Experts, please critique this collecting strategy

Experts, please critique this collecting strategy

Post by mike » Sun, 07 Feb 1999 04:00:00



Quote:

> Assuming all coins would be PCGS graded, and using PCGS pop reports, I
> would like to know if anyone feels whether this is a good idea, a bad
> idea, or what? (From the investment perspective- as I stated, it
> already appeals to me from the pleasure standpoint) I'm sure I'm not
> the first to think of this strategy, and I recognise I am too
> inexperienced to judge for myself the value of this idea.

I am also inexperienced in this area, but It would seem to me that pop
reports aren't the way to go. i would get to know the history of coins in
america, find out what's becoming rather hard to find, and if it was not
an extensively hoarded coin, and NOT something too modern. people who
speculate too much in modern coins get nipped in the bud too often (1960
small date lincolns, 1950d nickles, 95 double die lincs. etc...) they can
occasionally be very profitable but all too often not.)

I would go after higher end two cent peices, and three cent peices.

Oh, you can also buy up as many Jeff Nickles as you want in high grades,
B/C I have a super mega awesome collection of them already, otherwise,
stay out of Roosie dimes, Wheat cents, and Wash Quarters. Them's mine! :-)

 
 
 

Experts, please critique this collecting strategy

Post by Rick Cla » Mon, 08 Feb 1999 04:00:00


Dear All,

I am investigating various collecting ideas and keep coming up against
a wall wherein the key coins of the series that appeal to me are just
too far out of my financial reach. But I have noticed that if one
takes a less correlated approach, one can find many randomly selected
very low population coins in high quality states. For instance,
whereas I may not be able to afford that key $2 1/2 gold Indian to
fill out that gold Indian collection, I can easily find an 1850's half
penny in MS65 with a population of 14 at a price I *can* afford. Then
a buffalo nickel in MS66 with a pop of 35, etc.

It seems to me, that if I followed a strategy of picking out only
affordable low population coins, I could build up a very interesting
(to me) collection of great rarity. The lack of a good, complete theme
I recognise would keep it from having the added value of ever being a
complete set, but based on the oft-repeated advice to invest in
rarity+condition for best investment potential, it seems like a good
idea for long-term profit.

Assuming all coins would be PCGS graded, and using PCGS pop reports, I
would like to know if anyone feels whether this is a good idea, a bad
idea, or what? (From the investment perspective- as I stated, it
already appeals to me from the pleasure standpoint) I'm sure I'm not
the first to think of this strategy, and I recognise I am too
inexperienced to judge for myself the value of this idea.

Thanks in advance to any and all who reply.

Rick Clark

 
 
 

Experts, please critique this collecting strategy

Post by SJCOHEN7 » Mon, 08 Feb 1999 04:00:00


I would NOT suggest you use POP report numbers as the basis of determining
value. You will note that the PCGS POP report for a 1995D Lincoln Cent is only
14 as of July,1998 report. Why anyone would spend $10 + registered mail to slab
this coin amazes me, however, the point is don't use POP numbers to determine
if you should collect a given coin.
 
 
 

Experts, please critique this collecting strategy

Post by Aram H. Haroutuni » Mon, 08 Feb 1999 04:00:00


Hi, Rick.  I am no expert, so my free advice is worth what you have
paid.  I think population reports are silly.  From huge quantities of
unrecorded resubmissions for upgrades where one grading point might
mean several thousand dollars profit- to non-submission of coins not
worth slabbing resulting in low populations not because of rarity, but
because the coin isn't worth slabbing,  this approach is rife with
problems, IMHO.  Add the games that grading companies play, and it is
probably even more of a ***shoot than buying raw coins.  The key is
probably to become a very competent grader yourself, and then to
become as expert as possible in one or two series.  Cherrypicking is a
lot of fun, and, in the long run, can be profitable.  All IMHO.  HTH
Aram.
========================================
Quote:

>Dear All,

>I am investigating various collecting ideas and keep coming up against
>a wall wherein the key coins of the series that appeal to me are just
>too far out of my financial reach. But I have noticed that if one
>takes a less correlated approach, one can find many randomly selected
>very low population coins in high quality states. For instance,
>whereas I may not be able to afford that key $2 1/2 gold Indian to
>fill out that gold Indian collection, I can easily find an 1850's half
>penny in MS65 with a population of 14 at a price I *can* afford. Then
>a buffalo nickel in MS66 with a pop of 35, etc.

>It seems to me, that if I followed a strategy of picking out only
>affordable low population coins, I could build up a very interesting
>(to me) collection of great rarity. The lack of a good, complete theme
>I recognise would keep it from having the added value of ever being a
>complete set, but based on the oft-repeated advice to invest in
>rarity+condition for best investment potential, it seems like a good
>idea for long-term profit.

>Assuming all coins would be PCGS graded, and using PCGS pop reports, I
>would like to know if anyone feels whether this is a good idea, a bad
>idea, or what? (From the investment perspective- as I stated, it
>already appeals to me from the pleasure standpoint) I'm sure I'm not
>the first to think of this strategy, and I recognise I am too
>inexperienced to judge for myself the value of this idea.

>Thanks in advance to any and all who reply.

>Rick Clark

 
 
 

Experts, please critique this collecting strategy

Post by JSTONE93 » Mon, 08 Feb 1999 04:00:00


For a really interesting challenge try collecting Barber dimes, quarters and
halves in VF or EF condition.   These usually
aren't in population reports but many are
just plain scarce to find it these grades.

Some are extremely expensive but most
are not out of sight in price.

 
 
 

Experts, please critique this collecting strategy

Post by John D'Amic » Mon, 08 Feb 1999 04:00:00


Rick,

Aram's remarks re; grading services are pretty much on the money.  Another
point to consider is in the case of high grade nineteeth century type, say
stars dimes and no-motto quarters, both are truely scarce with extremely low
pop figures, but with perhaps a more limited collector base.  The pop
reports may be more accurate on these, than say twentieth century type, but
the twentieth century stuff has a larger collector base.  Also there is much
more of a likelyhood that more twentieth century stuff is still out there
raw waiting to be slabbed that nine***th century material.  So do you go
with the more popular twentieth century stuff, in highly collected series
like standing quarters and mercury dimes, or with the much rarer but less
heavily collected nine***th century material?  That's a choice you have to
make.  By way of example, BTW, a 1916 standing quarter in 65 brings far more
than an 1847 seated quarter in 65 even though the 1847 quarter is far rarer,
check out the pop report. Regards,( I'm not an expert either),

John

 
 
 

Experts, please critique this collecting strategy

Post by Rick Cla » Mon, 08 Feb 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

>I would NOT suggest you use POP report numbers as the basis of determining
>value. You will note that the PCGS POP report for a 1995D Lincoln Cent is only
>14 as of July,1998 report. Why anyone would spend $10 + registered mail to slab
>this coin amazes me, however, the point is don't use POP numbers to determine
>if you should collect a given coin.

I appreciate that warning, and it of course makes perfect sense. But I
wasn't going in the direction of very inexpensive common coins that
are slabbed. Most of the kinds of coins I am mulling over are in the
$500-$2500 range, in which slabbing should make sense.

RC