<< <i><<paying 30-40% more is fine, when building a great collection>>
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
While I hear what you are saying, I will say that it's nearly impossible to build a truly great set of rare classic coins while strictly being a price buyer. Occasionally, a fantastic quality rare piece is going to come along at a price that shocks you. That's when you've got to decide what is more important - sticking to price guides that probably have never seen a transaction of this particular coin or filling a hole in your set with a coin that makes the entire set more valuable.
Those that do the former are rarely written about in the annuls of coin collecting. Those that do the latter may lose money if it turns out they have to sell, but in my mind are more likely to end up winning at the coin game. When I built the seated dollar set, I was bound and determined to build the very best set that ever could be built. I overpaid when necessary - but ended up doubling my money in just four years. So did I overpay???
<< <i><<paying 30-40% more is fine, when building a great collection>>
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
That level of premium is probably about average for all of the coins I have bought for my core collection - which is proof coinage from 1858 - 1915.
My standards are extremely high - not highest grade, but best for the grade. These coins do not come cheap. I scoured the bourse at the Philly ANA and found not a single coin to buy. If I found one, I would have paid a 30-40 per cent premium gladly.
<< <i><<paying 30-40% more is fine, when building a great collection>>
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
That level of premium is probably about average for all of the coins I have bought for my core collection - which is proof coinage from 1858 - 1915.
My standards are extremely high - not highest grade, but best for the grade. These coins do not come cheap. I scoured the bourse at the Philly ANA and found not a single coin to buy. If I found one, I would have paid a 30-40 per cent premium gladly. >>
We collect exactly the same thing. Send me a want list. If any of my coins meet your standards, you are welcome to buy them at those prices.
<< <i><<paying 30-40% more is fine, when building a great collection>>
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
While I hear what you are saying, I will say that it's nearly impossible to build a truly great set of rare classic coins while strictly being a price buyer. Occasionally, a fantastic quality rare piece is going to come along at a price that shocks you. That's when you've got to decide what is more important - sticking to price guides that probably have never seen a transaction of this particular coin or filling a hole in your set with a coin that makes the entire set more valuable.
Those that do the former are rarely written about in the annuls of coin collecting. Those that do the latter may lose money if it turns out they have to sell, but in my mind are more likely to end up winning at the coin game. When I built the seated dollar set, I was bound and determined to build the very best set that ever could be built. I overpaid when necessary - but ended up doubling my money in just four years. So did I overpay??? >>
This advice is possibly workable for the upper 1/10th of 1% of the market. And in the case of your seated dollar set, that was an incomparable set where only 1 such set could possibly exist....where 2nd place is miles behind. That's almost never the case, even with some well-heeled 7 figure sets such as Gem MS $20 Saints. I think I'd put Gene Gardner's seated quarter set almost in that same category though. These might be the top one tenth or top one hundreth of 1% of all nice sets out there. I think in the case of the seated dollar set it was a no brainer call as these coins almost don't exist in gem/superb gem. So when those very special coins come along (ie Akers or Share), you just say "how much?" A large % of Legend customers are certainly not in this league. So applying that 30-40% stretchable advice to them might not be wise. It certainly wouldn't have been wise in 2006-2008 for most coins. Your seated and trade dollar sets are literally once in a lifetime type sets. Basically priceless as they can't be duplicated at any price. The Pogues must feel that same way with their type set. Most other truly great sets out there just don't compare. It ain't even close. I don't think a lot of people realize just how unfathomable that seated dollar set was. Your logic worked perfectly in the 2002-2008 market. I don't think though you would have been as lucky if you finished that set in 1990 and then tried to sell it in 1995-1999. Your market timing was also right on the money. Someone made you an offer while the market still had some steam left that your logic could just not refuse. Wise move.
If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you have to dump within a year.
Yeah, tell that to the owner of the 1794 SP66 $ who paid $1 MILL around 1990 and sold it at auction for under $400K a short time later. That's gettin' killed in my book. DOA. Doesn't matter what you buy. If you pay too much at the wrong time you can/will get killed. No one alive today was around in 1894 when the last major grand economic cycle wave ended. The current one is due to bottom in 2014 - 120 yrs later. It's not wise to apply market "rules" learned in the last 30 yrs where the world was basically on an inflation binge and expect them to apply at all times. They won't. The great depression was only a 1/3 cycle wave (40 yrs) of the 120 yr cycle. We get to experience the full enchilada over the next 2 yrs. Something only done twice before in our nation's history. It's also getting old hearing the same old story of not being able to buy great coins (ie coins that for the most part don't exist). Yeah, I'd like to load up on orig AU 1794 dollars and Gem MS66 cac'd bust halves too. Every dealer in the world does. I wish original 1950's and 60's Ferrari's would fall into my my lap so I can buy them too. Not going to happen. I'd love to buy all the MS66 cac w/m Saints for $3650 I could as well. One could raise those bids to $4,000 and probably no more would show up. If only 10-20% of the population is getting stickered that's quite a bargain at less than 1/3 the price of a $13,000 MS67.
<< <i><<paying 30-40% more is fine, when building a great collection>>
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
While I hear what you are saying, I will say that it's nearly impossible to build a truly great set of rare classic coins while strictly being a price buyer. Occasionally, a fantastic quality rare piece is going to come along at a price that shocks you. That's when you've got to decide what is more important - sticking to price guides that probably have never seen a transaction of this particular coin or filling a hole in your set with a coin that makes the entire set more valuable.
Those that do the former are rarely written about in the annuls of coin collecting. Those that do the latter may lose money if it turns out they have to sell, but in my mind are more likely to end up winning at the coin game. When I built the seated dollar set, I was bound and determined to build the very best set that ever could be built. I overpaid when necessary - but ended up doubling my money in just four years. So did I overpay??? >>
It's tough to "overpay" in a rising market, which was the market condition when you built your set. You've taken some huge gambles of bet the farm magnitude; but, your timing was right. Those days are over for the time being. I think recent buyers of ultra rarities are going to have poor real financial returns, although this poor performance may be masked by inflation or hyperinflation. I'm already seeing coins in the $10K to $50K range being reauctioned for a loss.
At the top end of the market, I have no doubt that people buy for non-economic reasons. I don't doubt that some people get psychological satisfaction from owning the finest known, regardless of the price paid. If you want a high profile coin, you'll probably have to outbid these irrational people. As for me, I'm content with a nice PR64 for $1000 instead of a PR67 for $10,000. I'm not a cheapskate, just a guy who doesn't want to get buried. I don't care about the annuls of coin collecting; however, Eliasberg was probably the biggest cheapskate of his era.
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you have to dump within a year. >>
That line didn't make much sense to me because it just doesn't sound right and the rest of the paragraph, 6 sentences worth, talks about holding long term (more than 2 years). Why would you not get killed 'especially' if you dump within a year?
Adding a "don't" to that line would make more sense in the context of the paragraph.
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you don't have to dump within a year. >>
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you have to dump within a year. >>
That line didn't make much sense to me because the rest of the paragraph, 6 sentences worth, talks about holding long term (more than 2 years).
Adding a "don't" to that line would make more sense and fit with the paragraph better.
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you don't have to dump within a year. >>
>>
It's fair to separate it. Don't try to read to much into it how it was penned. I think we both know what was intended no matter how it is precisely worded. Not a real surprise that there is a contradiction within the same paragraph. So which statement is wrong or are they both wrong? Should both be thrown out?
The reference is to buying great rarities, not building great collections or sets. If what they really meant was 6 sentences later, they should have omitted the first sentence, which is a real mouthful. Reads like 2 entirely separate statements to me. But if they meant otherwise, then don't lead in with a teaser only to negate it down the road. We all know you can get killed buying anything. What would the owner of the "monetized" 1933 $20 get today if they sold? What would the new owner of the 1804 $10 PF65 get today if they sold? How about the 1794 MS66 SP FH dollar again? The disappearance of one major buyer from the market can radically change the price of any of these coins. That first sentence stands on its own merits. Those 25 words make perfect sense to me. You can't say you can't get killed stretching to buy a major rarity when reselling within a year....and sentences later say, well don't buy only to hold for 1-2 yrs. Great rarities stand alone. They don't need to be part of great collections to bring their price. In fact many or most owners have just owned 1 or 2 of those and not as part of a themed collection. If you pay stupid money for anything, you should/will get killed if forced to sell within a year with no one else taking your seat in the market.
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you have to dump within a year. >>
That line didn't make much sense to me because the rest of the paragraph, 6 sentences worth, talks about holding long term (more than 2 years).
Adding a "don't" to that line would make more sense and fit with the paragraph better.
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you don't have to dump within a year. >>
>>
It's fair to separate it. The reference is to buying great rarities, not building great collections or sets. If what they really meant was 6 sentences later, they should have omitted the first sentence, which is a mouthful. Reads like 2 entirely separate statements to me. But if they meant otherwise, then don't lead in with a teaser only to negate it down the road. We all know you can get killed buying anything. What would the owner of the "monetized" 1933 $20 get today if they sold? What would the new owner of the 1804 $10 PF65 get today if they sold? How about the 1794 MS66 SP FH dollar again? The disappearance of one major buyer from the market can radically change the price of any of these coins. That first sentence stands on its own merits. Those 25 words make perfect sense to me. You can't say you can't get killed stretching to buy a major rarity when reselling within a year....and sentences later say, well don't buy only to hold for 1-2 yrs. Great rarities stand alone. They don't need to be part of great collections to bring their price. In fact many or most owners have just owned 1 or 2 of those and not as part of a themed collection. >>
The other reason why I think this sentence was posted incorrectly is the second part doesn't make sense. Why would you not get killed especially if you have to dump within a year? It makes more sense to say you won't get killed, especially if you can hold for the longer term. Also, what they meant wasn't 6 sentences later, it was the next 6 sentences with sentences 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 explicitly talking about holding long term.
Those are my reasons for thinking this is a mistake.
Here are the specific lines on avoiding the short term:
1) You should NOT be doing it to hold it for only 1-2 years. 2) Trying to play short term like the stock market can and will lead to some frustration-unless you own the best of the best. 3) Show us ANY collectable or even any stock that does not have some degree short term downside. 4) THINK LONG TERM when it comes to coins!
I honestly think it's a mistake. I'd be very surprised if it's not.
That first sentence was put in there. It's not a mistake. A typo is a "mistake." So they really meant to say instead you "can get killed" buying great rarities if sold within a year? I don't think so. From everything I've read from TDN and Legend and other temporary holders of great rarities is that they are bluest of blue chips and rarely lose value, even in the worst markets....even in the very short term. Yeah, they can drop a little bit....but never enough to crush you. If one looks back to the 1979-1980 Garrett auction peak I think you'll see a number of major rarities and rarities that if offered again in 1981, and certainly early 1982 would have taken a pretty good pounding. Didn't one of the 1804 dollars take a good hit in that environment or was that 1990-1992?
I'd be surprised if they meant anything different than orig stated (ie great rarities can't take big hits if sold in just one year). Until it's clarified all we can go by is what was written. That is both statements are true, and great rarities aren't typically part of a larger collection where they fit in (Pogue's aside). TDN/Legend's purchases of a couple of great rarities had zero to do with building a larger collection. Hence, ignore that 1-2 yr short term time frame. They are great rarities and generally immune from market cycling.
I'll wait to hear from them on whether it is or is not a mistake.
You seem to be very sure of what they wrote, but you're certainly free to have your opinion.
That being said, if it's not a mistake, I do feel people can suffer large losses if they are forced to sell in the short term. Having to sell is never a good position to be in.
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you have to dump within a year. >>
That line didn't make much sense to me because it just doesn't sound right and the rest of the paragraph, 6 sentences worth, talks about holding long term (more than 2 years). Why would you not get killed 'especially' if you dump within a year?
Adding a "don't" to that line would make more sense in the context of the paragraph.
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you don't have to dump within a year. >>
>>
I would agree that she obviously meant to say "especially if you don't have to dump within a year"
Yeah, tell that to the owner of the 1794 SP66 $ who paid $1 MILL around 1990 and sold it at auction for under $400K a short time later.
To set the record straight, I paid 375K at the 1988 ANA, turned down 950K in 1990, and sold it under duress for 400K (hammer) in 1991. Not as bad as RR reports, but still not a great memory.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <<paying 30-40% more is fine, when building a great collection>>
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
The Garrett sale is a perfect example why paying "30-40% more" can be a good idea or an awful idea. If you bought the red unc Birch Cent for 200K, that was a good idea. If you bought a proof Barber Half for 20K, not such a good idea. The key is knowing if a coin is worth the stretch. Usually, it's going to be something that is unlikely to be offered again in the foreseeable future at any price, much less at what you consider to be "the right price".
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Nice coins are still trading hands, though they may not be in auctions, or in dealer inventory.
At the ANA, I sold direct to collectors two 5 figure bust halves. Also 2 high end early dollars, to a dealer, for a specific customer of theirs. Also 2 more bust halves to a dealer for a specific client.
I just bought two AU 58 Early dollars, direct from a collector.
None of these coins went public, at a savings to both buyer and seller. And the tranactions were immediate, with checks cashed in the normal 3 day period.
I have not needed to consign to or bid in an auction for a year, and my collection still grows.
Their marketing newsletter is an interesting read. In looking over their inventory their target market appears to be well off, wealthy collectors who want the highest grade, CAC coin for the issue and aren't afraid to pay way over bid for what they tout as the best. Of course these coins are a long term hold LOL! When did coin collecting come to playing the high numbers (grade) sticker game? Whats wrong with a nice PCGS MS 64 Common Date Morgan Dollar with nice strike and luster for around $100? Or a nice 1934D PCGS 65 Oregon Commem at $400? If I want perfection I like the Unc ASE's from the USM at $45 (unless they have upped the price). Most people walking in the door at coin shows don't have the kind of money to buy even one of Legend's big ticket coins.
I do not agree with their hype on common MS67 Morgans - I don't think the bids are too low and don't care to own one and never have. They will need to sell that opinion to someone else.
I do agree you can really lose selling in the short term if you paid a lot of money (over bid) for a coin which you would certainly do with one of theirs. Anyone who knows we are still in a recession / depression or sees the PCGS 3000 numbers knows that. But if your looking for what you perceive as the best of the best (enjoy your hobby) and wealthy enough to just put them away for awhile well give it a whirl.
Funny, I was thinking similarly. If you take most anything of modest rarity and hold it, it stands a chance (good) of going up even if not in real dollar terms. Kind of a cop out - yea, it does well if you hold it for long term.
Some readers might get upset, but it reminds me of buying a diamond from a retail store. Sure, go get a beautiful high quality piece and then try to re-sell it to that retailer or another at 30% of the original buy price. What will Legend buy these "mega-sexy" rarities for in a year or two? Or will they be dreck?
Well, Legend is a dealer after all, so I cut them a break even if they don't care for your or my opinion. I do find amusement in their (her) commentaries.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Yeah, tell that to the owner of the 1794 SP66 $ who paid $1 MILL around 1990 and sold it at auction for under $400K a short time later.
To set the record straight, I paid 375K at the 1988 ANA, turned down 950K in 1990, and sold it under duress for 400K (hammer) in 1991. Not as bad as RR reports, but still not a great memory. >>
I'm sorry to ask you to revisit an unpleasant memory; however, I think it would provide great insight into market psychology to hear your thought process in deciding to turn down $950K.
<< <i>Funny, I was thinking similarly. If you take most anything of modest rarity and hold it, it stands a chance (good) of going up even if not in real dollar terms. Kind of a cop out - yea, it does well if you hold it for long term.
Some readers might get upset, but it reminds me of buying a diamond from a retail store. Sure, go get a beautiful high quality piece and then try to re-sell it to that retailer or another at 30% of the original buy price. What will Legend buy these "mega-sexy" rarities for in a year or two? Or will they be dreck?
Well, Legend is a dealer after all, so I cut them a break even if they don't care for your or my opinion. I do find amusement in their (her) commentaries. >>
I am not a big customer of Legend's but they have always treated me more than fairly. I generally stay on the sidelines on these Legend threads that always seem to degenerate into bickering (although I would probably pay to read threads where TDN and Roadrunner go back and forth, which I don't view as bickering at all but rather as educational). It is, however, simply misinformed to compare Legend to a diamond dealer with a 30% buy back. My experience with Legend is they are a very strong buyer of nice coins, including ones I purchased from them previously.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
<< <i>Yeah, tell that to the owner of the 1794 SP66 $ who paid $1 MILL around 1990 and sold it at auction for under $400K a short time later.
To set the record straight, I paid 375K at the 1988 ANA, turned down 950K in 1990, and sold it under duress for 400K (hammer) in 1991. Not as bad as RR reports, but still not a great memory. >>
I'm sorry to ask you to revisit an unpleasant memory; however, I think it would provide great insight into market psychology to hear your thought process in deciding to turn down $950K. >>
Yes, it would be interesting to revisit that. Other than having a very strong belief that the coin was worth substantially more, I cannot think of any other reason. Most people are okay with making $575k and over 100% on a coin in two years.
I think it would provide great insight into market psychology to hear your thought process in deciding to turn down $950K.
Even though I paid a lot less for the coin, I considered the coin a good value at 950K, and was not eager to sell. Nevertheless, the asking price was $1 million and I would have taken the offer if the buyers - a partnership of two major dealers - had not insisted on six month terms to pay for the coin. At the time, the market was moving higher every day, and we all expected the music to stop at some point. My decision not to sell was based on the feeling that in six months, either the coin was going to be worth a lot more than 950K, or the market would have already tanked. And if the market tanked, the buyers might not be able to pay their bill. In retrospect, I probably worried too much about the credit risk, and I probably could have done the deal by asking the two buyers to guaranty each other's debt. Live and learn. BTW, for those who don't know it, this same coin sold last year for something like $7 million, so (despite making a bad business decision) I feel vindicated in my judgment about the coin. And it's also worth noting that both of the dealers that made the offer later went bankrupt, although it was at a much later date.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i> I think it would provide great insight into market psychology to hear your thought process in deciding to turn down $950K.
Even though I paid a lot less for the coin, I considered the coin a good value at 950K, and was not eager to sell. Nevertheless, the asking price was $1 million and I would have taken the offer if the buyers - a partnership of two major dealers - had not insisted on six month terms to pay for the coin. At the time, the market was moving higher every day, and we all expected the music to stop at some point. My decision not to sell was based on the feeling that in six months, either the coin was going to be worth a lot more than 950K, or the market would have already tanked. And if the market tanked, the buyers might not be able to pay their bill. In retrospect, I probably worried too much about the credit risk, and I probably could have done the deal by asking the two buyers to guaranty each other's debt. Live and learn. BTW, for those who don't know it, this same coin sold last year for something like $7 million, so (despite making a bad business decision) I feel vindicated in my judgment about the coin. And it's also worth noting that both of the dealers that made the offer later went bankrupt, although it was at a much later date. >>
<< <i> .... Didn't one of the 1804 dollars take a good hit in that environment or was that 1990-1992? >>
Garrett 1804 Bill Pullen and Larry Hanks paid $400,000 (1980), Sold to Sam Colavita for $425,000 immediately after the sale. Sold for roughly $180,000 in Pullen-Hanks sale (1982) going to an investor. Failed to sell in an June 1985 Bowers-Ruddy sale with me as underbidder. I bought it ($180,000) in the hallway outside the St. Moritz Grand Ballroom immediately after buy-back. Sold about 6 weeks later (our net $200,000) by Martin Paul thru Dan Drykerman to LS (not our Laurie) who, I believe, still has it.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
It's not surprising that a dealer will advocate that collectors pay top dollar for great coins. Sometimes it turns out to be good advice, sometimes not.
"Men who had never shown any ability to make or increase fortunes for themselves abounded in brilliant plans for creating and increasing wealth for the country at large." Fiat Money Inflation in France, Andrew Dickson White (1912)
It's not surprising that a dealer will advocate that collectors pay top dollar for great coins. Sometimes it turns out to be good advice, sometimes not.
For the right coins, it's always good advice.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Let me post a hypothetical question in response to purchasing high priced rarities: Let's say the 1933 ST. Gaudens were offered to you for roughly $8,000,000 and another dealer had 3,700 PCGS MS-65 common date ST. Gaudens he would broker to you for the same price, what do people here think would be the wise choice considering today's uncertain times.
I know what my choice would be and it isn't even close.
Let's say the 1933 ST. Gaudens were offered to you for roughly $8,000,000 and another dealer had 3,700 PCGS MS-65 common date ST. Gaudens he would broker to you for the same price, what do people here think would be the wise choice considering today's uncertain times.
At the moment, bullion may be the smarter investment. However, some of us are in this game for more than investment purposes.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>It's not surprising that a dealer will advocate that collectors pay top dollar for great coins. Sometimes it turns out to be good advice, sometimes not.
For the right coins, it's always good advice. >>
Whether it's "the right coin" is only knowable in retrospect. Collecting trends and preferences change over time, and beyond that, it's certainly possible to overpay for something really nice.
"Men who had never shown any ability to make or increase fortunes for themselves abounded in brilliant plans for creating and increasing wealth for the country at large." Fiat Money Inflation in France, Andrew Dickson White (1912)
Whether it's "the right coin" is only knowable in retrospect. Collecting trends and preferences change over time, and beyond that, it's certainly possible to overpay for something really nice.
The right coin is not just something that is "really nice". It's something that is irreplaceable and, to dedicated collectors, essentially priceless.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy, sorry for the mistake on the history of the Amon Carter 1794. Thanks for sharing the true story as well. You were definitely vindicated. Had you been a long term holder of the coin as well, you'd have been financially vindicated as well. The coin gained the largest $ amount on the heels of determining it was quite likely this was the 1st dollar struck and a silver plug specimen strike to boot. Didn't this bring something like $260K at the 1985/86 Amon Carter sale?
Thanks to Colonel Jessup for filling in the 55% loss the 1804 $ took during the rapidly descending 1980-1982 market. Also very interesting to find that it still didn't do much from 1982-1985. Because from 1983-1984 some nice type collections came on the market that escalated prices. Stacks' Emery and Nichols was one that rings a bell. There were a number of sales like that which helped to get the market flowing again.
<< <i>Let's say the 1933 ST. Gaudens were offered to you for roughly $8,000,000 and another dealer had 3,700 PCGS MS-65 common date ST. Gaudens he would broker to you for the same price, what do people here think would be the wise choice considering today's uncertain times.
At the moment, bullion may be the smarter investment. However, some of us are in this game for more than investment purposes. >>
I can understand your logic, you have been a very successful dealer for many years.
I was merely pointing out that most people would see a gigantic stack of gold coins on one side and a solitary coin on the other with the exact same appearance and wonder what the heck is going on here. It simply defies logic to the masses that the value is equal and one could argue that the PCGS-65 Saints are a much better deal as they once traded nearly twice as high as they sell for now yet gold was priced much lower when they were priced that high.
I also agree that collectors view their coins primarily as a hobby and brings them a great amount of satisfaction but at some point a person or their heirs must sell their coins at which point the coins had better be a good investment or at the very least not turn into a huge loss.
one could argue that the PCGS-65 Saints are a much better deal as they once traded nearly twice as high as they sell for now yet gold was priced much lower when they were priced that high.
Back to the Amon Carter 1794 Dollar. When I bought it for 375K, gold was about $430, MS65 Saints were trading at $4000 and just about any "Classic" silver commem in a 65 slab would bring four figures. Times change.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>"Collectors need to realize that there are hardly ANY sexy better coins available." "Sexy" coins? >>
Funny you should say that. I have a 1795 Dollar (my avatar) that a prominant dealer once looked at and said "that's a very sexy coin." I didn't know if he wanted me to leave him alone with it for a while, or what...
MLAeBayNumismatics: "The greatest hobby in the world!"
<< <i>Let me post a hypothetical question in response to purchasing high priced rarities: Let's say the 1933 ST. Gaudens were offered to you for roughly $8,000,000 and another dealer had 3,700 PCGS MS-65 common date ST. Gaudens he would broker to you for the same price, what do people here think would be the wise choice considering today's uncertain times.
I know what my choice would be and it isn't even close. >>
Putting that much money in one coin is like putting all your eggs in one basket. I would definitely choose the 3700 PCGS MS65 Saints although this is a poor example with the 10 1933 Saints showing up subsequently to the other 1933 Saint selling for $8 Million. Who knows what will eventually happen with those 10 new Saints?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Presumably those with 8 million to spend on *one coin* can *afford it*. And they don't need 3,700 other widgets, they want *this coin*.
Similar to when I buy the coins I buy, I can *afford it*.
It is 100% about the collection. If all of them return to face value I will be surprised, of course, but I collect for the *collection* not the *income*.
I'm not a coin dealer. Neither, presumably is "Simpson" or others that do buy million+ coins.
Will they or their estate profit one day? Who knows?
Are they still mega-rich? Yes.
Do they care if they had an extra 3,700 Saints? No.
<< <i>Presumably those with 8 million to spend on *one coin* can *afford it*. And they don't need 3,700 other widgets, they want *this coin*.
Similar to when I buy the coins I buy, I can *afford it*.
It is 100% about the collection. If all of them return to face value I will be surprised, of course, but I collect for the *collection* not the *income*.
I'm not a coin dealer. Neither, presumably is "Simpson" or others that do buy million+ coins.
Will they or their estate profit one day? Who knows?
Are they still mega-rich? Yes.
Do they care if they had an extra 3,700 Saints? No. >>
It may not matter to the super rich but face the facts, 99% of the people posting here are not doctors, lawyers or have inherited a large trust fund so liquidity and profit are important to them when it comes time to eventually sell their coins.
Comments
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale.
"Sexy" coins?
- Jim
<< <i><<paying 30-40% more is fine, when building a great collection>>
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
While I hear what you are saying, I will say that it's nearly impossible to build a truly great set of rare classic coins while strictly being a price buyer. Occasionally, a fantastic quality rare piece is going to come along at a price that shocks you. That's when you've got to decide what is more important - sticking to price guides that probably have never seen a transaction of this particular coin or filling a hole in your set with a coin that makes the entire set more valuable.
Those that do the former are rarely written about in the annuls of coin collecting. Those that do the latter may lose money if it turns out they have to sell, but in my mind are more likely to end up winning at the coin game. When I built the seated dollar set, I was bound and determined to build the very best set that ever could be built. I overpaid when necessary - but ended up doubling my money in just four years. So did I overpay???
It's a rare exception when a complete set sells better than the individual pieces.
<< <i>or filling a hole in your set with a coin that makes the entire set more valuable.
It's a rare exception when a complete set sells better than the individual pieces. >>
A truly great set IS a rare exception.
<< <i>
<< <i>or filling a hole in your set with a coin that makes the entire set more valuable.
It's a rare exception when a complete set sells better than the individual pieces. >>
A truly great set IS a rare exception. >>
Spoken like a BOSS! I love it.
<< <i><<paying 30-40% more is fine, when building a great collection>>
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
That level of premium is probably about average for all of the coins I have bought for my core collection - which is proof coinage from 1858 - 1915.
My standards are extremely high - not highest grade, but best for the grade. These coins do not come cheap. I scoured the bourse at the Philly ANA and found not a single coin to buy. If I found one, I would have paid a 30-40 per cent premium gladly.
merse
<< <i>
<< <i><<paying 30-40% more is fine, when building a great collection>>
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
That level of premium is probably about average for all of the coins I have bought for my core collection - which is proof coinage from 1858 - 1915.
My standards are extremely high - not highest grade, but best for the grade. These coins do not come cheap. I scoured the bourse at the Philly ANA and found not a single coin to buy. If I found one, I would have paid a 30-40 per cent premium gladly. >>
We collect exactly the same thing. Send me a want list. If any of my coins meet your standards, you are welcome to buy them at those prices.
<< <i>
<< <i><<paying 30-40% more is fine, when building a great collection>>
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
While I hear what you are saying, I will say that it's nearly impossible to build a truly great set of rare classic coins while strictly being a price buyer. Occasionally, a fantastic quality rare piece is going to come along at a price that shocks you. That's when you've got to decide what is more important - sticking to price guides that probably have never seen a transaction of this particular coin or filling a hole in your set with a coin that makes the entire set more valuable.
Those that do the former are rarely written about in the annuls of coin collecting. Those that do the latter may lose money if it turns out they have to sell, but in my mind are more likely to end up winning at the coin game. When I built the seated dollar set, I was bound and determined to build the very best set that ever could be built. I overpaid when necessary - but ended up doubling my money in just four years. So did I overpay??? >>
This advice is possibly workable for the upper 1/10th of 1% of the market. And in the case of your seated dollar set, that was an incomparable set where only 1 such set could possibly exist....where 2nd place is miles behind. That's almost never the case, even with some well-heeled 7 figure sets such as Gem MS $20 Saints. I think I'd put Gene Gardner's seated quarter set almost in that same category though. These might be the top one tenth or top one hundreth of 1% of all nice sets out there. I think in the case of the seated dollar set it was a no brainer call as these coins almost don't exist in gem/superb gem. So when those very special coins come along (ie Akers or Share), you just say "how much?" A large % of Legend customers are certainly not in this league. So applying that 30-40% stretchable advice to them might not be wise. It certainly wouldn't have been wise in 2006-2008 for most coins. Your seated and trade dollar sets are literally once in a lifetime type sets. Basically priceless as they can't be duplicated at any price. The Pogues must feel that same way with their type set. Most other truly great sets out there just don't compare. It ain't even close. I don't think a lot of people realize just how unfathomable that seated dollar set was. Your logic worked perfectly in the 2002-2008 market. I don't think though you would have been as lucky if you finished that set in 1990 and then tried to sell it in 1995-1999. Your market timing was also right on the money. Someone made you an offer while the market still had some steam left that your logic could just not refuse. Wise move.
If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you have to dump within a year.
Yeah, tell that to the owner of the 1794 SP66 $ who paid $1 MILL around 1990 and sold it at auction for under $400K a short time later. That's gettin' killed in my book. DOA.
Doesn't matter what you buy. If you pay too much at the wrong time you can/will get killed. No one alive today was around in 1894 when the last major grand economic cycle wave
ended. The current one is due to bottom in 2014 - 120 yrs later. It's not wise to apply market "rules" learned in the last 30 yrs where the world was basically on an inflation binge
and expect them to apply at all times. They won't. The great depression was only a 1/3 cycle wave (40 yrs) of the 120 yr cycle. We get to experience the full enchilada over the next
2 yrs. Something only done twice before in our nation's history. It's also getting old hearing the same old story of not being able to buy great coins (ie coins that for the most part don't
exist). Yeah, I'd like to load up on orig AU 1794 dollars and Gem MS66 cac'd bust halves too. Every dealer in the world does. I wish original 1950's and 60's Ferrari's would fall into my
my lap so I can buy them too. Not going to happen. I'd love to buy all the MS66 cac w/m Saints for $3650 I could as well. One could raise those bids to $4,000 and probably no more
would show up. If only 10-20% of the population is getting stickered that's quite a bargain at less than 1/3 the price of a $13,000 MS67.
<< <i>
<< <i><<paying 30-40% more is fine, when building a great collection>>
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
While I hear what you are saying, I will say that it's nearly impossible to build a truly great set of rare classic coins while strictly being a price buyer. Occasionally, a fantastic quality rare piece is going to come along at a price that shocks you. That's when you've got to decide what is more important - sticking to price guides that probably have never seen a transaction of this particular coin or filling a hole in your set with a coin that makes the entire set more valuable.
Those that do the former are rarely written about in the annuls of coin collecting. Those that do the latter may lose money if it turns out they have to sell, but in my mind are more likely to end up winning at the coin game. When I built the seated dollar set, I was bound and determined to build the very best set that ever could be built. I overpaid when necessary - but ended up doubling my money in just four years. So did I overpay??? >>
It's tough to "overpay" in a rising market, which was the market condition when you built your set. You've taken some huge gambles of bet the farm magnitude; but, your timing was right. Those days are over for the time being. I think recent buyers of ultra rarities are going to have poor real financial returns, although this poor performance may be masked by inflation or hyperinflation. I'm already seeing coins in the $10K to $50K range being reauctioned for a loss.
At the top end of the market, I have no doubt that people buy for non-economic reasons. I don't doubt that some people get psychological satisfaction from owning the finest known, regardless of the price paid. If you want a high profile coin, you'll probably have to outbid these irrational people. As for me, I'm content with a nice PR64 for $1000 instead of a PR67 for $10,000. I'm not a cheapskate, just a guy who doesn't want to get buried. I don't care about the annuls of coin collecting; however, Eliasberg was probably the biggest cheapskate of his era.
<< <i>Ok, that's fine. But what about paying $1400 for god's gift to PR64's??? >>
Does it come with a shovel? Honestly, I'd rather just pay the market price for a PR65 than overpay for a 64.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ok, that's fine. But what about paying $1400 for god's gift to PR64's??? >>
Does it come with a shovel? Honestly, I'd rather just pay the market price for a PR65 than overpay for a 64. >>
That's silly. Quality is a continuum, grades are discreet increments. A 64.8 at $1400 is a way better deal than a 64.2 at $1,000 or a 65.2 at $2,000
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you have to dump within a year. >>
That line didn't make much sense to me because it just doesn't sound right and the rest of the paragraph, 6 sentences worth, talks about holding long term (more than 2 years). Why would you not get killed 'especially' if you dump within a year?
Adding a "don't" to that line would make more sense in the context of the paragraph.
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you don't have to dump within a year. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you have to dump within a year. >>
That line didn't make much sense to me because the rest of the paragraph, 6 sentences worth, talks about holding long term (more than 2 years).
Adding a "don't" to that line would make more sense and fit with the paragraph better.
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you don't have to dump within a year. >>
>>
It's fair to separate it. Don't try to read to much into it how it was penned. I think we both know what was intended no matter how it is precisely worded.
Not a real surprise that there is a contradiction within the same paragraph. So which statement is wrong or are they both wrong? Should both be thrown out?
The reference is to buying great rarities, not building great collections or sets. If what they really meant was 6 sentences later, they
should have omitted the first sentence, which is a real mouthful. Reads like 2 entirely separate statements to me. But if they meant otherwise, then don't lead in with
a teaser only to negate it down the road. We all know you can get killed buying anything. What would the owner of the "monetized" 1933 $20 get today if they sold?
What would the new owner of the 1804 $10 PF65 get today if they sold? How about the 1794 MS66 SP FH dollar again? The disappearance of one major buyer from
the market can radically change the price of any of these coins. That first sentence stands on its own merits. Those 25 words make perfect sense to me. You can't say
you can't get killed stretching to buy a major rarity when reselling within a year....and sentences later say, well don't buy only to hold for 1-2 yrs. Great rarities stand alone.
They don't need to be part of great collections to bring their price. In fact many or most owners have just owned 1 or 2 of those and not as part of a themed collection. If you pay
stupid money for anything, you should/will get killed if forced to sell within a year with no one else taking your seat in the market.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you have to dump within a year. >>
That line didn't make much sense to me because the rest of the paragraph, 6 sentences worth, talks about holding long term (more than 2 years).
Adding a "don't" to that line would make more sense and fit with the paragraph better.
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you don't have to dump within a year. >>
>>
It's fair to separate it. The reference is to buying great rarities, not building great collections or sets. If what they really meant was 6 sentences later, they
should have omitted the first sentence, which is a mouthful. Reads like 2 entirely separate statements to me. But if they meant otherwise, then don't lead in with
a teaser only to negate it down the road. We all know you can get killed buying anything. What would the owner of the "monetized" 1933 $20 get today if they sold?
What would the new owner of the 1804 $10 PF65 get today if they sold? How about the 1794 MS66 SP FH dollar again? The disappearance of one major buyer from
the market can radically change the price of any of these coins. That first sentence stands on its own merits. Those 25 words make perfect sense to me. You can't say
you can't get killed stretching to buy a major rarity when reselling within a year....and sentences later say, well don't buy only to hold for 1-2 yrs. Great rarities stand alone.
They don't need to be part of great collections to bring their price. In fact many or most owners have just owned 1 or 2 of those and not as part of a themed collection. >>
The other reason why I think this sentence was posted incorrectly is the second part doesn't make sense. Why would you not get killed especially if you have to dump within a year? It makes more sense to say you won't get killed, especially if you can hold for the longer term. Also, what they meant wasn't 6 sentences later, it was the next 6 sentences with sentences 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 explicitly talking about holding long term.
Those are my reasons for thinking this is a mistake.
Here are the specific lines on avoiding the short term:
1) You should NOT be doing it to hold it for only 1-2 years.
2) Trying to play short term like the stock market can and will lead to some frustration-unless you own the best of the best.
3) Show us ANY collectable or even any stock that does not have some degree short term downside.
4) THINK LONG TERM when it comes to coins!
I honestly think it's a mistake. I'd be very surprised if it's not.
I don't think so. From everything I've read from TDN and Legend and other temporary holders of great rarities is that they are bluest of blue chips and rarely lose value, even in
the worst markets....even in the very short term. Yeah, they can drop a little bit....but never enough to crush you. If one looks back to the 1979-1980 Garrett auction peak I think
you'll see a number of major rarities and rarities that if offered again in 1981, and certainly early 1982 would have taken a pretty good pounding. Didn't one of the 1804 dollars take
a good hit in that environment or was that 1990-1992?
I'd be surprised if they meant anything different than orig stated (ie great rarities can't take big hits if sold in just one year). Until it's clarified all we can go by is
what was written. That is both statements are true, and great rarities aren't typically part of a larger collection where they fit in (Pogue's aside). TDN/Legend's purchases of a couple
of great rarities had zero to do with building a larger collection. Hence, ignore that 1-2 yr short term time frame. They are great rarities and generally immune from market cycling.
You seem to be very sure of what they wrote, but you're certainly free to have your opinion.
That being said, if it's not a mistake, I do feel people can suffer large losses if they are forced to sell in the short term. Having to sell is never a good position to be in.
<< <i>
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you have to dump within a year. >>
That line didn't make much sense to me because it just doesn't sound right and the rest of the paragraph, 6 sentences worth, talks about holding long term (more than 2 years). Why would you not get killed 'especially' if you dump within a year?
Adding a "don't" to that line would make more sense in the context of the paragraph.
<< <i>If you buy a great quality rarity, even if you pay strong you should not get killed-especially if you don't have to dump within a year. >>
>>
I would agree that she obviously meant to say "especially if you don't have to dump within a year"
Certainly agree that you can lose big time selling anything within a year, or even several years.
To set the record straight, I paid 375K at the 1988 ANA, turned down 950K in 1990, and sold it under duress for 400K (hammer) in 1991. Not as bad as RR reports, but still not a great memory.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I do not subscribe to this philosophy. It didn't work out so well at the Garrett sale. >>
The Garrett sale is a perfect example why paying "30-40% more" can be a good idea or an awful idea. If you bought the red unc Birch Cent for 200K, that was a good idea. If you bought a proof Barber Half for 20K, not such a good idea. The key is knowing if a coin is worth the stretch. Usually, it's going to be something that is unlikely to be offered again in the foreseeable future at any price, much less at what you consider to be "the right price".
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
1884-S AU58+ Morgan Silver Dollar
The bidding on this coin sky rocketed during the live auction.
Member, Society of Silver Dollar Collectors.
Looking for PCGS AU58+ 1901-P, 1896-O, & 1894-O
Am I mistaken?
If not then it would be time to send mine in for grading.
At the ANA, I sold direct to collectors two 5 figure bust halves. Also 2 high end early dollars, to a dealer, for
a specific customer of theirs. Also 2 more bust halves to a dealer for a specific client.
I just bought two AU 58 Early dollars, direct from a collector.
None of these coins went public, at a savings to both buyer and seller. And the tranactions were immediate, with checks
cashed in the normal 3 day period.
I have not needed to consign to or bid in an auction for a year, and my collection still grows.
Now...quit posting and find me some killer Shooters!!!
siliconvalleycoins.com
I do not agree with their hype on common MS67 Morgans - I don't think the bids are too low and don't care to own one and never have. They will need to sell that opinion to someone else.
I do agree you can really lose selling in the short term if you paid a lot of money (over bid) for a coin which you would certainly do with one of theirs. Anyone who knows we are still in a recession / depression or sees the PCGS 3000 numbers knows that. But if your looking for what you perceive as the best of the best (enjoy your hobby) and wealthy enough to just put them away for awhile well give it a whirl.
Some readers might get upset, but it reminds me of buying a diamond from a retail store. Sure, go get a beautiful high quality piece and then try to re-sell it to that retailer or another at 30% of the original buy price. What will Legend buy these "mega-sexy" rarities for in a year or two? Or will they be dreck?
Well, Legend is a dealer after all, so I cut them a break even if they don't care for your or my opinion. I do find amusement in their (her) commentaries.
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Yeah, tell that to the owner of the 1794 SP66 $ who paid $1 MILL around 1990 and sold it at auction for under $400K a short time later.
To set the record straight, I paid 375K at the 1988 ANA, turned down 950K in 1990, and sold it under duress for 400K (hammer) in 1991. Not as bad as RR reports, but still not a great memory. >>
I'm sorry to ask you to revisit an unpleasant memory; however, I think it would provide great insight into market psychology to hear your thought process in deciding to turn down $950K.
<< <i>Funny, I was thinking similarly. If you take most anything of modest rarity and hold it, it stands a chance (good) of going up even if not in real dollar terms. Kind of a cop out - yea, it does well if you hold it for long term.
Some readers might get upset, but it reminds me of buying a diamond from a retail store. Sure, go get a beautiful high quality piece and then try to re-sell it to that retailer or another at 30% of the original buy price. What will Legend buy these "mega-sexy" rarities for in a year or two? Or will they be dreck?
Well, Legend is a dealer after all, so I cut them a break even if they don't care for your or my opinion. I do find amusement in their (her) commentaries. >>
I am not a big customer of Legend's but they have always treated me more than fairly. I generally stay on the sidelines on these Legend threads that always seem to degenerate into bickering (although I would probably pay to read threads where TDN and Roadrunner go back and forth, which I don't view as bickering at all but rather as educational). It is, however, simply misinformed to compare Legend to a diamond dealer with a 30% buy back. My experience with Legend is they are a very strong buyer of nice coins, including ones I purchased from them previously.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
<< <i>
<< <i>Yeah, tell that to the owner of the 1794 SP66 $ who paid $1 MILL around 1990 and sold it at auction for under $400K a short time later.
To set the record straight, I paid 375K at the 1988 ANA, turned down 950K in 1990, and sold it under duress for 400K (hammer) in 1991. Not as bad as RR reports, but still not a great memory. >>
I'm sorry to ask you to revisit an unpleasant memory; however, I think it would provide great insight into market psychology to hear your thought process in deciding to turn down $950K. >>
Yes, it would be interesting to revisit that. Other than having a very strong belief that the coin was worth substantially more, I cannot think of any other reason. Most people are okay with making $575k and over 100% on a coin in two years.
That has been my experience, as well.
Even though I paid a lot less for the coin, I considered the coin a good value at 950K, and was not eager to sell. Nevertheless, the asking price was $1 million and I would have taken the offer if the buyers - a partnership of two major dealers - had not insisted on six month terms to pay for the coin. At the time, the market was moving higher every day, and we all expected the music to stop at some point. My decision not to sell was based on the feeling that in six months, either the coin was going to be worth a lot more than 950K, or the market would have already tanked. And if the market tanked, the buyers might not be able to pay their bill. In retrospect, I probably worried too much about the credit risk, and I probably could have done the deal by asking the two buyers to guaranty each other's debt. Live and learn. BTW, for those who don't know it, this same coin sold last year for something like $7 million, so (despite making a bad business decision) I feel vindicated in my judgment about the coin. And it's also worth noting that both of the dealers that made the offer later went bankrupt, although it was at a much later date.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i> I think it would provide great insight into market psychology to hear your thought process in deciding to turn down $950K.
Even though I paid a lot less for the coin, I considered the coin a good value at 950K, and was not eager to sell. Nevertheless, the asking price was $1 million and I would have taken the offer if the buyers - a partnership of two major dealers - had not insisted on six month terms to pay for the coin. At the time, the market was moving higher every day, and we all expected the music to stop at some point. My decision not to sell was based on the feeling that in six months, either the coin was going to be worth a lot more than 950K, or the market would have already tanked. And if the market tanked, the buyers might not be able to pay their bill. In retrospect, I probably worried too much about the credit risk, and I probably could have done the deal by asking the two buyers to guaranty each other's debt. Live and learn. BTW, for those who don't know it, this same coin sold last year for something like $7 million, so (despite making a bad business decision) I feel vindicated in my judgment about the coin. And it's also worth noting that both of the dealers that made the offer later went bankrupt, although it was at a much later date. >>
Thank you for sharing. That was a great story.
<< <i>
.... Didn't one of the 1804 dollars take
a good hit in that environment or was that 1990-1992? >>
Garrett 1804 Bill Pullen and Larry Hanks paid $400,000 (1980), Sold to Sam Colavita for $425,000 immediately after the sale. Sold for roughly $180,000 in Pullen-Hanks sale (1982) going to an investor. Failed to sell in an June 1985 Bowers-Ruddy sale with me as underbidder. I bought it ($180,000) in the hallway outside the St. Moritz Grand Ballroom immediately after buy-back. Sold about 6 weeks later (our net $200,000) by Martin Paul thru Dan Drykerman to LS (not our Laurie) who, I believe, still has it.
For the right coins, it's always good advice.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Let's say the 1933 ST. Gaudens were offered to you for roughly $8,000,000 and another dealer had 3,700 PCGS MS-65 common date ST. Gaudens he would broker to you for the same price, what do people here think would be the wise choice considering today's uncertain times.
I know what my choice would be and it isn't even close.
At the moment, bullion may be the smarter investment. However, some of us are in this game for more than investment purposes.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>It's not surprising that a dealer will advocate that collectors pay top dollar for great coins. Sometimes it turns out to be good advice, sometimes not.
For the right coins, it's always good advice. >>
Whether it's "the right coin" is only knowable in retrospect. Collecting trends and preferences change over time, and beyond that, it's certainly possible to overpay for something really nice.
The right coin is not just something that is "really nice". It's something that is irreplaceable and, to dedicated collectors, essentially priceless.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
of the coin as well, you'd have been financially vindicated as well. The coin gained the largest $ amount on the heels of determining it was quite likely this was the 1st dollar struck
and a silver plug specimen strike to boot. Didn't this bring something like $260K at the 1985/86 Amon Carter sale?
Thanks to Colonel Jessup for filling in the 55% loss the 1804 $ took during the rapidly descending 1980-1982 market. Also very interesting to find that it still didn't do much from
1982-1985. Because from 1983-1984 some nice type collections came on the market that escalated prices. Stacks' Emery and Nichols was one that rings a bell. There were a
number of sales like that which helped to get the market flowing again.
<< <i>Let's say the 1933 ST. Gaudens were offered to you for roughly $8,000,000 and another dealer had 3,700 PCGS MS-65 common date ST. Gaudens he would broker to you for the same price, what do people here think would be the wise choice considering today's uncertain times.
At the moment, bullion may be the smarter investment. However, some of us are in this game for more than investment purposes. >>
I can understand your logic, you have been a very successful dealer for many years.
I was merely pointing out that most people would see a gigantic stack of gold coins on one side and a solitary coin on the other with the exact same appearance and wonder what the heck is going on here. It simply defies logic to the masses that the value is equal and one could argue that the PCGS-65 Saints are a much better deal as they once traded nearly twice as high as they sell for now yet gold was priced much lower when they were priced that high.
I also agree that collectors view their coins primarily as a hobby and brings them a great amount of satisfaction but at some point a person or their heirs must sell their coins at which point the coins had better be a good investment or at the very least not turn into a huge loss.
Back to the Amon Carter 1794 Dollar. When I bought it for 375K, gold was about $430, MS65 Saints were trading at $4000 and just about any "Classic" silver commem in a 65 slab would bring four figures. Times change.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>"Collectors need to realize that there are hardly ANY sexy better coins available."
"Sexy" coins? >>
Funny you should say that. I have a 1795 Dollar (my avatar) that a prominant dealer once looked at and said "that's a very sexy coin." I didn't know if he wanted me to leave him alone with it for a while, or what...
<< <i>Let me post a hypothetical question in response to purchasing high priced rarities:
Let's say the 1933 ST. Gaudens were offered to you for roughly $8,000,000 and another dealer had 3,700 PCGS MS-65 common date ST. Gaudens he would broker to you for the same price, what do people here think would be the wise choice considering today's uncertain times.
I know what my choice would be and it isn't even close.
Putting that much money in one coin is like putting all your eggs in one basket. I would definitely choose the 3700 PCGS MS65 Saints although this is a poor example with the 10 1933 Saints showing up subsequently to the other 1933 Saint selling for $8 Million. Who knows what will eventually happen with those 10 new Saints?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Similar to when I buy the coins I buy, I can *afford it*.
It is 100% about the collection. If all of them return to face value I will be surprised, of course, but I collect for the *collection* not the *income*.
I'm not a coin dealer. Neither, presumably is "Simpson" or others that do buy million+ coins.
Will they or their estate profit one day? Who knows?
Are they still mega-rich? Yes.
Do they care if they had an extra 3,700 Saints? No.
<< <i>Presumably those with 8 million to spend on *one coin* can *afford it*. And they don't need 3,700 other widgets, they want *this coin*.
Similar to when I buy the coins I buy, I can *afford it*.
It is 100% about the collection. If all of them return to face value I will be surprised, of course, but I collect for the *collection* not the *income*.
I'm not a coin dealer. Neither, presumably is "Simpson" or others that do buy million+ coins.
Will they or their estate profit one day? Who knows?
Are they still mega-rich? Yes.
Do they care if they had an extra 3,700 Saints? No. >>
It may not matter to the super rich but face the facts, 99% of the people posting here are not doctors, lawyers or have inherited a large trust fund so liquidity and profit are important to them when it comes time to eventually sell their coins.