collectors vs. investors/dealers buying

privaterarecoincollector

I just read this article from Jeff Garett.

http://coinweek.com/opinion/coin-collecting-commentary-collectors-dominate-coin-market/

he is right in almost all of the recent expensive coin sales, with a few exceptions.

Collectors bought most of the Pogue coins (I know because I was trying to buy some of them after the auctions) and the 1794 Dollar PCGS 64, where I though a dealer might buy it for 1.8 Mio USD, sold to a collector for 2.8 Mio USD too.

Some exceptions are:

The majority of all Pogue half eagles after 1813 sold to dealers. There were just no serious collectors for these half eagles at the time they sold.

And the 1804 Dollar PR 65 ex Pogue.

So where there are collectors out there who need or want the coin for their collection (or OCGS registry set), the coins bring full money or even more and most probably will not come back to the market any time soon. E.g. the 1795 Ten PCGS 66+ will probably not come back to the market during my lifetime.

But nobody needed the half eagles, as nobody was seriously collecting them, and nobody really needed the 1804 Dollar in Proof.

This also fits to the theory of Jeff Garrett, that PCGS set registry changes the way people collect and also the value of coins. I think it has increased the value of the 1793 Liberty Cap Cent. It is required in any type set and is impossible to buy in Mint State.

Treashunt

I agree with most of what you said.

But, I REALLY need that "1804 Dollar in Proof" ...

The only problem is the $'s to pay for it.

BillJones

I think it has increased the value of the 1793 Liberty Cap Cent. It is required in any type set and is impossible to buy in Mint State.

It's not in my type set, and it never will be. The decent examples are simply too expensive. Even the indecent examples are too expensive. I have an AU (but graded Mint State) 1794 Head of '94 and a 1795 S-76b that really is Mint State, and that's good enough.

ricko

Thanks for the link...interesting article....I was at first surprised, but on reflection, it makes sense. Collectors eliminating the middleman.... Cheers, RickO

ColonelJessup

@MrEureka has described the process as "disintermediation"

MrEureka

@privaterarecoincollector said:

This also fits to the theory of Jeff Garrett, that PCGS set registry changes the way people collect and also the value of coins.

The registry set is a big factor. A much bigger factor, I think, is that the combination of slabs and the internet have made many things too easy to find and/or too expensive to enjoy collecting.

savitale

@MrEureka said:

The registry set is a big factor. A much bigger factor, I think, is that the combination of slabs and the internet have made many things too easy to find and/or too expensive to enjoy collecting.

Slabs and the internet together totally changed collecting. The internet made it possible for collectors to buy "sight-unseen" from dealers around the world, while eliminating most of the sight-unseen risk (because you have pictures). Slabs further reduced the sight-unseen risk by (mostly) ensuring that the coin is accurately graded, uncleaned, and undamaged. If you choose to pay the premium, CAC eliminates all the remaining sight-unseen risk by having the coin verified as quality and eye-appealing for the grade by a respected impartial professional.

As a result, except for inexpensive stuff, raw coins are now assumed to be junk that cannot be slabbed. Since only raw coins fit in holes, and raw coins are junk, album collecting is dead. But there is still something satisfying about filling holes. Registry sets have a similar hole-filling feel to them. So registry sets have become the new album. And for those well-heeled enough to approach the top, you get to add an element of competition and recognition too.

skier07

@savitale said:

@MrEureka said:

The registry set is a big factor. A much bigger factor, I think, is that the combination of slabs and the internet have made many things too easy to find and/or too expensive to enjoy collecting.

Slabs and the internet together totally changed collecting. The internet made it possible for collectors to buy "sight-unseen" from dealers around the world, while eliminating most of the sight-unseen risk (because you have pictures). Slabs further reduced the sight-unseen risk by (mostly) ensuring that the coin is accurately graded, uncleaned, and undamaged. If you choose to pay the premium, CAC eliminates all the remaining sight-unseen risk by having the coin verified as quality and eye-appealing for the grade by a respected impartial professional.

As a result, except for inexpensive stuff, raw coins are now assumed to be junk that cannot be slabbed. Since only raw coins fit in holes, and raw coins are junk, album collecting is dead. But there is still something satisfying about filling holes. Registry sets have a similar hole-filling feel to them. So registry sets have become the new album. And for those well-heeled enough to approach the top, you get to add an element of competition and recognition too.

@savitale said:

@MrEureka said:

The registry set is a big factor. A much bigger factor, I think, is that the combination of slabs and the internet have made many things too easy to find and/or too expensive to enjoy collecting.

Slabs and the internet together totally changed collecting. The internet made it possible for collectors to buy "sight-unseen" from dealers around the world, while eliminating most of the sight-unseen risk (because you have pictures). Slabs further reduced the sight-unseen risk by (mostly) ensuring that the coin is accurately graded, uncleaned, and undamaged. If you choose to pay the premium, CAC eliminates all the remaining sight-unseen risk by having the coin verified as quality and eye-appealing for the grade by a respected impartial professional.

As a result, except for inexpensive stuff, raw coins are now assumed to be junk that cannot be slabbed. Since only raw coins fit in holes, and raw coins are junk, album collecting is dead. But there is still something satisfying about filling holes. Registry sets have a similar hole-filling feel to them. So registry sets have become the new album. And for those well-heeled enough to approach the top, you get to add an element of competition and recognition too.

@savitale said:

@MrEureka said:

The registry set is a big factor. A much bigger factor, I think, is that the combination of slabs and the internet have made many things too easy to find and/or too expensive to enjoy collecting.

Slabs and the internet together totally changed collecting. The internet made it possible for collectors to buy "sight-unseen" from dealers around the world, while eliminating most of the sight-unseen risk (because you have pictures). Slabs further reduced the sight-unseen risk by (mostly) ensuring that the coin is accurately graded, uncleaned, and undamaged. If you choose to pay the premium, CAC eliminates all the remaining sight-unseen risk by having the coin verified as quality and eye-appealing for the grade by a respected impartial professional.

As a result, except for inexpensive stuff, raw coins are now assumed to be junk that cannot be slabbed. Since only raw coins fit in holes, and raw coins are junk, album collecting is dead. But there is still something satisfying about filling holes. Registry sets have a similar hole-filling feel to them. So registry sets have become the new album. And for those well-heeled enough to approach the top, you get to add an element of competition and recognition too.

+1

Boosibri

^. Actually that's plus 3

cameonut2011

@savitale said:
The internet made it possible for collectors to buy "sight-unseen" from dealers around the world, while eliminating most of the sight-unseen risk (because you have pictures).

Forcing a 2D portrayal of a 3D object doesn't reduce risk especially when the quality of images varies significantly. Some can and do take misleading images.

Slabs further reduced the sight-unseen risk by (mostly) ensuring that the coin is accurately graded, uncleaned, and undamaged. If you choose to pay the premium, CAC eliminates all the remaining sight-unseen risk by having the coin verified as quality and eye-appealing for the grade by a respected impartial professional.

You mean like this one? What's an extra 15-20% to the purchase price when you can have quality like this?:
https://www.scoins.com/lot.aspx?a=12&l=923

Or maybe this one? (No sticker for this one)
http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=169&sale=100&lot=320

.

Any sarcasm is not directed at the quoted poster personally...

Unknown

This content has been removed.

10000lakes

@cameonut2011 said:

@savitale said:
The internet made it possible for collectors to buy "sight-unseen" from dealers around the world, while eliminating most of the sight-unseen risk (because you have pictures).

Forcing a 2D portrayal of a 3D object doesn't reduce risk especially when the quality of images varies significantly. Some can and do take misleading images.

Slabs further reduced the sight-unseen risk by (mostly) ensuring that the coin is accurately graded, uncleaned, and undamaged. If you choose to pay the premium, CAC eliminates all the remaining sight-unseen risk by having the coin verified as quality and eye-appealing for the grade by a respected impartial professional.

You mean like this one? What's an extra 15-20% to the purchase price when you can have quality like this?:
https://www.scoins.com/lot.aspx?a=12&l=923

Or maybe this one? (No sticker for this one)
http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=169&sale=100&lot=320

.

Any sarcasm is not directed at the quoted poster personally...

I don't think the poster was saying they buy sight-unseen.
And based on those photos it is very easy to decide if you find the quality acceptable and determine if you even want to bid on the coin. Every coin has a buyer at some price point even if the coin maybe has issues.
As far as the grade and stickers, it just someone else's opinion, use them as you see fit

EastonCollection

In the late 70s, I met David Bowers at a coin show in NYC. He walked with me around the show and we spent several hours him showing me that originally toned coins were his preference. At that time, silver coins that were bright white was preferred. I followed his advice because back then originally toned coins were not preferred and I was able to buy them for less than white coins. Boy has the coin world changed and i am glad i still have those coins that I bought in the 70s!
Thanks Dave.