Free Updates
|
|
| Share Share this page with your friends. |
Navigation
Categories
| September, 2010 (3) |
| August, 2010 (22) |
| July, 2010 (22) |
| June, 2010 (23) |
| May, 2010 (21) |
| April, 2010 (23) |
| March, 2010 (23) |
| February, 2010 (19) |
| January, 2010 (19) |
| December, 2009 (23) |
| November, 2009 (19) |
| October, 2009 (25) |
| September, 2009 (21) |
| August, 2009 (21) |
| July, 2009 (22) |
| June, 2009 (23) |
| May, 2009 (20) |
| April, 2009 (22) |
| March, 2009 (22) |
| February, 2009 (20) |
| January, 2009 (21) |
| December, 2008 (20) |
| November, 2008 (19) |
| October, 2008 (24) |
| September, 2008 (22) |
| August, 2008 (21) |
| July, 2008 (23) |
| June, 2008 (23) |
| May, 2008 (22) |
| April, 2008 (22) |
| March, 2008 (21) |
| February, 2008 (22) |
| January, 2008 (23) |
| December, 2007 (19) |
| November, 2007 (20) |
| October, 2007 (24) |
| September, 2007 (18) |
| August, 2007 (23) |
| July, 2007 (24) |
| June, 2007 (21) |
| May, 2007 (23) |
| April, 2007 (3) |
Search
Archives
More Links
|
 Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Must have been the drive-through
Posted by Dave
I guess I haven’t been paying close enough attention to my pocket change lately.
Over the Fourth of July weekend I cleaned out the coin tray in my car in preparation for cleaning it up a bit. I didn’t think much of the process until I noticed that two of the dimes happened to be 2009-D.
They won’t make me rich, but it is certainly nice to find coins in change that have been scarce and that are trading on eBay for three or four times face value in roll quantities.
The Philadelphia Mint struck fewer than 100 million of them. The Denver Mint recorded fewer than 50 million.
With numbers like that, it is no wonder that the coins have been hard to find.
I assume that I got them on one of my automobile journeys around the area. I certainly don’t think they came into my hands in Iola.
As with all circulation finds, this proves that with patience, new coins eventually do find their way into commercial channels.
The only other interesting coin in the handful was a VF-XF 1970-S cent. Considering the wear, it would appear it has done its duty to the economy and was not set aside 40 years ago by a collector as excited about “S” mintmarks as I was back then.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010 2:14:55 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00) 
|
|
Friday, July 02, 2010
Examine all the coins you can
Posted by Dave
I just found another reason to go to the American Numismatic Association World’s Fair of Money in August in Boston.
It is not as if I need another reason, but it adds to the appeal of the event.
The U.S. Mint has set Aug. 12 as the day it will release the new one-ounce platinum proof American Eagle.
I would like to take a look at it. It is part of the Preamble series. This year the theme is to “Establish Justice.” Last year’s was to “Form a More Perfect Union.”
Am I planning to buy? No, not at all.
Platinum is $1,500 an ounce today. The idea of committing to a six-part series at that price level doesn’t appeal to me.
I don’t know anybody on staff who is planning to buy one either, so I won’t get a look at the coin in the office.
Boston it is.
That’s the beauty of going to a national convention. It is important to see things. The old saying “seeing is believing” should be changed for collectors to “seeing is learning.”
Actually examining real coins is what makes us better collectors. It is unrealistic of me to expect to own everything, but it is not unrealistic of me to think that I might be writing about every coin over time.
That’s why it is so important to examine the exhibits and look over what is being sold on the bourse floor.
The same applies to local shows. Sometimes they are even better than national shows. Where else can you ask a dealer what he thinks the difference is between an MS-61 and an MS-62 silver Washington quarter?
I’m not likely to ask that question at a national convention.
Every type of coin show has its opportunities. The key is to attend enough of them to take advantage of the many learning opportunities that occur at these shows over time.
You will be a better collector for it.
Friday, July 02, 2010 2:19:40 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Don't offend the states
Posted by Dave
In the topsy-turvy world of current U.S. coin production we find that 2010-dated Presidential dollars are being struck in quantities larger than the America the Beautiful program for each individual design.
The quantity of 2010 Millard Fillmore dollars struck is 74,480,000. For the next one, the one for Franklin Pierce, the quantity was even a bit higher at 75,580,000.
In comparison , the Hot Springs quarter, the first design of five for 2010, the total was 59.6 million.
Interestingly, if you look at the numbers another way there seems to be a pattern here, though it could be a total accident, or random circumstance.
When you consider that there are four Presidential dollars during the year and five America the Beautiful quarters, they just happen to add up to about 300 million coins apiece.
The next round of figures could knock this neat relationship into a cocked hat. Those are the risks of trying to perhaps read more into the numbers than is there.
But I will be watching to see if the pattern continues. As regular readers know, one of my pet theories is that watching coin production levels is a good way to tell how the economy is doing.
While 300 million Presidential dollars is a pretty good number for an economy that really doesn’t like the denomination, the same number of quarters seems more an indication that some quantity needs to be produced at a minimum to honor the intent of the commemorative series.
It wouldn’t do to zero out a design or two just because the economy doesn't need the coins. The affected states would soon become the disaffected states.
Thursday, July 01, 2010 2:26:18 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Hot Springs quarter not a hot prospect
Posted by Dave
Have you found a Hot Springs, Ark., America the Beautiful quarter yet?
I have not.
Some Numismatic News readers have reported the new quarter in their change.
It usually takes a while for new designs to work their way to Iola, Wis., so I ordinarily would not be thinking about this yet, but my publisher, Scott Tappa, put the word out to all staff members this past week that he would like to see one and inquired if any one of us had one.
He had no luck.
As evidence of what is circulating around here in the past week I can report that I got two shiny new Guam quarters in one transaction at a large chain store in a nearby city. All the other coins were state quarters or the older eagle-reverse design.
Guam was the third design of six issues from last year’s District of Columbia and U.S. Territories offerings.
If the Guam quarters are any indication of the future, I am not likely to see a Hot Springs coin in anything other than a Mint-produced set before we celebrate the July 4th holiday in 2011.
Sorry, Scott.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:02:22 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Being talked about is great
Posted by Dave
It is good that my blog is being read by some people who are prominent in numismatics. I appreciate it.
I had an e-mail waiting for me this morning from Donald Scarinci of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee and he sent a tweet last night during the meeting of this body that was being held in Colorado Springs, Colo., during the American Numismatic Association Summer Seminar.
His tweet: I just corrected Dave Harper’s blog comment that suggests that the CFA and the CCAC blame Congress for proliferation causing quality issues.”
I thank him for thinking that my blog comments of last Friday need correcting.
I don’t think they do. I stand by them.
At root is the basic question: what is the difference between a blog and a news story?
There is a big difference.
My blog is my blog. I do not claim that what I post here is a news story, though certainly having news in the blog is a good thing.
A blog is my opinion about news.
His e-mail asked this:
“Wherever did you get this from:
“‘They would rather point the finger at Congress, current legal statutes and Mint processes.’"
He then continued:
“Both the CFA and the CCAC are blaming the Mint processes for the lack of excellence in coin design. We are not blaming Congress or any statutes. The fault is with the Mint and if we, the CFA, are unable to do anything to help solve the problem, then we too are part of the problem. Gary Marks said that in his remarks tonight.
“We had a productive meeting tonight. For the first time since it was created by Congress, the CCAC formed a subcommittee to propose a process to create excellence in coin design. It was a historic meeting. Take a look at my tweets when you get a chance.
“I mentioned your blog at the meeting, tweeted my comment, and made it very clear that the CCAC is not blaming Congress.
“It’s good to have this dialog and it certainly helps generate interest and attention to coin designs. :) It’s a good thing.”
He signed it, “Donald.”
It wasn't a particularly long e-mail, but it seems longer here.
I support Donald’s goal of improving the artistic quality of American coins. I think most collectors do.
The only way he can do so is to attack the Mint processes, because as I wrote, Congress cannot be challenged and the statutes will not change.
It is absolutely necessary to understand that background. If you don’t, the current CCAC effort makes no sense.
If dissatisfaction with coin designs had not been chronic in those bodies for many years, prompting many a cry of frustration of having to do what Congress wants and working with all of the legally mandated inscriptions by members, you would then think the sole motivation for the effort last night simply was a bad batch of designs shown at the May meetings.
That certainly isn’t the case.
How do you communicate all of this in a blog sentence or two?
I think I did that last Friday with what I wrote.
The fact that this blog post is already very long is a perfect demonstration of the necessity of distilling issues to their barest essence in an ordinary blog post.
Tomorrow, I promise to be brief.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:58:16 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, June 28, 2010
Keep us on our toes
Posted by Dave
Know the exercise where you repeatedly stand on your tiptoes?
I thought of that this morning as I find that access to the Internet is down
and I have a couple of e-mails asking why an e-newsletter story on Friday
mentioned Morgan dollars in the headline but the image with it was a Peace
dollar.
There is nothing I can do about the Internet. When you read this blog you
will know that somehow or other the problem was corrected. That's a step
forward.
As for the other question, I have more control.
How do you say "oops" gracefully?
Somewhere along the production route for the e-newsletter what was intended to be a Morgan dollar image turned into a Peace dollar image.
I know the process of transformation isn't magic, so it becomes a matter of
trying to figure out how it happened.
This process is something like doing those exercises yet again of standing
on tiptoes to get those muscles working properly.
Up, down.
Up, down.
Up, down.
You get the idea. It isn't pretty, but it is what is needed to continue to
achieve proper outcomes.
Fortunately, readers care enough about the e-newsletter to want to keep me
and everyone else here in Iola on our toes.
Up, down.
Up, down.
Up, down.
I can feel those muscles toning already.
Monday, June 28, 2010 5:23:18 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Friday, June 25, 2010
Let's fight over great art
Posted by Dave
What’s the best way to improve coin designs? That is a logical question to ask in the wake of news that the Commission of Fine Arts and members of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee are dissatisfied with what they are seeing.
Both CFA and CCAC take great pains to point out that they have no quarrel with the artists themselves.
They would rather point the finger at Congress, current legal statutes and Mint processes.
That might prove satisfying psychologically, but can it lead to anything productive?
Is Congress likely to stop approving coins for pet causes or mandating detailed instructions for what a coin should look like?
Not likely.
The national legislature is going to determine what is and what is not worthy of commemoration. That is fixed.
Legal statutes mandate that “In God We Trust,” “Liberty” and “E Pluribus Unum” appear on coins as well as the date.
A collector inspired experiment with the placement of these mottoes on the edge of the Presidential dollar to allow artists greater design freedom on obverse and reverse caused a political backlash that Congress won’t soon forget.
It proved when it came to “In God We Trust,” the American public of 2007 is no different than the American public of 1907.
And even had there been no backlash, are the Presidential designs of 2007 and 2008 any better art than state quarters or their Sacagawea dollar predecessor?
What about Mint processes?
Imagine trying to keep everyone happy in Congress, in the Treasury, the CFA, the CCAC, the minting facilities and the collector community?
This is not an easy task, especially since being a public servant means that unreasonable objections to things seem to get as much or even more weight than reasonable objections.
At the end of the day, little will change. The tug-of-war among all of the interested parties will continue.
The miracle will be as it always has been that collectors will look at the designs of the last 10 years from a perspective of 50 years in the future and will declare a few of these modern designs to be great art.
It won’t matter that those of us today can’t agree on any of it.
President Theodore Roosevelt didn’t get many thank-you notes for taking “In God We Trust” off the redesigned gold coins, but it was his intervention that caused posterity to recognize his contribution to the creation of great art by Augustus Saint-Gaudens.
Friday, June 25, 2010 2:15:45 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Hot or cold? You tell me.
Posted by Dave
Is the rate of sales of the new proof 2010 Buffalo gold coins a signal that the market is hot or cold?
You be the judge.
Through June 20, the U.S. Mint reports that 19,519 have been sold since sales began June 3.
This compares to 19,468 sold in the first three days when the 2009 proofs went on the market last October.
However, last year’s sales rate slowed down and it took a full five months to vend 49,388 of the proof 2009 coins.
Will sales of the 2010 proofs reach a similar level five months after the June 3 opening date, or is the present pace indicative of a lesser level of demand?
What do you think?
Before you give your answer, remember that last year’s offering commenced at the height of the collecting season while June is traditionally a part of the period of time that often is called the summer business doldrums.
Collectors are not machines. They do like to get away for a vacation now and then.
But when they come back, will those who have not yet purchased a proof 2010 gold Buffalo make up for lost time and buy one?
There.
Now, you can respond.
Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:11:50 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
An ounce of advantage
Posted by Dave
Back in the 1970s, the Krugerrand grabbed the attention of gold buyers by claiming it was the best way to own gold.
Buyers leaped at the chance to buy a coin that was a convenient one troy ounce in gold weight. Whatever the headline price of gold is, that’s the metallic value of the coin, because market prices are quoted in troy ounces.
This convenience was and still is critical to the success of bullion coins.
That’s why the size it was copied by other major world mints, such as the Royal Canadian Mint, U.S. Mint and Austrian Mint. They all created their own one-ounce bullion coins.
For many years, my firm has provided gold and silver value charts to list the value of the metal content of various coins that are not even troy weights at various prices of bullion.
This isn’t quite as handy as buying one-ounce coins, but it is not bad.
The importance of convenience recently was emphasized in my own mind when a middle-aged fellow approached me at the Numismatists of Wisconsin show held in May in Iola.
He wanted to load his computer with value information for standard U.S. silver coins struck before 1965.
I told him the easiest way was to figure that $1 face value in these dimes, quarters or half dollars equaled a silver content of 0.715 troy ounces (coins are a tad heavier when coming off the press, but for many years coin dealers have used this figure to account for the average wear on the coins).
You take this number and multiply it by the day’s silver price.
For example, silver as I write this is $18.87 per ounce. Multiply that figure by .715 and you get $13.49 in silver value for $1 face value of these coins.
Well, what would it be for the half dollar, he asked?
I said it would be half the amount.
He looked blank.
Well, what would it be for the dime?
I replied it would be a tenth of the amount.
He looked blank.
Well, what’s the quarter?
I said it would be a quarter of the amount.
He looked blank.
He had a pad of paper and a pen in his hand and he had started writing as the conversation commenced, but he just could not pick up on the math.
One-ounce coins?
You’d better believe they have the advantage in the market.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:33:07 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Prices
Posted by Dave
Prices are the mother's milk of numismatics. Most collectors faithfully follow the values of their holdings and the coins they hope to buy. They scour price guides such as Coin Market and helpfully point out typos to me when a decimal place is accidentally moved and the like, or when one price guide seems to be significantly different from another on one coin or another.
With so much focus on prices, it has always been a wonder to me that some buyers seem to willfully ignore all of the data and experience out there.
The traditional ignorer of the wisdom of pricing is the buyer who thinks he is getting a deal when he pays half or less of catalog value. Usually these bargains turn out to be overgraded or doctored coins and their values are usually less than what was actually paid. The old line about there being no Santa Claus in numismatics is true.
The other ignorer of pricing information seems to be the excited gold buyer who didn't know he wanted ever to own gold last week, last month or last year but the headlines about record prices finally got his attention. He has no more knowledge of the market than what has been published in the price guides of the last week or two.
It seems to me that this is the kind of buyer who is paying $2,135 for the proof one-ounce gold American Eagles listed on the first page of our monthly Coin Market price guide. That works out to a premium of nearly 75 percent over bullion value. There is nothing inherently wrong with paying a premium over bullion for a scarce coin, but when these prices are being paid for coins that in less exciting times were selling essentially for the price of the metal in them, it is likely that the buyers are going to be seriously disappointed when the premiums over bullion value return to normal levels.
That day will come and then I will be contacted by people who will be upset to learn that they overpaid to get into the market. They will point to today's price guide price, which they checked. I will respond that the price guide price was an accurate reflection of the market when the information was compiled. The guides don't control what is paid, they only report current activity. Right now buyers are paying those high premiums for what had previously been considered common proof gold coins.
It is hard to make money even on a good potential investment when the entry price point is already way too high. Even when the price guides report a value, it also helps to check the past and see if there is any historical reason why premiums should be so high.
Over the long run, historical pricing relationships matter as much as current prices in any buying decision and longtime collectors know this.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:24:49 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
|