the entire hobby. The value of Red over Brown, Full Steps, Split Bands... The value of those distinctions is really up to the buyer.
That is true. Provided the buyer is aware that the vast majority of items graded 70 wouldn't go back in a 70 holder upon crackout and resubmission, all is good.
<< <i>I enjoy collecting SAEs, and there is nothing posted here that is going to change that. EOM >>
I hear that Mrs RYK wants granite in the bathrooms.
1) The denominations stamped into their designs bear no relation whatsoever to their initial or subsequent value. The release price for "circulation" strike specimens far exceeds this and is really the benchmark future value references. Nothing wrong with collecting them or things like them. I collect Bordeaux wine that is in a similar league. But it is wrong to consider them as coins and just modern analogues of classic coins.
2) Their valuation is chiefly in their bullion content. If people prize them with premiums based on rarity beyond that (should such a market sustain with more demand than supply), then like a first growth Bordeaux of a great vintage of limited supply, it is what the market dictates. People like terriorial gold today too, though that did circulate.
3) They are sold directly to the collectors 100%, none released into circulation. The difference between Franklin Mint doing it and the US Mint doing it, is that there is official nonsense (yes, nonsense) authorizing each from Congress and is made by a taxpayer financed institution. They even do this nearly exclusively at two Mints only tasked with this.
4) Morgan and Peace dollars were largely unused in commerce and there are arguments that they are classic NCLT. However, a significant fraction was actually used regionally and in casinos and, prior to clad and GSA sales, they were sold at $1 face. SGDEs also could be argued as non-circulating. Again, the mint never charged over face for them. I don't consider proofs in the same league as real coins, classic proofs included. However, in the 19th century there was no premium for those special favor strikes. When premiums were added, they were modest until pretty recently.
Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with collecting NCLT=bullion, just don't expect it to be what it is not.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
The comparison isn't apples and oranges because of condition or survival rate, it's apples and oranges because of the collector base.
A 1909-s v.d.b. cent or 1916-d dime is worth a huge premium (a few hundred dollars) to the original price (1 cent, 1 dime) regardless of condition.
The number of 2006 w uncirculated platinum coins made is significantly smaller than the number of 1936 proof sets. Proof sets probably enjoy a pretty decent survival rate.
<< <i>The comparison isn't apples and oranges because of condition or survival rate, it's apples and oranges because of the collector base. >>
Condition and survival rate affect collector base. Collectors are more likely interested coins with a lower survival rate. Coins with a perfect survival rate aren't as collectible because they're always available in perfect condition. Related to that, modern bullion coins were produced for collectors so they'll always have the stigma of not being true "money." Regardless of what people have said about Bust halves, Morgans, and Saints, those coins were not produced for collectors, they were produced as money and many circulated as such. When's the last time you spent an ASE at Wal-mart? Never. It's not money. It's bullion as art. And there's nothing wrong with that, but getting your undies in a bunch when people call it what it is is ridiculous.
<< <i>Well, it is just bullion. But if you like it, collect it. Go nuts! Enjoy your collection! Who cares what others say? >>
YOU DA MAN!!
<< <i>The value of those distinctions is really up to the buyer.
That is true. Provided the buyer is aware that the vast majority of items graded 70 wouldn't go back in a 70 holder upon crackout and resubmission, all is good. >>
Bruce - your point is something that I have zero experience with, but have always wondered. When one "makes" a MS/PF70 coin with a major TPG, what is the liklihood that the coin would not be damaged in some way upon cracking it out, putting it back into the flip, shipping it, and subsequent receiving/handling by the respective TPG. I would think that somewhere along that way, it would become damaged in some tiny little way enough to warrant a 69, especially a proof issue.
We often hear of "coin coffins" as in overgraded classic material that will probably stay in those slabs; i'd venture a guess that many/most/all PF and MS 70 coins are in the same boat.
@ doh: When's the last time you spent an ASE at Wal-mart? Never. It's not money
I've never spent a Bust half, a Morgan, a Saint, a wheat cent, a presidential dollar at Wal-mart either. I have, however, used a credit card at Wal-mart. But that isn't money.
Your point is that ASEs aren't circulating coins (true of commemoratives, type coins, proofs), and that their given value of $1 is fiction (a point Coxe made, but better).
The fictional value, and the disconnect between given value and the bullion value, is probably the one thing that separates modern commemoratives and bullion coins more than anything else. Most of our coins, including older commemoratives, were given a value equal to or greater than the bullion content at the time. The idea of giving a coin a face value much lower than the bullion content - as we see with the American Eagle coins, modern commemoratives, the silver proof sets - certainly distinguishes them from classic coins not intended for circulation.
Even though I like to collect Walkers and Commems, I have a complete set of Proof ASEs in the original Gov't packaging.
Edit: Whoops, one last thing: A credit card is money. You have to pay it off with real money, so your point there was nonsensical. Also, yes, you've never spent a Bust half at Wal-mart, but newsflash, at one time they were spent to buy the goods Wal-Mart now sells. ASEs were never spent as money at any time in history (on purpose anyway). I'm tired of teaching you things you should already understand. Have a nice day.
<< <i>"It's just bullion" why do some collectors need to put down others? >>
Its just another way that some collectors add subconcious "value" to their sets. The implication is that "bullion" is unimportant, easy to get, not unique, common, but what I collect, is unique, rare, special, mine, made hundreds of years ago, no longer available from the mint, or whatever!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>I enjoy collecting SAEs, and there is nothing posted here that is going to change that. EOM >>
I hear that Mrs RYK wants granite in the bathrooms.
D-oh! In that case, bye-bye bullion.
Wondercoin
<< <i>"It's just bullion" why do some collectors need to put down others? >>
I would suggest the answer you seek is the same reason why you would say something like this:
<< <i>"Maybe "just bullion" is just a way for some to dismiss what they don't understand, an opportunity they lack the means or foresight to take advantage of." >>
It's just human nature -- people tend to denigrate that which doesn't interest them or they disagree with.
Respectfully...Mike
The dictionary definition of the word "coin" is rather narrow: "a small piece of metal, usually flat and circular, authorized by a government for use as money". If we want to be picky, some things traditionally collected by coin collectors could be ruled out as coins (such as as patterns), by that definition. Proofs, no, because they are merely duplicates of the design of circulating coinage.
What bothers those who collect things like ASE and platinum is to have what they collect referred to as "modern junk" by some collectors who should lighten up.
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
<< <i>I have, however, used a credit card at Wal-mart. But that isn't money. >>
However, they may be quite collectible. Bet those old Bankamericards that evolved into Visa will one day be very desirable collectibles.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>
<< <i>I have, however, used a credit card at Wal-mart. But that isn't money. >>
However, they may be quite collectible. Bet those old Bankamericards that evolved into Visa will one day be very desirable collectibles. >>
could not resist. i was curious to see a few. i thought i would share ;-)
WS
To each his - or her own!
Collect that which interests YOU!
As for opinions - everyone's got them AND are entitled to have them.
"If you choose NOT to decide, you STILL have made a choice!"
When one sticks an opinion out on an internet forum,
fully expect a wide and diversified array of opinions in return.
Overland Trail Collection Showcase
Dahlonega Type Set-2008 PCGS Best Exhibited Set
<< <i>When one sticks an opinion out on an internet forum,
fully expect a wide and diversified array of opinions in return.
And remember, those who agree with you won't yell half as loud as those who disagree.
I rather like the mindset of the "just bullion" classic collectors that think the same about the modern coins currently being offered. Most "classic" collectors of the future will appreciate you immensely!
<< <i>I've never spent a Bust half, a Morgan, a Saint, a wheat cent, a presidential dollar at Wal-mart either. I have, however, used a credit card at Wal-mart. But that isn't money. >>
According to Merriam-Webster the definition of money is:
1: something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as a: officially coined or stamped metal currency b: money of account c: paper money
So I would argue that a credit card IS money based on (b) above.
Edit: to fix italics
<< <i>
<< <i>The comparison isn't apples and oranges because of condition or survival rate, it's apples and oranges because of the collector base. >>
Condition and survival rate affect collector base. Collectors are more likely interested coins with a lower survival rate. Coins with a perfect survival rate aren't as collectible because they're always available in perfect condition. Related to that, modern bullion coins were produced for collectors so they'll always have the stigma of not being true "money." Regardless of what people have said about Bust halves, Morgans, and Saints, those coins were not produced for collectors, they were produced as money and many circulated as such. When's the last time you spent an ASE at Wal-mart? Never. It's not money. It's bullion as art. And there's nothing wrong with that, but getting your undies in a bunch when people call it what it is is ridiculous. >>
Generally an excellent post, but I would argue that survival rate really doesn't impact
collectibility in a pure sense. It probably will impact the chances of said collectible
appreciating in value or prestige over time, however.
<< <i>I've gotten 4 silver eagles from my bank at face value before so they actually do circulate. It's just rare, that's all. >>
Something going from point A to point B once in a blue moon does not constitute "circulation".
The silver eagle was not minted with the intention of it circulating.