some folks like that dollar and think it's pretty, others think that blotchy neon blue-green and bright pink is ugly as hell. Viva la difference! that's what makes a market.
PS: looks like the artisan missed a spot down by the point of the neck
It seemed to start out as a story with a clear moral: Problem coins can be a good investment if you know the market and buy them right.
Until several people pointed out that the result described in the OP didn't seem like a very good investment at all.
At which time the moral changed to "buy whatever you like, as long as you enjoy doing it", which is hardly much of a moral in my opinion, since that can be used as a justification for buying or doing nearly anything.
It seemed to start out as a story with a clear moral: Problem coins can be a good investment if you know the market and buy them right.
Until several people pointed out that the result described in the OP didn't seem like a very good investment at all.
At which time the moral changed to "buy whatever you like, as long as you enjoy doing it", which is hardly much of a moral in my opinion, since that can be used as a justification for buying or doing nearly anything. >>
Really? I thought the moral was "buy ugly and damaged coins because you cannot get hurt too badly so long as you do not pay much for them".
Perhaps a more pragmatic view would be something like the following: If you really do not care about a financial return, perhaps a few thousand per year for many collectors, then buy what you like and ignore what others think. Most people who fish, play golf, get season tickets to basketball games, etc., do not realize a financial return either. However, I think that once a collector begins to think about maintaining value in his/her collection (this includes factoring in inflation, taxes) then the game plan must change. Maintaining value implies that the coins will eventually be sold, and at that point the opinions of others matter a great deal. Quality for the grade becomes a pressing issue, one that is more important than price in my opinion.
At one point in this thread, there was the suggestion that a collector can collect anything as long as the prices were right, and do OK. I think that the attorney who used this collecting strategy was very lucky (perhaps because the coins were sold in a bull market?). Most collectors who do this have a very hard time selling off their coins (or their heirs do). A number of dealers have, over the years, told me that 95+% of coin collections are financial losers. Why?---- mostly because they consist of modern mint products (bought from the U.S. Mint) that have lower values in the marketplace, or because the coins were overgraded when purchased, or because certain types of coins dropped significantly in value after they were purchased.
I have been collecting coins, off and on, for more than 40 years. My view of the hobby is that eye appeal means everything---coins can be MS66 or VF20 and fit the bill. I personally don't have any interest in scudzy coins (to borrow an EAC term), and would rather do without if I could not afford something pleasant to look at. If I do not like the look of a coin, I won't be a buyer at any price.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i> At one point in this thread, there was the suggestion that a collector can collect anything as long as the prices were right, and do OK. I think that the attorney who used this collecting strategy was very lucky (perhaps because the coins were sold in a bull market?). Most collectors who do this have a very hard time selling off their coins (or their heirs do). A number of dealers have, over the years, told me that 95+% of coin collections are financial losers. Why?---- mostly because they consist of modern mint products (bought from the U.S. Mint) that have lower values in the marketplace, or because the coins were overgraded when purchased, or because certain types of coins dropped significantly in value after they were purchased. >>
Most modern mint products have done exceedingly well for collectors, fairly poorly for investors, and even worse for speculators. Simply stated if collectors do two things they'll probably do fine; collect what they enjoy and sell some coins from time to time so they know what they're worth.
Ask the people who bought "investor grade" coins in the late-'80's how they faired and you'll find many of them were lucky to get a quarter back on the dollar and the av- erage was worse.
Really it's almost impossible to buy anything that everyone is buying and make any money. The only chance is to get out early and very very few ever do.
Collectors don't buy quite what everyone else is even if they are collecting a hot series so will at least have a chance. A collector didn't buy 25 1945 MS-65 walkers because they were available. He bought a couple better coins because he had holes for them. Try not to collect hot series.
It seemed to start out as a story with a clear moral: Problem coins can be a good investment if you know the market and buy them right.
Until several people pointed out that the result described in the OP didn't seem like a very good investment at all.
At which time the moral changed to "buy whatever you like, as long as you enjoy doing it", which is hardly much of a moral in my opinion, since that can be used as a justification for buying or doing nearly anything. >>
Excellent response. My take on the moral feels very much immoral (ie if it feels good do it)(shout out to Hugh Hefner if you are reading this).
I confess anything resembling a moral was (and still is) lost on me. I understand the claim to a 40% profit, but I also understand the posts pointing out that, in terms of return that could have been had elsewhere with less risk over that same time horizon, the returns were nothing to hold out as being stellar. The moral has something to do with key date problem coins will always find a home, but it is difficult to attach to that something about the return on that investment.
Excellent response. My take on the moral feels very much immoral (ie if it feels good do it)(shout out to Hugh Hefner if you are reading this).
I confess anything resembling a moral was (and still is) lost on me. I understand the claim to a 40% profit, but I also understand the posts pointing out that, in terms of return that could have been had elsewhere with less risk over that same time horizon, the returns were nothing to hold out as being stellar. The moral has something to do with key date problem coins will always find a home, but it is difficult to attach to that something about the return on that investment. >>
Yes. Well chosen collector coins would have done much better.
But most investors and many collectors who started in 1990 wouldn't have done as well. Even fewer people who were buying low end and cull coins would have done so well. Sure it was a good time to start but it would have taken years to learn the markets so most of the best buying opportunities in the '94/ '95 were likely missed.
One has to suspect that "Ted" could have gotten a much higher price for the coins than his heirs did. The simple fact is there is no single best buyer for the low end coins. There are numerous specialists because there are a very large number of low end coins.
Perhaps the real moral of the story is that if you bottom feed then be sure to sell all your coins before you shuffle off the mortal coil.
Comments
some folks like that dollar and think it's pretty, others think that blotchy neon blue-green and bright pink is ugly as hell. Viva la difference! that's what makes a market.
PS: looks like the artisan missed a spot down by the point of the neck
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>PS: looks like the artisan missed a spot down by the point of the neck >>
That's a cameo she's wearing.
It seemed to start out as a story with a clear moral: Problem coins can be a good investment if you know the market and buy them right.
Until several people pointed out that the result described in the OP didn't seem like a very good investment at all.
At which time the moral changed to "buy whatever you like, as long as you enjoy doing it", which is hardly much of a moral in my opinion, since that can be used as a justification for buying or doing nearly anything.
<< <i>This is a very strange thread.
It seemed to start out as a story with a clear moral: Problem coins can be a good investment if you know the market and buy them right.
Until several people pointed out that the result described in the OP didn't seem like a very good investment at all.
At which time the moral changed to "buy whatever you like, as long as you enjoy doing it", which is hardly much of a moral in my opinion, since that can be used as a justification for buying or doing nearly anything. >>
Really? I thought the moral was "buy ugly and damaged coins because you cannot get hurt too badly so long as you do not pay much for them".
<< <i>Really? I thought the moral was "buy ugly and damaged coins because you cannot get hurt too badly so long as you do not pay much for them". >>
I thought this was pretty clearly stated the first post:
<< <i>When everything was said and done, Ted realized a handsome 40% profit on his "ka-ka" over a period of slightly under 20 years.
It does not matter what you buy, as long as you know the market. You do not need nice coins for them to appreciate in value. >>
If you really do not care about a financial return, perhaps a few thousand per year for many collectors, then buy what you like and ignore what others think. Most people who fish, play golf, get season tickets to basketball games, etc., do not realize a financial return either.
However, I think that once a collector begins to think about maintaining value in his/her collection (this includes factoring in inflation, taxes) then the game plan must change. Maintaining value implies that the coins will eventually be sold, and at that point the opinions of others matter a great deal. Quality for the grade becomes a pressing issue, one that is more important than price in my opinion.
At one point in this thread, there was the suggestion that a collector can collect anything as long as the prices were right, and do OK. I think that the attorney who used this collecting strategy was very lucky (perhaps because the coins were sold in a bull market?). Most collectors who do this have a very hard time selling off their coins (or their heirs do). A number of dealers have, over the years, told me that 95+% of coin collections are financial losers. Why?---- mostly because they consist of modern mint products (bought from the U.S. Mint) that have lower values in the marketplace, or because the coins were overgraded when purchased, or because certain types of coins dropped significantly in value after they were purchased.
I have been collecting coins, off and on, for more than 40 years. My view of the hobby is that eye appeal means everything---coins can be MS66 or VF20 and fit the bill. I personally don't have any interest in scudzy coins (to borrow an EAC term), and would rather do without if I could not afford something pleasant to look at. If I do not like the look of a coin, I won't be a buyer at any price.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>
At one point in this thread, there was the suggestion that a collector can collect anything as long as the prices were right, and do OK. I think that the attorney who used this collecting strategy was very lucky (perhaps because the coins were sold in a bull market?). Most collectors who do this have a very hard time selling off their coins (or their heirs do). A number of dealers have, over the years, told me that 95+% of coin collections are financial losers. Why?---- mostly because they consist of modern mint products (bought from the U.S. Mint) that have lower values in the marketplace, or because the coins were overgraded when purchased, or because certain types of coins dropped significantly in value after they were purchased.
>>
Most modern mint products have done exceedingly well for collectors, fairly
poorly for investors, and even worse for speculators. Simply stated if collectors
do two things they'll probably do fine; collect what they enjoy and sell some coins
from time to time so they know what they're worth.
Ask the people who bought "investor grade" coins in the late-'80's how they faired
and you'll find many of them were lucky to get a quarter back on the dollar and the av-
erage was worse.
Really it's almost impossible to buy anything that everyone is buying and make any money.
The only chance is to get out early and very very few ever do.
Collectors don't buy quite what everyone else is even if they are collecting a hot series so
will at least have a chance. A collector didn't buy 25 1945 MS-65 walkers because they were
available. He bought a couple better coins because he had holes for them. Try not to collect hot
series.
<< <i>This is a very strange thread.
It seemed to start out as a story with a clear moral: Problem coins can be a good investment if you know the market and buy them right.
Until several people pointed out that the result described in the OP didn't seem like a very good investment at all.
At which time the moral changed to "buy whatever you like, as long as you enjoy doing it", which is hardly much of a moral in my opinion, since that can be used as a justification for buying or doing nearly anything. >>
Excellent response. My take on the moral feels very much immoral (ie if it feels good do it)(shout out to Hugh Hefner if you are reading this).
I confess anything resembling a moral was (and still is) lost on me. I understand the claim to a 40% profit, but I also understand the posts pointing out that, in terms of return that could have been had elsewhere with less risk over that same time horizon, the returns were nothing to hold out as being stellar. The moral has something to do with key date problem coins will always find a home, but it is difficult to attach to that something about the return on that investment.
<< <i>
Excellent response. My take on the moral feels very much immoral (ie if it feels good do it)(shout out to Hugh Hefner if you are reading this).
I confess anything resembling a moral was (and still is) lost on me. I understand the claim to a 40% profit, but I also understand the posts pointing out that, in terms of return that could have been had elsewhere with less risk over that same time horizon, the returns were nothing to hold out as being stellar. The moral has something to do with key date problem coins will always find a home, but it is difficult to attach to that something about the return on that investment. >>
Yes. Well chosen collector coins would have done much better.
But most investors and many collectors who started in 1990 wouldn't have done as
well. Even fewer people who were buying low end and cull coins would have done
so well. Sure it was a good time to start but it would have taken years to learn the
markets so most of the best buying opportunities in the '94/ '95 were likely missed.
One has to suspect that "Ted" could have gotten a much higher price for the coins
than his heirs did. The simple fact is there is no single best buyer for the low end
coins. There are numerous specialists because there are a very large number of
low end coins.
Perhaps the real moral of the story is that if you bottom feed then be sure to sell all
your coins before you shuffle off the mortal coil.