Five 1894-S Dimes or One 1794 Dollar?
Coinosaurus
Posts: 9,623 ✭✭✭✭✭
For the same money, would you rather have five 1894-S dimes or the extraordinarily P-L 1794 dollar?
I'm going with the 1794 dollar - but I'm a history geek.
Btw, congrats to TDN!
I'm going with the 1794 dollar - but I'm a history geek.
Btw, congrats to TDN!
0
Comments
1 dollar = 1 dollar
jk
Congrats TDN!
Yes.
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
+1
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>dimes of course >>
I would not require a grading set of dimes, just the nicest example, possibly the top pop. So in this case I would have to with the $ over the grading set of dimes.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Otherwise I'm stuck with discontinuous equations, TahoeDale's recent musings (as well as TDN's) on pricing once-in-a-decade coins (which 94-S's are NOT).
But I'd rather diversify
$100M wouldn't really affect my lifestyle much.
edited to add: I'd rather have the Missouri Half Cents than either
<< <i>Simple answer for me, the dollar. >>
+1
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
At any rate I think that the the price on the 1794 dollar was a bit on the high side. You can over pay for anything including a rare and high grade coin.
And looking at it another way, I'm a collector who can be very happy with the second, third, fourth or fifth finest known of something if it has eye appeal.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>The dimes of course since after the dust and hype settles, the dimes will have a cumulative worth far greater than the dollar. >>
Yah, cuz the FACT that Andy Lustig paid $375,000 for the 1794 in 1988 and the Norweb 1894-S sold for $77,000 in 1987 is allllll distorted by the hype, right? For those numerically challenged, 5 times 77,000 is 385,000
Thanksgiving National Battlefield Coin Show is November 29-30, 2024 at the Eisenhower Allstar Sportsplex, Gettysburg, PA. Tables are available. WWW.AmericasCoinShows.com
<< <i>
<< <i>The dimes of course since after the dust and hype settles, the dimes will have a cumulative worth far greater than the dollar. >>
Yah, cuz the FACT that Andy Lustig paid $375,000 for the 1794 in 1988 and the Norweb 1894-S sold for $77,000 in 1987 is allllll distorted by the hype, right? For those numerically challenged, 5 times 77,000 is 385,000 >>
Your jump bid of an oddball amount, designed for publicity purposes to exceed $10M when the buyer's premium was added, is arguably not the market price of the 1794.
You've successfully played a game of hot potato with ultra rarities for a decade or more. Prices have only gone up. Someday however, somebody is going to get stuck with an ultra rarity that can't be resold for a profit.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The dimes of course since after the dust and hype settles, the dimes will have a cumulative worth far greater than the dollar. >>
Yah, cuz the FACT that Andy Lustig paid $375,000 for the 1794 in 1988 and the Norweb 1894-S sold for $77,000 in 1987 is allllll distorted by the hype, right? For those numerically challenged, 5 times 77,000 is 385,000 >>
Your jump bid of an oddball amount, designed for publicity purposes to exceed $10M when the buyer's premium was added, is arguably not the market price of the 1794.
You've successfully played a game of hot potato with ultra rarities for a decade or more. Prices have only gone up. Someday however, somebody is going to get stuck with an ultra rarity that can't be resold for a profit. >>
I will take Numismatic History for $1,000 Alex: fact is that the ultra rarities go up in price. They are rarely sold for a loss - if so it is always short term. Long term they are fantastic investments
Another numismatic fact is if you chart their prices realized, you will see a very similar shape to the price curves. They move in concert to each other. The FACT that a quarter of a century ago the 1794 was worth five times an 1894-S and is so today is not an accident.
Kindly come armed with facts to a debate, not just innuendo.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The dimes of course since after the dust and hype settles, the dimes will have a cumulative worth far greater than the dollar. >>
Yah, cuz the FACT that Andy Lustig paid $375,000 for the 1794 in 1988 and the Norweb 1894-S sold for $77,000 in 1987 is allllll distorted by the hype, right? For those numerically challenged, 5 times 77,000 is 385,000 >>
Your jump bid of an oddball amount, designed for publicity purposes to exceed $10M when the buyer's premium was added, is arguably not the market price of the 1794.
You've successfully played a game of hot potato with ultra rarities for a decade or more. Prices have only gone up. Someday however, somebody is going to get stuck with an ultra rarity that can't be resold for a profit. >>
I will take Numismatic History for $1,000 Alex: fact is that the ultra rarities go up in price. They are rarely sold for a loss - if so it is always short term. Long term they are fantastic investments
Another numismatic fact is if you chart their prices realized, you will see a very similar shape to the price curves. They move in concert to each other. The FACT that a quarter of a century ago the 1794 was worth five times an 1894-S and is so today is not an accident.
Kindly come armed with facts to a debate, not just innuendo. >>
Your unwarranted condescension is both predictable and laughable.
Anybody who saw the video of the artificial jump bid will never forget the look of disbelief on Greg Rohan's face. If you reauctioned the 1794 tomorrow, you'd almost certainly take a loss of multiple millions.
Any time there is a consensus opinion that the price of some asset can only go up, it's often the sign of the top of a market. Money printing by Bernanke may preserve the nominal value of ultra rarities; however, their real prices cannot go up without limit, just like tulip bulbs.
Which means you are flat out wrong. Do try to get over it
<< <i>Yes, they can and will go up without limit. The Fed's mandate is 2% reported inflation. Forever.
Which means you are flat out wrong. Do try to get over it >>
Dear Sir:
Real prices do not include the effects of inflation.
Sincerely,
London School of Economics alumnus
<< <i>Yes, they can and will go up without limit. The Fed's mandate is 2% reported inflation. Forever.
Which means you are flat out wrong. Do try to get over it >>
No one can be wrong when discussing the price of some asset at an unspecified time in the future.
I tend to think that ultra rarities will in fact experience a "correction" at some point. How severe
and for how long is anyone's guess, but you could make a similar argument about stock markets
"never going down in the long term" and ignore how many people have been wiped out at points
along the way.
Of course, he's often right.
Still, I love it!
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
<< <i>Dear Sir:
Real prices do not include the effects of inflation.
Sincerely,
London School of Economics alumnus >>
We all know where TDN's money is.
Bayard is apparently of the opinion that we are headed for a correction.
I'd like to know where his money is - what positions is he shorting?
Easy to take potshots at someone else's investment. More difficult to put up real dough and take a stand w/your own money.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dear Sir:
Real prices do not include the effects of inflation.
Sincerely,
London School of Economics alumnus >>
We all know where TDN's money is.
Bayard is apparently of the opinion that we are headed for a correction.
I'd like to know where his money is - what positions is he shorting?
Easy to take potshots at someone else's investment. More difficult to put up real dough and take a stand w/your own money. >>
I own a significant coin collection. I would much rather own hard assets such as rare coins than bonds or cash deposits.
I am not predicting an imminent crash in the nominal price of ultra rarities; however, I am flat out stating that they cannot continue to go up at rates which exceed wage and income growth without limit. That is, there is a limit to their real prices.
By way of terminology, real prices are adjusted for inflation and nominal prices are not. An intuitive way to understand this would be, the real price is how many hours of labor something will cost you while nominal price is how many dollars it will cost you. Real price is what matters in comparing values over time.
If a candy bar cost 5 cents when people made $1/hour, the real price is unchanged if the candy bar costs $1 when people earn $20/hour.
Over the last 15 years or so, the real price of ultra rarities has been increasing at a rapid rate. A given ultra rarity now costs significantly more compared to hours of labor, luxury automobiles, real estate, etcetera than it did in the recent past. This is a trend that cannot continue without limit. At some point, the potential buyers of ultra rarities will put their money into alternative assets rather than overpriced ultra rarities.
The buyers of ultra rarities probably enjoy greater income growth than the public as a whole. Therefore, the disproportionate real price appreciation of ultra rarities may be able to continue for a while longer. However, at some point buyers of ultra rarities will be stuck without a greater fool willing to buy them out at a profit.
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes, they can and will go up without limit. The Fed's mandate is 2% reported inflation. Forever.
Which means you are flat out wrong. Do try to get over it >>
Dear Sir:
Real prices do not include the effects of inflation.
Sincerely,
London School of Economics alumnus >>
Very impressive. Perhaps you know this one: " Don't fight the Fed"
The buyers of ultra rarities probably enjoy greater income growth than the public as a whole. BINGO
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes, they can and will go up without limit. The Fed's mandate is 2% reported inflation. Forever.
Which means you are flat out wrong. Do try to get over it >>
Dear Sir:
Real prices do not include the effects of inflation.
Sincerely,
London School of Economics alumnus >>
Very impressive. Perhaps you know this one: " Don't fight the Fed" >>
Of course, Marty Zweig said that almost 30 years ago, and he wasn't talking about trinkets that happen to be ultra rarities.
<< <i>
Over the last 15 years or so, the real price of ultra rarities has been increasing at a rapid rate. A given ultra rarity now costs significantly more compared to hours of labor, luxury automobiles, real estate, etcetera than it did in the recent past. This is a trend that cannot continue without limit. At some point, the potential buyers of ultra rarities will put their money into alternative assets rather than overpriced ultra rarities.
>>
You have to use real numbers, all I see here is a gut feel that certain things are "too expensive." This is how you miss a bull market. If the upper 0.1% of the population currently has 1% of their portfolio in alternatives, but is willing to go up to, say, 10%, then there is an awful lot of gas left in the tank.
Will TDN sell his coin for more dollars than he paid for it at some point? Probably. What will be the real value of those dollars (adjusted for inflation), and will that sale represent a profit in real dollar terms? The answer to that one is on shakier ground.
I'm not all thrilled with the Fed's QE-3 or whatever they choose to call it, because history tells us what can happen when the money supply is increased on a massive basis without a corresponding increase in the Gross Domestic Product to offset it. The financial system of many countries have collapsed under such conditions, and the U.S. is not immune to that despite its size and importance. These are difficult times for investors who know something about history and economics.
Umm, back to the OP's question.....
I would take the amazing 1794 dollar over five 94-s dimes without hesitation.
<< <i>The buyers of ultra rarities probably enjoy greater income growth than the public as a whole. >>
<< <i>BINGO >>
Agreed - personal income growth of the clients is a factor for maintaining growth in demand. (and supply is pretty much fixed, except for occasional blips like the 5th 1913 V nickel)
Another factor needed is the number of interested collectors (at least 2).
Since it is normally the second highest max bid which determines auction price.
Prices of the ultra rarities usually (or almost always?) go up. Maybe 95% (99%?) of the time?
I haven't tried to actually compute a statistic.
The answer may depend somewhat on how "ultra rarity" is defined.
If defined as a coin which has ever sold for over $1m, it might be 100%.
If defined more broadly, such as coins in the Red Book with 20 or fewer known examples, I think it's not 100%.
But Bruce agrees that they do sometimes ("rarely") go down, so I don't think there are unrealistic views here.
It's fun to be a casual observer when Bruce and Laura are committing serious funds,
and their record is quite good on these decisions, so my guess on whether some particular coin might go down in price is pretty much valueless.
I'm just saying it has happened to other people in the past at some fairly high rarity level, and there are of course no guarantees.
I think the risk of this 1894-S going down in price is pretty small (though nonzero).
Maybe in the 1% range (though likely this is a valueless guess...).
And even if it did go down, I doubt it would go down by much, or for very long, so this particular risk seems small.
Bruce already covered this as well, when he mentioned there is some short term risk, but long term its very likely to go up in price.
I wouldn't be comfortable forecasting a 7% rate of return or something; that would be much trickier. And I don't think Bruce and Laura are doing that.
Long term rate of return should be close to other assets, plus a risk premium, standard CAPM familiar to economists.
OK! The '94 dollar hands down. It's a National Treasure; the dimes? Not so much; IMO, not even close.
And............if I could afford that dollar at $6M, $8M, or $10M, the price of one dime is insignificant.
Now, the wife would counter I should buy the nicest '94-S, and then drop $2M on a Florida beach house, another $2M on a small flat in Monaco; maybe $2M on some Montana ranch land for me to escape the insanity, and keep the rest to pay taxes on everything else.
<< <i>Simple answer for me, the dollar. >>
This is a very good point, and it helps explain why ultra-rarities have outperformed the coin market over the course of a roughly 15+ year bull run. However, I could easily see them under-performing when the overall coin market experiences its next major bear market, simply because the coins have further to fall when everyone - including the billionaires - is sitting on their cash.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>The buyers of ultra rarities probably enjoy greater income growth than the public as a whole. BINGO
This is a very good point, and it helps explain why ultra-rarities have outperformed the coin market over the course of a roughly 15+ year bull run. However, I could easily see them under-performing when the overall coin market experiences its next major bear market, simply because the coins have further to fall when everyone - including the billionaires - is sitting on their cash. >>
They haven't performed any differently than they always have IMO. The coins that have performed the best are low pop condition rarities - those probably have the furthest to fall.
Agreed.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I also predict at some point we'll have a few new buyers who scoop up all of these ultra rarities themselves. A similar event happened in the last year on the dark side, where a Sheikh spent $25M+ in various coin auctions grabbing everything after spending $1bn on art a few years prior. (Granted, that story doesn't end well as the Sheikh has still not paid his bills on the coins despite having the funds to do so, but it shows that there are people out there who have the ability and are willing to make their mark)
will only continue.
<< <i> Your unwarranted condescension is both predictable and laughable.
Anybody who saw the video of the artificial jump bid will never forget the look of disbelief on Greg Rohan's face. If you reauctioned the 1794 tomorrow, you'd almost certainly take a loss of multiple millions.
>>
Actually, this past weekend, I had a conversation with one of the underbidders on the 1794 dollar. That bidder was also waiting for the right moment to jump the bid to scare off his competition, but he was not expecting TDN's preemptive strike, and the "shock and awe" and odd increment caught him off guard and uncertain how to respond. Now post-auction, he regrets the lost opportunity. So, if and when TDN decides to sell (at auction or otherwise), I fully expect he will sell at a profit.
Stewart Huckaby
mailto:stewarth@HA.com
------------------------------------------
Heritage Auctions
Heritage Auctions
2801 W. Airport Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75261
Phone: 1-800-US-COINS, x1355
Heritage Auctions
Well, OK, I can offer that I'd probably go for the dollar. I've seen it 'in the flesh', and it's amazing.
<< <i>5 dimes, sell one, buy a 1794 dollar in high AU/low MS, and spend what's left over on something else really cool >>
Okay, so Stewart wins. He has the perfect solution! I wish I had thought of this answer... I didn't realize until now that this was a riddle.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<< <i>
<< <i> Your unwarranted condescension is both predictable and laughable.
Anybody who saw the video of the artificial jump bid will never forget the look of disbelief on Greg Rohan's face. If you reauctioned the 1794 tomorrow, you'd almost certainly take a loss of multiple millions.
>>
Actually, this past weekend, I had a conversation with one of the underbidders on the 1794 dollar. That bidder was also waiting for the right moment to jump the bid to scare off his competition, but he was not expecting TDN's preemptive strike, and the "shock and awe" and odd increment caught him off guard and uncertain how to respond. Now post-auction, he regrets the lost opportunity. So, if and when TDN decides to sell (at auction or otherwise), I fully expect he will sell at a profit. >>
As the consignor, that's a gracious thing to say; however, I just rewatched the video of the sale. It appears that Laura was on the coin at $5.5M and the bidding was stalled. The previous bid of $5.25M was a split bid, suggesting that the underbidder had made his final bid. It wouldn't have been shocking had the coin been knocked down to Laura for $5.5M given the lull in the bidding and previous split bid. Then, she seemingly bid against herself by raising the bid to a contrived $8.525M. I don't subscribe to the "shock and awe" story line. The jump bid was a publicity stunt to create a $10M coin, not a brilliant strategy to disorient other bidders.
1794 $ auction video
Mike
<< <i>
<< <i>The dimes of course since after the dust and hype settles, the dimes will have a cumulative worth far greater than the dollar. >>
Yah, cuz the FACT that Andy Lustig paid $375,000 for the 1794 in 1988 and the Norweb 1894-S sold for $77,000 in 1987 is allllll distorted by the hype, right? For those numerically challenged, 5 times 77,000 is 385,000 >>
The Norweb coin now grades PR62. It's just barely not a piece of crap. Perhaps consideration of the 1990 sale of a better piece (PR65) at $275,000 might be a data point with more relevance.
Perhaps. Then again, I turned down 950K for the 1794 Dollar in 1990.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> Your unwarranted condescension is both predictable and laughable.
Anybody who saw the video of the artificial jump bid will never forget the look of disbelief on Greg Rohan's face. If you reauctioned the 1794 tomorrow, you'd almost certainly take a loss of multiple millions.
>>
Actually, this past weekend, I had a conversation with one of the underbidders on the 1794 dollar. That bidder was also waiting for the right moment to jump the bid to scare off his competition, but he was not expecting TDN's preemptive strike, and the "shock and awe" and odd increment caught him off guard and uncertain how to respond. Now post-auction, he regrets the lost opportunity. So, if and when TDN decides to sell (at auction or otherwise), I fully expect he will sell at a profit. >>
As the consignor, that's a gracious thing to say; however, I just rewatched the video of the sale. It appears that Laura was on the coin at $5.5M and the bidding was stalled. The previous bid of $5.25M was a split bid, suggesting that the underbidder had made his final bid. It wouldn't have been shocking had the coin been knocked down to Laura for $5.5M given the lull in the bidding and previous split bid. Then, she seemingly bid against herself by raising the bid to a contrived $8.525M. I don't subscribe to the "shock and awe" story line. The jump bid was a publicity stunt to create a $10M coin, not a brilliant strategy to disorient other bidders.
1794 $ auction video >>
Your theory is out to lunch for several reasons. First and foremost, a cut bid doesn't suggest one is dropping out - it merely suggests one is being smart and trying to save $300k by cutting above a big round number where your competition might logically have a limit.