| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 3,065 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1302 Posts |
If you don't know, I'm writing a big coin book and one of the things I'm doing in analyzing the market since the 1950s. This may interest some of you Silver Commemorative guys. This is what the Classic Commemoratives were going for in 1965 (in 2011 dollars). Keep in mind MS-63 was not yet in use- but as the average condition of these coins was MS-63-65, I will use 63 as the place holder. Are you surprised at what you see? Also, any old RedBook collectors, message me, i'd like to hear from you. Date Coin MS-63 1893 Isabella 640 1900 Lafayette 1000 1921 Alabama w 2x2 535 1921 Alabama 428 1936 Albany 464 1937 Antietam 821 1935 Arkansas 85 1935 Arkansas D 114 1935 Arkansas S 114 1936 San Francisco 285 1934 Boone 125 1935 Boone 96 1935 Boone D 113 1935 Boone S 113 1936 Bridgeport 285 1925 California S 214 1936 Cincinnati 1070 1936 Cincinnati D 1070 1936 Cincinnati S 1070 1936 Cleveland 178 1936 Columbia 276 1936 Columbia D 276 1936 Columbia S 276 1892 Columbian 49 1893 Columbian 28 1935 Connecticut 411 1936 Delaware 393 1936 Elgin 393 1936 Gettysburg 410 1922 Grant Star 1071 1922 Grant 196 1928 Hawaii 4284 1928 Hawaii Proof 6426 1935 Hudson 2320 1924 Huguenot-Walloon 196 1946 Iowa 178 1925 Lexington 114 1918 Illinois 178 1936 Long Island 160 1936 Lynchburg 392 1920 Maine 232 1934 Maryland 357 1921 Missouri 2x4 1213 1921 Missouri 1035 1923 Monroe 125 1938 New Rochelle 606 1936 Norfolk 606 1926 Oregon 107 1926 Oregon S 107 1915 Pan Pacific 785 1920 Pilgrim 89 1921 Pilgrim 171 1936 Rhode Island 142 1936 Rhode Island D 142 1936 Rhode Island S 142 1937 Roanoke 267 1936 Arkansas 249 1935 San Diego S 149 1935 San Diego D 196 1926 Sesquicentennial 160 1935 Old Spanish Tra. 2070 1925 Stone Mountain 57 1934 Texas 124 1925 Vancouver 892 1927 Vermont 428 1946 Booker 21 1946 Booker D 28 1946 Booker 28 1951 Carver 21 1951 Carver D 69 1951 Carver S 69 1936 Wisconsin 285 1936 York 232 Edited by cc99999
01/24/2012 11:56 pm
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
438 Posts |
Neat analysis!
Out of curiosity (if it is not a secret due to having a book in process) what was the pricing source and what was the multiplication factor used to compensate for 46 years of inflation?
I think nearly all collectors dream of past prices. Personally I focus on the mid 1970's as that is when I started collecting.
As for Redbooks, I was working on a set but have not quite finished. Have the key issues such as first edition first printing, second, third and fifth editions. Someday I will finish the set...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1302 Posts |
These figures are from a 1965 RedBook. it was the first year of clad coinage and reflected BIG gains from 1964. Greysheet was just getting started at about this time as well. This is just some raw information, I've actually compiled a number of statistical tables that deal with standard deviation/ regression models/ and some other tools. on the commemorative side, I find it very interesting that much of its present day value was built into the sauce by the mid 1960s. Unless you are dealing with the very top end of this series, and many others, there's just no real price gains that you can expect... in other words, coins don't really outperform inflationary pressures unless you know what you are doing. |
|
Moderator
 United States
15422 Posts |
Very insightful analysis CC ... First impression review of your 1965-adjusted to today prices tells me that mid-grade MS classic silver commemorative have been a loser as an investment. Specifically note the Hawaiian ... current price for an MS63 example is on the order of $2600 ... compared to your $4284 inflation adjusted value. Wondering however about the granularity of your Red Book data source ... I have a 1972-25th Edition that I kept as a youngster ... and in the classic silver commemorative section my 25th Edition lists two prices ... Ex. Fine and Unc.Assume your 1965 Red Book version contains the same grade levels ... so politely wonder how you can make the extrapolation to "Unc" equals MS63? That said ... two significant thoughts to consider ... believe we spoke about these ideas ... First ... there are many collectors who do not care about price appreciation of their coins. To this set of collectors ... the joy of owning/holding/cherishing a fine piece of USA coinage history is what matters ... regardless of whether it is a good or bad long term investment. Suggest that you need to deal with that segment of collectors in your book. Second ... this fine analysis does not consider the price appreciation potential of what I consider to be the true investment opportunity in these coins ... MS65/MS66/MS67 well struck coins with significant eye appeal and ... today ... CAC green beanies. That is IMHO where potential investment opportunities exist today ... high end coins ... strictly graded with tremendous eye appeal. Impossible to get that data from a 1965 Red Book ... but a consideration for the future audience of your book. Appreciate your hard work and contributions CC ... expressing again my personal willingness to add any value I can to your book endeavor and collecting efforts. David |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1302 Posts |
David, you are right about two key issues: First, what is UNC.? My editorial decision is that UNC does not equal Gem because in that coin market Gem was sold at a sometimes significant premium (not by today's standards) to a small sampling of collectors. Q. David Bowers mentions this in the Whitman Commemorative Book (a worthy read- but not an in depth research volume). I hypothesize that MS-63 was UNC. as my experience is that a coin really has to have an uncommon experience to be MS-60 or MS-61. Most of these commemoratives were treated better and struck better than that. As for the MS-63 coins being losers. Yes, that is what I see as well. In fact, this throws into question the entire concept of Optimum Grading, doesn't it? My take is that in order for a series to seriously go up in value- it has to be extremely uncommon and interesting enough to a wealthy buyer. Your CAC beanie collection of MS65+ coins has more potential than an MS-63/64 set. In fact, based on some of my industry sources... MS64 is basically an overpriced 63. The coin is either gem or not... and MS-64 is not. I'll get back in touch with you Dave, and if there's anyway for me to borrow that RedBook, that would be great. you'll get it back, I swear :) Edited by cc99999
01/25/2012 10:59 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
I regularly calculate inflation rates over selected time periods.
You need annual inflation rate stats. for the period you are looking at, and just multiply them together.
A lot of this economic reference information for many countries can be found on the
TRADE ECONOMICS Site.
AVERAGE inflation rates over a time period are much easier and less laborious to calculate. However, you need a calculator with an exponential function.
|
|
Moderator
United States
15422 Posts |
Again ... I'm intrigued by your research CC and believe that you are focusing on some important topics that can be addressed through real data and insightful analysis. Quote:
this throws into question the entire concept of Optimum Grading Just to encourage honest debate ... I take the position that I disagree with that statement.  My basis for such disagreement is that Q. David Bowers describes the concept of Optimal Collecting Grade ... which I believe is a valid concept for assembling a best value-for-the-buck set of coins at a given point in time .... What needs to be done ... and you CC are maybe heading there ... is to help define with true data the Optimal Investment Grade for a series ... That my friend would be a significant contribution to the body of numismatic knowledge.  Quote: if there's anyway for me to borrow that RedBook, that would be great. you'll get it back, I swear :) It's the last and only connection to my 11-year old coin collector history ... well beat up with many loose pages ... but complete and available for short term loan with full promises of return. Collateral is first born son and 10 ASE. PM me ... David Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7191 Posts |
David, you can have my first born son, he is useless but 10 ASE's that's a heavy bounty.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
759 Posts |
The analyst in me says thanks for sharing. I'm not particularly surprised since I never thought the supply/demand characteristics of the commemorative market would make it a candidate for a best performing list. Now I'm wondering what results the same methodology would produce for a 1909-S VDB, or a 16-D and some semi-keys and commons?
I understand the effort such data presentation requires. Nice job. Looking forward to any more you might throw out for us.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1302 Posts |
David- maybe I shouldn't have been so glib... what I'm trying to determine is WHEN did the numismatic value happen? For some series it was very early after its release, for others later. There are clear winners and losers. I think if we can make sense of the numbers and what they are doing over the years- we might be able to find out the size of the hobby and how much interest is in the series. Remember value is a result of having less demand than supply.
this typically is how it works with coins- but there's another side- an industry which is constantly nudging costs higher.
The Stone Mountain is an example of being artificially priced.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
292 Posts |
Does outdated Red Book data fall under fair use? Call me crazy...or a data lover...I'd love to see a compilation of Red Book data from the 1st edition all the way up until sometime in the recent past. I can only imagine the things that could be done with a data set like that. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
Outdated catalogs with prices have some value, because relative pricing can indicate scarce grades for price, as well as scarce/rare types, and/or dates.
I would never buy a complete 4 volume set of Krause every year, I would never be able afford them. I tend to buy recent, rather than current volumes, on a rotational 5 year basis, as the opportunity arises.
Same for me with Australian catalogues.
As I noted in an earlier post, a calculator with exponential function comes in handy to incdicate a suggested current price, based on an old catalog price.
I also collect ancients. For a current price in this area, I consult the 'VCOINS' Site. On this site, there about $30 million worth of ancients currently available for sale from dealers Worldwide.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1302 Posts |
@sel 69I. One of the things I'm studying relative to a few series is WHEN numismatic value was attributed to coins. For US type coins there are obvious factors: bullion price, mintages, popularity of series... but there are also more subtle factors at play. I can't say with any certainty that any math is going to provide an answer to everything- but it is interesting to say--- coin a) appreciates at this slow, almost constant rate- therefore, this price increase must be industry perpetuated (to apply value to their commodity) vs, coin b) which had jumps in value during certain periods (which may indicate market forces at play- such as new interest in the coin, new information about the coin becoming known, the actions of a few actors trying to manipulate the market)...
your advice about the calculator is good, thank you.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
CC99999: Actually I agree in detail with all of the points you have made here.
A calculator can only provide an indication of what the current price may be. That is better than just using old catalog prices.
I occasionally buy gold coins. My technique here is to look at the AGW melt price, and look at the premium above the melt price in an old catalog, if there is no more recent information available and apply an overall inflation rate to the premium component only. The result of this is added to the current melt value.
With this figure, I do what ever I can to obtain a current price for the coin independently, with realised recent auction prices or current for sale prices. Then I consider both.
It is a way to determine if price of a coin I may be offered truly reflects current prices for that item.
Since my collection is mature, I don't have the need to look for a particular coin. This is an advantage when I submit a bid at auction, because I usually submit a low bid, and don't care if I miss out. I keeps me cash! That's OK.
If I win, THAT'S when I get excited! I know I have new treasure at a good price!
Edited by sel_69l
01/27/2012 01:09 am
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote:
Remember value is a result of having less demand than supply. this typically is how it works with coins- but there's another side- an industry which is constantly nudging costs higher. Pretty sure you have that bassackward. Quote:
The Stone Mountain is an example of being artificially priced. If someone would get behind them and promote them to Civil War buffs, they'd be valuable in a DBH. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
The problem with any of these historical trend analysis ideas is the changing of standards over time. It's interesting to say that an investment in ms65 whatever would have gained 47% a year since 1965, but meaningless if the Gem BU coins then either weren't available, or don't rate ms65 ratings today.
Salomon Brothers used to have an annual report on non-traditional investments, and every year, they'd claim that rare coins rose 30% or so a year.
So if I put away $100,000 in coins in 1980, by 2000 I'd have $19,004,963.77 worth of coins, and could sell over $5.7 million of them every year forever, without lowering the base value.
Ain't happening.
|
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 3,065 |
Posted 01/25/2012 01:38 am
