Doug Winter's market report--"Some of the best [gold] values are in the smaller dominations&quo

Longacre · February 15, 2006 6:12AM

Here is a link to the Doug Winter market report (if you don't check out his site, you should. Lately he has been a writing fiend). Do you agree with his statement that some of the best values in gold are in the smaller denominations? Personally, I prefer quarter eagles, which are quite small. I have heard from lots of people that "no one collects small gold coins. People only collect BIG gold coins." For purposes of the small size issue, do you think that undervaluedness equates to lack of demand? Or are the smaller denominations truly good values on their own merits?

Winter Report

291fifth · February 15, 2006 6:21AM

Lack of demand. Gold coin collecting is the province of people with MONEY. They want the big stuff, not the small stuff. There is strong ego involvement in what they collect.

stephunter · February 15, 2006 6:22AM

I wonder if the recent (last 5 years or so) improvement of digital photography will improve the acceptance of smaller denomination coins. If someone is the type that will store the majority of their collection in a safe deposit box most of the time, but keep nice pictures of the coins on their computers, then the actual coin size may not matter as much to a collector. I have seen some beautiful pictures three cent silver pieces that make them more attractive to me.

mrearlygold · February 15, 2006 6:22AM

Quarter eagles are a good buy. Start a set of them from 1796 to 1907.

tradedollarnut · February 15, 2006 6:25AM

That's like saying some of the best non gold values are in 3 cents and half dimes.

Longacre · February 15, 2006 6:37AM

<< <i>Quarter eagles are a good buy. Start a set of them from 1796 to 1907.

>>

I already have the full run from 1839 to 1907. It's the early QE's that I am having trouble finding. I just don't know where to look.

fc · February 15, 2006 6:44AM

this winter guy is crafty.

first he tells me ever so slyly that if I buy from him, chances
are my coins will not be messed with. fine, he is an expert
after all.

now this sounds like an idea by him to make money by leveraging
the low amount of money these "smaller" coins cost and selling
them to his clientel that is used to spending big bucks for choice
5s and 10s.

i say the prices are low due to lack of demand due to their size.

RYK · February 15, 2006 6:52AM

fc,

You can say what you want about DW (he is actually a friend of mine), but as a dealer, he has saved me thousands and thousands of dollars by keeping from me buying coins that would have been mistakes, helped me get out of mistake coins that I stumbled upon myself (and often at a profit to me), and given me collecting advice that has served me well over the last several years. He also has provided scholarship (written numerous books and countless articles) and is highly regarded by his peers and gold coin collectors. Is he being promotional on his website? Of course. Could gold coin collectors do well to follow his advice? I and many others think so.

chabot510 · February 15, 2006 6:57AM

I am like you Longacre and love QE's. I think they are a good buy, especially early 40's, late 50's, most 60's, most 70s, and early 80s. The mintages on some of the issues is astonishing, especially when you see the prices.

I think they are lagging in the market due to their size more than anything. Small coins (with a few exceptions) always seem to have a smaller market than large coins ( i.e. Morgans, Saints).

fc · February 15, 2006 7:08AM

ryk,

i freely admit he is an expert... everything else is just poking
criticism. once again i expected more from him than that...

will his customers be happy with small coins for > 5000 price tags?

i might as well stop going to his website due to the caliber of
customer he is aiming at.

Longacre · February 15, 2006 7:13AM

fc-- I don't want to get in the middle of the Doug Winter Lovers vs. Doug Winter Haters debate, but I have personally bought a $5,000 very small coin from him and have been quite happy. It just depends on the collector. My purchase is probably on the low end of what he typically sells.

RYK · February 15, 2006 7:16AM

might as well stop going to his website due to the caliber of
customer he is aiming at.

I strongly disagree. Enjoying coins, for me, is more about the scholarship and less about the ownership (though "ownership certainly has its priviliages"

). You never know where life or your interests will take you. If you enjoy gold coins, visit his website and read all of his articles, and you will be a better collector for it, even if you never spend a penny with Doug. And it's free.

TommyType · February 15, 2006 8:22AM

<< <i>Lack of demand. Gold coin collecting is the province of people with MONEY. They want the big stuff, not the small stuff. There is strong ego involvement in what they collect. >>

Although maybe not a factor for coins where numismatic value predominates.....I'm sure the pure "investor" prefers large coins as well. More gold!

RYK · February 15, 2006 8:23AM

will his customers be happy with small coins for > 5000 price tags?

One of my favorite Dahlonega coins is an 1855-D gold dollar owned by a friend. I would gladly give up any coin in my collection for the right to buy it. Unfortunately, I think I would have to fight off FatMan (and a few others), and he is bigger than me.

coinkat · February 15, 2006 8:30AM

I disagree... the most under appreciated series is no motto 10 Libs

coinguy1 · February 15, 2006 8:31AM

As a general rule, the smaller/smallest coins (of any metal) must overcome the handicap of their size. It is a fact of numismatic life that many collectors simply don't want to have to look at/examine a coin which is too small for their comfort level and convenience.

Sometimes that handicap is overcome by rarity and/or beauty or other factors, but oftentimes it is not. Consequently, a high number of smaller coins have traded and likely will continue to trade at what appear to be (relatively) good value levels.

ColonialCoinUnion · February 15, 2006 8:36AM

In my experience, most people have a difficult time writing a check to buy a coin smaller than a chickpea.

Regardless of the mintage, the raritiy, the attractiveness of the coin or the condition raritity of the piece, there is by definition less demand than there would be for a lot coins whose only positive attribute is that they are bigger.

RYK · February 15, 2006 8:38AM

I agree, Mark, but I will also say that StepHunter makes an excellent point. I spend far, far more time with photos of my coins than my coins themselves. If someone like Russ or mgoodm3 made some high quality, magnified, high resolution photos for me, it probably would not matter nearly as much that the coin is so small.

MikeInFL · February 15, 2006 8:45AM

<< <i>I agree, Mark, but I will also say that StepHunter makes an excellent point. I spend far, far more time with photos of my coins than my coins themselves. If someone like Russ or mgoodm3 made some high quality, magnified, high resolution photos for me, it probably would not matter nearly as much that the coin is so small. >>

I could not agree more, and I wonder if this trend will appreciate the prices of the smaller coins.

Personally, I don't mind smaller coins, but it is naive to think that their value is not diminshed by their size....Mike

p.s. Doug's website is perhaps the single best online resource for gold coin informational articles, IMHO. There's a treasure trove of information available there, and if anyone has not spent time on his website and they have any interest in gold coinage, they really should.

TheRaven · February 15, 2006 8:50AM

I just remember he is trying to sell something.....

His CC book is excellent and I would like to get his D & C books.....

It does disappoint me that all his coins are super expensive, but oh well.....

You have to take all the available information in and then collect what you want and like.....

They may be a good value, not the collecting base is smaller then Saints or Indians, oh well, that is not likely to change.....

JDelage · February 15, 2006 9:29AM

I don't understand how the term "value" is used in this article. It is one thing to say that small coins are undervalued wrt bigger coins. I think it makes sense, for a variety of reasons, including those he mentions himself. But to then say that the small coins are better value (which Doug Winter stops short of saying) would be a mistake: the reasons why the small coins are under-appreciated are not going to change.

Small coins trade at a discount compared to big coins and will continue to do so.

RYK · February 15, 2006 9:33AM

Small coins trade at a discount compared to big coins and will continue to do so.

I agree completely but am open to the possibilty that the "valuation gap" (as it were) could narrow. That said, I do not have a big position in small coins (

) and am more an advocate of collecting what interests me, regardless of size or value.

TheRaven · February 15, 2006 9:35AM

It is possible that the valuation gap, never heard that term before, might close but that is likely to be because the big coins price would fall.....

jpkinla · February 15, 2006 10:37AM

I'm sorry but quarter eagles and half eagles will NEVER be more desirable than eagles and double eagles.....Bigger is better! Ask your wife!

DeepCoin · February 15, 2006 9:28PM

It seems to me the big gold coins are almost impossible for the "average" collector to try and assemble a set. In this arena the smaller coins are cheaper.

However, for the type set collector the reverse is true. MS65 Saints are cheap compared with a $5 Indian. This holds true in MS64 and MS63 also.

It is all a matter of perspective. There are no million dollar quarter eagles, but there are cheap (relatively) Saints to be had.

RYK · February 16, 2006 1:04AM

It is possible that the valuation gap, never heard that term before, might close but that is likely to be because the big coins price would fall.....

I think I just made the term up, though Coinguy1 has called me on taking credit for his ideas in the past

, so maybe it actually was his concept.

I'm sorry but quarter eagles and half eagles will NEVER be more desirable than eagles and double eagles.....Bigger is better! Ask your wife!

All I can say is this: John, you must be a newlywed.

RYK · February 16, 2006 1:18AM

Deepcoin,

In general, you are probably correct. For type collectors, it is almost always easier to afford the smaller coins than the bigger ones, unless you are going back to the early gold types (1796 quarter eagle, 1808 quarter eagle, etc.) or require coins to be a certain grade (your example of the MS-65 Indian $5 vs. MS-65 Saint is excellent).

For strict date collectors, frankly, just about any gold series (small coin or large coin) is prohibitive for the average collector. The one exception might be Indian quarter eagles, as long as you do not require high grade coins for your set. One has to be fairly affluent to put together a complete set of $20 Libs, $20 Saints, $5 Libs (even minus the 54-S), or gold dollars. What many less affluent gold coin collectors, like myself, choose to collect is some sort of type set or a date set limited to a branch mint (ie. New Orleans quarter eagles), Type (ie. Type II Liberty $20's--and throw out the 70-CC, BTW), or some other made-up subset (one coin each date of Liberty $5's, No Motto Philly eagles, all gold coins from 1857, etc.).

I guess my point is that unlike collectors of Mercury dimes or Franklin halves, as examples, collectors of 19th century US gold coins have found ways to collect them that are creative, fun and enjoyable and fit a wide variety of budgets.

jpkinla · February 16, 2006 1:38AM

RYK,

Newlywed? I think not.....Been married almost 18 years. My point was that when I was first married my wife never said anything......NOW she says bigger is better!

I just know she prefers Double Eagles as opposed to those tiny dollars or quarter eagles.....

RYK · February 16, 2006 2:15AM

John,

I must say that when I got serious about gold coin collecting, I started with $20 Libs, CC $20's to be exact. Then, I decided to downsize a bit and assembled a near-complete collection of New Orleans No Motto $10's. While I was doing this, a friend got me hooked on Dahlonega $5's and I quicky added New Orleans $5's to the mix. Personally, I think the $5 gold size is the best for me. It's like Goldilocks--not too big, not too small, just right. The coronet design looks like it was made for the $5 denomination. The portrait is nicely centered, not squished in there like the quarter eagle or seemingly floating in space like the eagle. As I type this, I am sitting next to three pretty cool quarter eagles. Yes, they are small, but for a small coin, each packs a pretty good punch. Am I destined to continue to progress to the smaller denominations?

TheRaven · February 16, 2006 2:41AM

I think if you want to collect gold coins and your name is not Bill Gates you basically have to be "creative" as to what your objective is.....

I would find it interesting to expand a type set to include a coin from each mint into that..... So a P,D,S, CC & O plus C & D Half eagles or something like that.....

earlycoins1com · February 16, 2006 8:08AM

I thought Doug Winter worked for Pinnacle. Did he leave their employ?

DaveG · February 16, 2006 9:24AM

Yes.

If you check his website, you can see the notice that he re-established his own company effective 2/1/06.

jpkinla · February 16, 2006 10:46AM

I think half eagles are actually cool......I miss my $5 Indian set!

$5 Libs are scarce and undervalued but fewer collectors obviously......You can buy real low pop coins for a lot less than $20 Libs or Saints!

librtyhead · February 16, 2006 11:05AM

it certainly is the next step (smaller denomination gold) and the market is gaining strength but I think it is a sleeper waiting for the right time but I am not a dealer and they do interest me in a collecting kind of way.as far as dealing gold it is a kind of like swimming with sharks and if I was to jump into it I would prefer to go through a dealer that has a good eye for these coins and could be trusted to give me the best deal.(and make a buck)just my two bucks worth as a collector.

DeepCoin · February 16, 2006 12:21PM

Gold is very interesting in that Saints were basically bullion coins of that day. However, due to a variety of reasons, certain dates are EXTREMELY rare and command enormous prices.

Our deep pocket friend GoldSaint cannot complete the set, so how would an average guy like me even contemplate it. I love the big coins, but as was said above, you need to be creative when collecting gold. The key IMHO is to learn about each series and how to view, grade and evaluate those coins in your price range, whatever that may be.

I have a minor coup that will leave me some free collecting dollars and I intend to find a really choice $3 gold coin. The hard part will be finding one that is not overpriced for the grade. Thus there will much looking, reading and inquiring before buying. That is true with gold more than any other series (it is important for ALL series, but more so with gold).

I am getting hooked on it. I wish I had more resources, but you can have fun at any level once you reach a certain buy in stage.

Happy Collecting!

TheRaven · February 16, 2006 12:27PM

Me as a collector on a budget would like to add 2 or 3 coins to my 1927 MS-63 Saint. A No Motto variety, a S mint and a D mint. Now the D mint and the No Motto obviously can be combined.

I enjoy collecting sets and types that are high priced with this method.

A high relief would be really nice to add, but it would be many years worth of my budget to add one, so that is not a possibilty.....

northcoin · February 16, 2006 2:37PM

This has been an interesting thread to follow. I suspect the key to Doug Winter's remarks is the word "some." There are probably more small sized coins which are poor values compared to the larger gold coins in total. However, for the collector willing to pick and choose and follow expert advice those few or "some" could be real treasures. I owned an 1808 2 1/2 dollar gold piece that would fit that category, as would the coins from the southern mints - but the vast majority of the smaller gold pieces don't have the attraction to me that the big ones have.

techeff · February 16, 2006 3:03PM

As a general rule, the smaller/smallest coins (of any metal) must overcome the handicap of their size. It is a fact of numismatic life that many collectors simply don't want to have to look at/examine a coin which is too small for their comfort level and convenience.

Then stop buying small gold coins dammit!

Doug Winter's market report--"Some of the best [gold] values are in the smaller dominations&quo

Comments

Leave a Comment

Doug Winter's market report--&quot;Some of the best [gold] values are in the smaller dominations&quo

Comments

Leave a Comment

Doug Winter's market report--"Some of the best [gold] values are in the smaller dominations&quo