| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 3,521 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
629 Posts |
Those of us who subscribe to CCN, we like to review the trends to see if we have to pay more for our coins or if the value of our collection has increased or decreased.
But is trends published too often?
Perhaps only have the list once a month rather than twice? This would allow for more information to be gathered during that time and honestly, I like to read and re-read the commentary on how the prices are determined.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1554 Posts |
 I agree 100% that it should only be published periodically, even once every 3 months. Let's face it, "how often do Trend prices change?" And when they do, it's not like the prices skyrocket or make any significant difference to most coins. After all The Charlton Catalogue comes out only once a year (July/August) and seems to keep up with whatever the trend price maybe +/- a few bucks. I would prefer to read more articles in the C.C.N. , after all the trend section of C.C.N. takes up five pages. Can you imagine how much more neat information can be published on coins. Even to pick a random collector and do a Biography on his/her collection; ie: how they got started, what prompted them to collect, what they collect, etc!! Food for thought>  HMMMMMMMMMM, I must e-mail the C.C.N. trends Editor and ask him if He would consider this? Glenn |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1581 Posts |
I suppose it all depends on the ratio of subscribers to casual purchasers. If someone buys every few months to get the trends, they are going to have to make sure they are hitting the right issue. If it sells out before they get one, they have to wait months and not just two weeks to get the next trends issue.
What are needed are more in-depth articles/commentaries specifically on the trends. I was very much enjoying Michael's commentaries, but it would be nice if dealers were interviewed about what they are seeing. Where think things are going.
To me, one major missing factor in many lists is the relative rarity. Certainly that could be discussed and included on occasion. So, some completely different tables sometimes.
Blaise has interesting commentary on Survival Rates in his latest book where it talks about large cents. He makes a compelling argument that the statistics seem to point to a false mintage number for 1858. That if they made 1,000,000 1858 dated coins in 1859 but reported them as 1859 mintage, then that would explain why 1858 seems to have so many more survivors statistically than other large cents.
Rather than throw out prices at the time, I'd like to see CCN start doing some such analysis.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
Pretty tough to do detective work on such a cold trail. I'd rather have facts than speculation personally, but I acknowledge it makes a great discussion over a beer.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
629 Posts |
Another thought to keep readership up at CCN, perhaps do cents, nickels and dimes, then quarters, halves, dollars and then paper money and Newfoundland, proofs.
Anybody who is a collector should be reading CCN, it's the best newspaper in the industry as far as I am concerned.
I find that most people who are starting out with collecting will probably buy a Charlton catalog first and then decide whether to invest in the CCN to stay current.
But honestly, if they are going to start changing trends with a committee then why not change the time period of reporting as well.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1349 Posts |
In 2007 I copyrighted and published a well researched, detailed, and compelling case that the mintage of 1858 cents was approximately 1.5 million coins. Perhaps Mr. Blais footnoted it in his publication.
|
|
Moderator
 Canada
10456 Posts |
Quote:
dialog_gvf said: Blaise has interesting commentary on Survival Rates in his latest book where it talks about large cents. He makes a compelling argument that the statistics seem to point to a false mintage number for 1858. That if they made 1,000,000 1858 dated coins in 1859 but reported them as 1859 mintage, then that would explain why 1858 seems to have so many more survivors statistically than other large cents. Being a scientist, and in tune with various forms of statistics, I am curious as to what 'statistics' were used to make that compelling argument. Frankly, I would rather trust the extensive research described in Rob Turner's books when it comes to the 1858-1859 series. Nobody has studied the 1858 dies and mintage reports from The Royal Mint deeper than Rob has. By the way, it was Mr. Turner who first stated that some of the 1858 coins were reported as 1859 mintages. "Discovery follows discovery, each both raising and answering questions, each ending a long search, and each providing the new instruments for a new search." -- J. Robert OppenheimerContent of this post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses...0/deed.en_USMy eBay store
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1349 Posts |
Actually, it was Fred Bowman who first said that the 1858 mintage and the 1859 mintage were both included in the 10 million Provincial cent mintage number published by The Royal Mint. He wrote that over 50 years ago. He calculated the 1858 mintage at 400,000 from a footnote in a much later mint report that reported 9.6 million cents coined in 1859. He deducted 9.6 million from 10 million to get to 400,000. In 2007 I published that both the 10 million and the 400,000 are wrong. I'll leave the explanation of why to those who read the book. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
I think the accounting was so atrocious and theft so prevalent that no one has any real idea of how many of anything were minted in the UK. The lousy quality of the pour that resulted in the brass penny should be a clue. Even that mint had better metallurgists than that.
I don't believe any of the records. Not one. Nor do I believe any written explanation based on them because none of them take into account the social facts of the time; corruption was rampant and graft was the rule of the day. It's like ignoring the fact that the sun rises.
No offense intended for the strong opinion.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1349 Posts |
None taken, but I think it is a little short-sighted to form such an opinion when you have no idea upon what the conclusion was based.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
183 Posts |
Michael Findlay is stepping down soon,maybe you guys should take over.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
No short sightedness required, I stated specifically that conclusions based on PUBLISHED figures were unreliable in my personal opinion and I did not discount by saying this any conclusions that were based on other factors. New data is always relevant to one degree or another.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
@David,
Uhm, no. I retired once. That's pretty much enough :)
Again, it's much more fun to debate these things over a beer where we realize that the hops quality that year is much more important and we can see the body language and jest incorporated in these musings.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1349 Posts |
Point taken.
I wouldn't like the Trends job very much. Strict deadlines, dealers want high prices, collectors want low prices, flucuating bullion prices affecting many issues, NCLT after market pricing = thankless job I think. Ric, Mike, and anybody else who does it has my respect.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
183 Posts |
I heard the pay is low,the headaches are high,and lots of B.S. from dealers and some collectors,i seen Mike at a coin show.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
629 Posts |
What does population report of the 1858/1859 large cent have to do with this topic?
The topic here has to do with the frequency of trends being published in the CCN.
I suppose you just like to make comments on obscure things to show that you don't read the topic, just want to express an opinion?
|
| |
Replies: 21 / Views: 3,521 |
Posted 05/02/2011 1:26 pm
