Doug Winter blog-- are you a macho man, or a cerebral collector of gold coins?

Longacre

I was catching up on my reading of the latest Doug Winter blogs, and I noticed a piece he wrote about different collecting methods. In the blog, he compares collecting 19th century gold with 20th century gold. Speaking solely for Longacre, I’ve been described as macho far more than cerebral.

Specifically, Winter writes:

“I look at 20th century gold as the Contemporary Art of the numismatic world. It’s fairly regularly available, it’s pretty macho to collect, the market is fluid due to collectors coming and going rapidly and the value levels don’t always make sense.

I personally like 19th century gold better as I view it as a more cerebral area to collect. It’s clearly not as pretty (there is no doubt that Gobrecht and Longacre couldn’t hold a candle to St. Gaudens as far as artistic talent is concerned) and it [is] more monotonous as it goes on and on (and on). But if you have a budget of, say, $5,000 to $10,000 per coin, you can be a big player in 19th century gold while still being pretty much a nobody in the 20th century arena.”

Questions for discussion:

(1) Is Winter correct in assuming that the fluidity of collectors coming and going affects value levels of 20th century gold, or, if you compare it to his assessment of 19th century gold, does the volatility come from generally much shorter series of 20th century gold, versus the 19th century that goes on and on?

(2) With only $5,000 to $10,000 to spend on 19th century gold, can one really become a big player in such a long series?

(3) If 20th century gold is truly volatile, is it actually easier to become (be design or default) a big player in 20th century gold?

(4) Bonus question that RYK posed on Winter’s site: Ginger or Mary Anne? Your very own Longacre would have to say Mary Anne.

RYK

1. I am probably going to take heat for this, but I view 19th century gold as a playground for collectors and 20th century gold for investors. There are, no doubt, many exceptions to my generalization.

2. Not, but one can continue to buy nice coins and put sets together. With that price point, it's hard to do much set wise other than the Indian quarter eagles.

3. All it takes is money. For 19th century gold, patience and luck are also required.

4. Mary Anne.

TomB

4. Life is too short; both.

RYK

<< <i>4. Life is too short; both. >>


I cannot argue with you there.

jmb

Doug's articles and market blogs are a wealth of information. I've read every one of them over the past few months.

Being new to the coin side of things (have collected early US Currency since 2000) my impression so far is:

1) The 20th century gold, in particular the St Gaudens, is more of a condition & investor related "market."

2) Doug did specify $5-$10K per coin, which I think you could do fairly well depending on the condition you're after, but not necessarily a big player. My preference is XF/AU Half Eagles.

3) If you have lots of cash you can.

4) Mary Anne.

Lakesammman

I do territorials and pay too much, in general.

Don't really care for either of the above areas.

Gilligan.

GeorgeKellogg

Definitely Mary Ann (without the "e"). She is nice and wholesome, like a Dahlonega half eagle with original surfaces.

MrEureka

With only $5,000 to $10,000 to spend on 19th century gold, can one really become a big player in such a long series?

Of course not. However, my guess is that DW really meant something more along the lines of "With only $5,000 to $10,000 to spend on 19th century gold, one can still be a major player - perhaps even the #1 player - for the best coins in a well-defined niche."

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>(2) With only $5,000 to $10,000 to spend on 19th century gold, can one really become a big player in such a long series? >>



You forgot the key words: "per coin"

Justacommeman

Ginger and i do believe RYK is stealing my material

MJ

earlyAurum

1. 20th Century gold is dominated by the $20 Saint Gaudens Series. The size, beauty and depression era history appear to drive that market.
2. Big player no but one can participate and have a lot of fun.
3. Money and a great eye for condition rarity
3. Ginger

SeattleSlammer

Wow, you mean I'm the first to post this???

Sonorandesertrat

<< <i>4. Life is too short; both. >>



I'd go one step further. For a short-term rental, Ginger. For cookies and milk, and other 'wholesome' activities, Mary Ann. For a cerebral experience, Lovey (multilingual, well educated, independently wealthy...).