@jmski52 said:
Well, it took 32 years, but the premiums are about where they should've been all along. My opinion.
And now they're even lower.
It's been pretty clear since the move back to $2000+ (2016-2020) that premiums at higher levels would all eventually
evaporate except for the very scarcest of better dates. Even MS66 Saints lost much of their premiums to the MS64/65's. It used to be 30-50%. Now down to 7.5%. If gold moves past $5,000 and higher, we could even see MS67 Saint premiums wilt away as well. On the good side, it opens up an arbitrage to trade out of less gold into better dates and grades, to have a lot more cushion on the way down when premiums expand back in the other direction.
I recall when I first starting putting away slabbed MS64 Saints in April 2004 that they were nearly 2X the price of gold....Saints $635 vs gold at $320/oz. They seemed the best bang for the buck. The MS65 Saints at that time were around $1000 as I recall.....and 66's around $2000. That worked for that time as gold coin grading in 65/66 grades was much more strict.
Even if we went back to 1993 (-32 yrs) MS 64 slabbed Saints were still around $1000. Generally each additional grading point from MS64 to MS66 doubled the price. The tiny quantity of slabbed gem gold kept the prices high until more units showed up.
@roadrunner said:
Even if we went back to 1993 (-32 yrs) MS 64 slabbed Saints were still around $1000. Generally each additional grading point from MS64 to MS66 doubled the price. The tiny quantity of slabbed gem gold kept the prices high until more units showed up.
Even assuming those 64s are now 65s, one would have realized a return of about 4%/yr. A 30 yr treasury bond in 1993 was yielding 6.5%.
@roadrunner said:
I recall when I first starting putting away slabbed MS64 Saints in April 2004 that they were nearly 2X the price of >gold....Saints $635 vs gold at $320/oz. They seemed the best bang for the buck. The MS65 Saints at that time were >around $1000 as I recall.....and 66's around $2000. That worked for that time as gold coin grading in 65/66 grades >was much more strict.
Excellent point, RR. But WHY were the premiums then as I have also noted in the chart below (this one for MS-62's) ?
I get that premiums will be sticky to the downside so when gold is artificially depressed as it was in 2004 or even from the 1990's.....the premium % is high even though it's not that big in absolute terms. But I'm surprised at your quotes for an MS-66 when gold is cheap vs. pricey.
Generally each additional grading point from MS64 to MS66 doubled the price. The tiny quantity of slabbed gem >gold kept the prices high until more units showed up.
That's a good point, RR....the QUANTITY of TPG coins today for the same grades has expanded a ton.
More supply = lower premiums (prices).
Do you think others are aware of this little-known fact ? Most analysts I have seen focus on the premium rely on how you want to maintain a premium when prices fall to offset higher risk...and when gold is flying, the pure metal is the best outperformer over time.
What has happened when the premiums were narrow in the past is that gold has tended to FALL in price. Conversely, when the premiums were large the gold price would RISE in price.
So if this gold bull market is different this time (!) then buying TPG MS Saints will NOT turn out to be a bad purchase because gold will continue to rise and there isn't much premium to evaporate. If the normal pattern continued, we'd expect gold to fall and the TPG MS Saints to fall LESS and thus the premium to expand, protecting the investment in an MS coin.
@CoinPhysicist said:
Can the moderators close this thread? Clearly no one commenting has any desire to keep to the topics that I >wanted to talk about in this thread.
@RedneckHB said:
Even assuming those 64s are now 65s, one would have realized a return of about 4%/yr. A 30 yr treasury bond in >1993 was yielding 6.5%.
That's pretty much what one should expect, even if one buys high-end or even "Trophy" coins. I tracked the numbers for lots of them and unless a buyer got LUCKY -- buying at a depressed time and selling at a strong time -- the returns were usually MSDs, 4-7%. Competitive with bonds, but not with stocks.
@RedneckHB said:
Even assuming those 64s are now 65s, one would have realized a return of about 4%/yr. A 30 yr treasury bond in >1993 was yielding 6.5%.
That's pretty much what one should expect, even if one buys high-end or even "Trophy" coins. I tracked the numbers for lots of them and unless a buyer got LUCKY -- buying at a depressed time and selling at a strong time -- the returns were usually MSDs, 4-7%. Competitive with bonds, but not with stocks.
.
I suppose you would say that if a person bought a stock at a depressed time and sold at a strong time, that person would be astute.
But if a person did the same thing with a coin they were just "lucky" ?
I find that contention to be ridiculous.
A person who buys and sells a coin can be every bit as knowledgeable and astute as a successful stock speculator.
@dcarr said:
I suppose you would say that if a person bought a stock at a depressed time and sold at a strong time, that person >would be astute. But if a person did the same thing with a coin they were just "lucky" ?
I find that contention to be ridiculous. A person who buys and sells a coin can be every bit as knowledgeable and >astute as a successful stock speculator.
Stocks participate in the real growth of the economy whereas PM's and coins do NOT. PM's and coins offer lower returns with higher volatility and disperson of returns than a portfolio of common stocks.
Using rolling time periods to eliminate timing bias -- no "lucky" buying low or selling high or both -- gold, PM's, and coins lag bigtime.
Read Jeremy Seigel's "Stocks For The Long Run" for more.
@dcarr said:
I suppose you would say that if a person bought a stock at a depressed time and sold at a strong time, that person >would be astute. But if a person did the same thing with a coin they were just "lucky" ?
I find that contention to be ridiculous. A person who buys and sells a coin can be every bit as knowledgeable and >astute as a successful stock speculator.
Stocks participate in the real growth of the economy whereas PM's and coins do NOT. PM's and coins offer lower returns with higher volatility and disperson of returns than a portfolio of common stocks.
Using rolling time periods to eliminate timing bias -- no "lucky" buying low or selling high or both -- gold, PM's, and coins lag bigtime.
Read Jeremy Seigel's "Stocks For The Long Run" for more.
.
I have no interest in speculating on stocks at this point.
I’ve always liked Type 2 $20’s. When I came back to Illinois from Washington state around 1999 I had a box of 20 type2 $20’s. All in OGH in a green PCGS box back then. They were all common 73,75,76 in MS61 cost me about $400 each some a little cheaper and one MS62. Only a memory today.
Comments
their gold content is identical and are therefore similar bullion plays. Collectability based on condition and date will set them apart.
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
It's been pretty clear since the move back to $2000+ (2016-2020) that premiums at higher levels would all eventually
evaporate except for the very scarcest of better dates. Even MS66 Saints lost much of their premiums to the MS64/65's. It used to be 30-50%. Now down to 7.5%. If gold moves past $5,000 and higher, we could even see MS67 Saint premiums wilt away as well. On the good side, it opens up an arbitrage to trade out of less gold into better dates and grades, to have a lot more cushion on the way down when premiums expand back in the other direction.
I recall when I first starting putting away slabbed MS64 Saints in April 2004 that they were nearly 2X the price of gold....Saints $635 vs gold at $320/oz. They seemed the best bang for the buck. The MS65 Saints at that time were around $1000 as I recall.....and 66's around $2000. That worked for that time as gold coin grading in 65/66 grades was much more strict.
Even if we went back to 1993 (-32 yrs) MS 64 slabbed Saints were still around $1000. Generally each additional grading point from MS64 to MS66 doubled the price. The tiny quantity of slabbed gem gold kept the prices high until more units showed up.
Even assuming those 64s are now 65s, one would have realized a return of about 4%/yr. A 30 yr treasury bond in 1993 was yielding 6.5%.
Excellent point, RR. But WHY were the premiums then as I have also noted in the chart below (this one for MS-62's) ?
I get that premiums will be sticky to the downside so when gold is artificially depressed as it was in 2004 or even from the 1990's.....the premium % is high even though it's not that big in absolute terms. But I'm surprised at your quotes for an MS-66 when gold is cheap vs. pricey.
That's a good point, RR....the QUANTITY of TPG coins today for the same grades has expanded a ton.
More supply = lower premiums (prices).
Do you think others are aware of this little-known fact ? Most analysts I have seen focus on the premium rely on how you want to maintain a premium when prices fall to offset higher risk...and when gold is flying, the pure metal is the best outperformer over time.
Even though the absolute number of MS-67's is dwarfed by the MS-66's and MS-65's ?
What has happened when the premiums were narrow in the past is that gold has tended to FALL in price. Conversely, when the premiums were large the gold price would RISE in price.
So if this gold bull market is different this time (!) then buying TPG MS Saints will NOT turn out to be a bad purchase because gold will continue to rise and there isn't much premium to evaporate. If the normal pattern continued, we'd expect gold to fall and the TPG MS Saints to fall LESS and thus the premium to expand, protecting the investment in an MS coin.
This is one of the best threads at CU.
IMO gold content is a very small component of type 67s. Low population counts and registry competition drives the majority of market value.
That's pretty much what one should expect, even if one buys high-end or even "Trophy" coins. I tracked the numbers for lots of them and unless a buyer got LUCKY -- buying at a depressed time and selling at a strong time -- the returns were usually MSDs, 4-7%. Competitive with bonds, but not with stocks.
.
I suppose you would say that if a person bought a stock at a depressed time and sold at a strong time, that person would be astute.
But if a person did the same thing with a coin they were just "lucky" ?
I find that contention to be ridiculous.
A person who buys and sells a coin can be every bit as knowledgeable and astute as a successful stock speculator.
.
Stocks participate in the real growth of the economy whereas PM's and coins do NOT. PM's and coins offer lower returns with higher volatility and disperson of returns than a portfolio of common stocks.
Using rolling time periods to eliminate timing bias -- no "lucky" buying low or selling high or both -- gold, PM's, and coins lag bigtime.
Read Jeremy Seigel's "Stocks For The Long Run" for more.
.
I have no interest in speculating on stocks at this point.
.
Best way to acquire slabbed gold at a reasonable premium is to hand out business cards to future widows
the only collectors who won't sob over unreturned premiums are chillin at room temperature
ok now the mods can shut this thread down on a high note
I’ve always liked Type 2 $20’s. When I came back to Illinois from Washington state around 1999 I had a box of 20 type2 $20’s. All in OGH in a green PCGS box back then. They were all common 73,75,76 in MS61 cost me about $400 each some a little cheaper and one MS62. Only a memory today.