Jump to content
BruinersCoins

Shift the focus!

Recommended Posts

BruinersCoins

Whilst I know that we can't just ignore scarce coins of 1965 and 1931, I however feel that it is time we start developing the other interesting themes in this country. Only 1000 or so people can own a 1965 Afrikaans 1 Cent. Should we not do more to educate, promote, share????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
13 hours ago, BruinersCoins said:

Whilst I know that we can't just ignore scarce coins of 1965 and 1931, I however feel that it is time we start developing the other interesting themes in this country. Only 1000 or so people can own a 1965 Afrikaans 1 Cent. Should we not do more to educate, promote, share????

There are almost certainly somewhat fewer than 1000 1965 Afrikaans cents but given that the collector base (as opposed to financial buyer "investors") in your country might number only 10,000, it might be enough for slightly less than one in 10, not exactly that difficult for most existing collectors to acquire it.  It's actually a far more common and available coin in the quality most collectors want to buy than most Union and many ZAR.

It is a relatively scarce coin in absolute numbers but it's a narrow scarcity, as there are many more with the English legend which makes it a minor sub-type similar to a die variety.  It is also one of the most overpriced coins in the entire South African series given it's relative availability and it isn't in the same league as the 1931 silver.

What other coins do you have in mind?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BruinersCoins

Hi J,

I don't have all the answers, but if one looks across the various platforms where South African coins and Banknotes are traded, then one can't but wonder why other themes around collecting are not marketed with the same vigour as the 1965 Afrikaans Cent or Rand or English 50 Cent!

 

There are 1000's of themes? Are we not making coin or banknote collecting a "sport of kings" again?

 

The 1965 Afrikaans 1 Cent, in my view is way undervalued. For a coin with such historical importance, it should be worth at least $2000 in MS. But, we will get there....

 

I am not implying for one instance that South African coin and banknote collecting is stagnating. No, it is actually in a very exciting stage at present. My worry is what are we doing for the future!

 

 

Edited by BruinersCoins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GROOVIE COINS

Not too long ago Pierre gave the numbers on the top 10 scarce tickeys in MS, all ranging from ZAR to 1930's and all with numbers below 35. All very scarce but ask a casual coin collector to name the years and you'll see not many have those dates memorised. 

It's evident how these coins have been overlooked, as for so long the focus has only been on the 1931 tickey. I remember those coin adds they used to run in the You and Huisgenoot magazines. The common rarities (1931 tickey, 1965 rand, cent, 50c along with pre 77) were the only coins that ever got advertising space.

So it's interesting to see how indeed there has been a shift in focus 50 years down the line since the second decimals were introduced. I think the fact that the second decimals were killed off in 1990 also plays a part in their lack of collectability as new members introduced to the sport through the Madiba series. Many new players aren't showing interest in the previous nickel series, so whether it will still be the case a decade from now remains to be seen.

regards Robert

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
4 hours ago, BruinersCoins said:

Hi J,

I don't have all the answers, but if one looks across the various platforms where South African coins and Banknotes are traded, then one can't but wonder why other themes around collecting are not marketed with the same vigour as the 1965 Afrikaans Cent or Rand or English 50 Cent!

 

There are 1000's of themes? Are we not making coin or banknote collecting a "sport of kings" again?

 

The 1965 Afrikaans 1 Cent, in my view is way undervalued. For a coin with such historical importance, it should be worth at least $2000 in MS. But, we will get there....

 

I am not implying for one instance that South African coin and banknote collecting is stagnating. No, it is actually in a very exciting stage at present. My worry is what are we doing for the future!

 

 

Like other contributors with whom I have exchanged posts with on this forum, you have an inflated opinion of the desirability of your coinage.  And when I mean other, I mean practically everyone who has ever commented on a similar theme on this forum.  $2000 USD for a 1965 Afrikaans cent in any MS grade when the NGC census is over 100?  Seriously?

The coin is historically important?  What is so significant about it?  I already know the answer that there isn't anything, just as with practically every single other coin ever struck.  In the US where I live, US collectors make the same claim, even as those who know better concurrently know that other than existing, coins overwhelmingly have nothing to do with the events of the time.  It is pure contrived exaggeration to inflate the merits of a coin someone likes and the price level, not anything else.

As I explained to you in my last post, the coin isn't actually even relatively scarce versus many other South African coins, not in a quality which most collectors actually want to buy.

My prediction is that the coin will never reach $2000 USD as an MS-60, not in today's purchasing power.  In other words, I will take the "under" on your claim.  The only way it will happen is if someone intentionally chooses to inflate the value for no reason whatsoever by manipulating the price since it's easy enough to do.  If it happens, it won't last because real collectors aren't going to want it badly enough given its merits as a collectible and the supply..

The reason it won't happen is because:

One: The coin isn't remotely compelling enough to sell for this price when other much better coins (even within the broader South African series) sell for much less.

Two: Every scarce or rare South African coin cannot sell for a "high" price or "moon money" without turning collecting in your country into "widget" trading.  As I have commented numerous times, like many other countries (excluding those with long term numismatic traditions), South Africa has an outsized proportion which are scarce or rare especially when using a contrived standard such as the TPG grade.  All of these coins cannot sell at a level which prices out most of the real collector base if it leaves them with little or almost nothing they want to buy.

Three:  If the posts on this forum are representative of collecting in your country (which almost certainly is true to some extent) there isn't enough interest in actual collecting to remotely achieve the price expectations in your post and all others on this forum with a similar theme.  I make this comment because only real collectors derive any utility from collecting, not anyone else.

Not trying to be difficult since I haven't exchanged posts with you but what you have written in this topic doesn't have anything to do with collecting and everything to do with financial buying.  Marketing your coinage as an "investment" to (potential) financial buyers who aren't even real collectors isn't going to result in the outcome you imply.  That's what the prior bubble peak which ended in 2011 represented.  The reason for this is because it's evident an outsized percentage of those buyers have a weak or no affinity for actual collecting whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
1 hour ago, GROOVIE MOVIES said:

Not too long ago Pierre gave the numbers on the top 10 scarce tickeys in MS, all ranging from ZAR to 1930's and all with numbers below 35. All very scarce but ask a casual coin collector to name the years and you'll see not many have those dates memorised. 

It's evident how these coins have been overlooked, as for so long the focus has only been on the 1931 tickey. I remember those coin adds they used to run in the You and Huisgenoot magazines. The common rarities (1931 tickey, 1965 rand, cent, 50c along with pre 77) were the only coins that ever got advertising space.

So it's interesting to see how indeed there has been a shift in focus 50 years down the line since the second decimals were introduced. I think the fact that the second decimals were killed off in 1990 also plays a part in their lack of collectability as new members introduced to the sport through the Madiba series. Many new players aren't showing interest in the previous nickel series, so whether it will still be the case a decade from now remains to be seen.

regards Robert

 

Your theme in this post is similar to any number I have read on the NGC or PCGS forums.

There is no possibility that every scarce or rare South African coin won't be overlooked using your implied definition.  On US coin forums, I have seen the same theme posted for any number of coins.  Most are common but some are not.  This includes "modern" non-US coinage generically, US base metal coinage post 1964, (silver) Washington US quarters, (silver) US FDR dimes, Sarawak cents, Mexican Libertad (an NCLT bullion "coin"), the US "Ike" dollar (1971-1978), pre-1858 Liberty Seated coinage... See the pattern?

Are all these coins supposed to be worth a lot more?  If some, why not the others?  If all are, then what exactly  is the traditional collector supposed to buy that they can still afford?  Are they supposed to find the "leftovers" compelling enough when it's obvious these financial proponents don't want this coinage?  The implication is that the "leftovers" are compelling enough for everyone else but it's evident not for those who make these claims.

Let me use the pillar coinage I collect to illustrate your theme on the tickeys since it's my primary (really only) coinage I collect now and to illustrate I am not "knocking" your coinage.  These coins aren't ever going to be worth prices reflective of the absolute or even relative scarcity either.  Here is why it won't happen:

One: Collectors don't collect in a vacuum and will opt to buy something else if it becomes  (a lot more) expensive than the competing alternatives or what they are used to paying..

Two: Any series with disproportionate or extreme scarcity discourages collectors from even bothering to start.  With the pillars from any mint but especially excluding Mexico, there aren't enough decent (never mind "high" quality) examples for hardly anyone.  There are many dates I have never seen even once and this is in 16 years of collecting it.  It's not a question of finding one I like, but finding it at all.  Purportedly, the 1767 Peru 1/2 real had a mintage of 1,040,000 yet mine is a cleaned VG with minor rim damage and the one or two others I recall also looked terrible, as in holed.

Three: Disproportionate scarcity across the board results in a lower price level than would otherwise exist.  The reason for this is that the scarcity is due to a lack of a collecting tradition in the past and even if it changes (which evidence overwhelmingly proves it doesn't), there isn't enough supply for any "critical" mass to buy.  There can be no noticeable "growth" in the collector base for pillars or for Union because the coins don't exist in sufficient supply in the minimum quality collectors will accept.

Edited by jwither

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GROOVIE COINS
18 minutes ago, jwither said:

Your theme in this post is similar to any number I have read on the NGC or PCGS forums.

There is no possibility that every scarce or rare South African coin won't be overlooked using your implied definition.  On US coin forums, I have seen the same theme posted for any number of coins.  Most are common but some are not.  This includes "modern" non-US coinage generically, US base metal coinage post 1964, (silver) Washington US quarters, (silver) US FDR dimes, Sarawak cents, Mexican Libertad (an NCLT bullion "coin"), the US "Ike" dollar (1971-1978), pre-1858 Liberty Seated coinage... See the pattern?

Are all these coins supposed to be worth a lot more?  If some, why not the others?  If all are, then what exactly  is the traditional collector supposed to buy that they can still afford?  Are they supposed to find the "leftovers" compelling enough when it's obvious these financial proponents don't want this coinage?  The implication is that the "leftovers" are compelling enough for everyone else but it's evident not for those who make these claims.

Let me use the pillar coinage I collect to illustrate your theme on the tickeys since it's my primary (really only) coinage I collect now and to illustrate I am not "knocking" your coinage.  These coins aren't ever going to be worth prices reflective of the absolute or even relative scarcity either.  Here is why it won't happen:

One: Collectors don't collect in a vacuum and will opt to buy something else if it becomes  (a lot more) expensive than the competing alternatives or what they are used to paying..

Two: Any series with disproportionate or extreme scarcity discourages collectors from even bothering to start.  With the pillars from any mint but especially excluding Mexico, there aren't enough decent (never mind "high" quality) examples for hardly anyone.  There are many dates I have never seen even once and this is in 16 years of collecting it.  It's not a question of finding one I like, but finding it at all.  Purportedly, the 1767 Peru 1/2 real had a mintage of 1,040,000 yet mine is a cleaned VG with minor rim damage and the one or two others I recall also looked terrible, as in holed.

Three: Disproportionate scarcity across the board results in a lower price level than would otherwise exist.  The reason for this is that the scarcity is due to a lack of a collecting tradition in the past and even if it changes (which evidence overwhelmingly proves it doesn't), there isn't enough supply for any "critical" mass to buy.  There can be no noticeable "growth" in the collector base for pillars or for Union because the coins don't exist in sufficient supply in the minimum quality collectors will accept.

To answer your question if they are supposed to be worth more? Simply put, no. That would mean these coins would be once again unaffordable to averages joes as they were in the past. When you look at stupendous asking prices for 1931 tickeys, such as the worn down, scratched up specimen being listed on BOB for R100 000 you have to ask what warrants such price? Marketing and notoriety over many decades is the only justification. Even people who knew nothing about coins could tell you 1931 tickey was the coin to be had. 

It just so happens that a few coins in MS are extremely hard to get hold of and that should be noteworthy, but it's hardly the case. As I have mentioned before with scarcity of the 1935 tickey MS, is something that you find out while collecting. 

Why did I decide to start a 1935 collection? I wanted a nice king George V set with all the details, and to me it was logical that it was a high mintage year across all denominations as well as a later year would be easier to collect. I'm happy I didn't start with 1925!

Is it worth it to wait until the best looking but also affordable tickey comes along? Absolutely! I thought it was in my grasp when people started listing multiple higher grade coins recently, but it turns out there is a higher demand for good looking coins that I didn't expect. Did I make any compromises? Yes, I settled for a VF 1935 half crown as I've come to realize getting anything better for what I was willing to pay wasn't going to happen. 

With regards to the pillar series that you are currently collecting, I can't claim to know much about. From what I gather is they are scarce and fall into the higher price range bracket, and because they few hundred years old, getting good looking specimens are even harder. It then stands to reason that an already scarce coin, with even scarcer high quality specimens aren't as widely available for many collectors to be involved in. However that being said I believe there will always be collectors collecting these coins, regardless of passing fads, as they are historical and beautiful coins.

regards Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
18 minutes ago, GROOVIE MOVIES said:

To answer your question if they are supposed to be worth more? Simply put, no. That would mean these coins would be once again unaffordable to averages joes as they were in the past. When you look at stupendous asking prices for 1931 tickeys, such as the worn down, scratched up specimen being listed on BOB for R100 000 you have to ask what warrants such price? Marketing and notoriety over many decades is the only justification. Even people who knew nothing about coins could tell you 1931 tickey was the coin to be had. 

It just so happens that a few coins in MS are extremely hard to get hold of and that should be noteworthy, but it's hardly the case. As I have mentioned before with scarcity of the 1935 tickey MS, is something that you find out while collecting. 

Why did I decide to start a 1935 collection? I wanted a nice king George V set with all the details, and to me it was logical that it was a high mintage year across all denominations as well as a later year would be easier to collect. I'm happy I didn't start with 1925!

Is it worth it to wait until the best looking but also affordable tickey comes along? Absolutely! I thought it was in my grasp when people started listing multiple higher grade coins recently, but it turns out there is a higher demand for good looking coins that I didn't expect. Did I make any compromises? Yes, I settled for a VF 1935 half crown as I've come to realize getting anything better for what I was willing to pay wasn't going to happen. 

With regards to the pillar series that you are currently collecting, I can't claim to know much about. From what I gather is they are scarce and fall into the higher price range bracket, and because they few hundred years old, getting good looking specimens are even harder. It then stands to reason that an already scarce coin, with even scarcer high quality specimens aren't as widely available for many collectors to be involved in. However that being said I believe there will always be collectors collecting these coins, regardless of passing fads, as they are historical and beautiful coins.

regards Robert

I understand your point better now, though maybe I should have from our prior post exchanges.

This point is not for you but for most others reading our comments.  When I hear the term "overlooked" or "under appreciated", it implies that the subject coin should be worth more or a lot more.  That's what I read into your comments.

I will also point out that decent looking 1935 2/6 are a lot scarcer than most probably think.  Same is true of practically any Union coin.  Not sure what yours looks like but I haven't found hardly any Union of any date or denomination below XF that I'd describe as "nice".  Totally subjective using my somewhat US centric view but that's part of my point.  US contemporary coinage is not only a lot more common but the surviving specimens disproportionately were also better preserved, even in the same TPG eligible grade.

The same applies to the pillar coinage which I was only using for illustrative purposes.  Recently, I bought a reference book which has mintage data for Bolivia, Guatemala and Peru. Mintages for Peru were a lot higher than I expected, except for 1752 and the 4R.  Many are higher than quite a few Union dates per my example with the 1767 1/2R.  This probably means that somewhat more than I thought still exist but not many more and definitely not in what I would describe as a collectible quality.  However, the existing scarcity isn't primarily a function of the age but the lack of local collecting and geographic isolation.  Similar to Union though even more extreme.  Contemporary and even older (much older) coinage from practically everywhere else (especially Europe) is apparently more common or a lot more common.  The coins aren't that expensive though, except in high grade or isolation; certainly not compared to the more expensive Union or ZAR silver or bronze.

In the future, the problem for both series (pillars and Union) and others with a similar profile is this one.  Markets such as the US and South Africa dominated by a TPG centric mindset have unrealistic quality expectations. By this, I mean the traditional quality doesn't seem to be good enough for a much higher proportion of today's collector base.

Is this widespread?  I don't know but I think it is moving that way and I make this claim because of the popularity of Non Circulating Legal Tender (NCLT) coinage; recent commemoratives and all those bullion issues.  Most of these coins are made to very high standards and not circulating, look essentially "perfect" quality wise.  Many new collectors (yes, including real ones) start with this coinage and it's their primary or exclusive focus.  I presume of those who transition to other coins, many and maybe most don't and won't like circulated "older" coins traditionally collected by my generation.  (I am 53.)

If this is true, it doesn't bode well for either collecting or the price level, though the latter is secondary and not really that important to me.

I hope I am wrong in this assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BruinersCoins

Hi J,

 

Thanks for your words of wisdom. And I mean that sincerely.

My question still remains, in a country with 60 odd million people, why have we not developed the other themes as vigorously as we have the 1965 and or 1931? What about for example error coins? The cheaper coins?

By the way I am 56.

Edited by BruinersCoins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GROOVIE COINS
12 minutes ago, jwither said:

I will also point out that decent looking 1935 2/6 are a lot scarcer than most probably think.  Same is true of practically any Union coin.  Not sure what yours looks like but I haven't found hardly any Union of any date or denomination below XF that I'd describe as "nice".  Totally subjective using my somewhat US centric view but that's part of my point.  US contemporary coinage is not only a lot more common but the surviving specimens disproportionately were also better preserved, even in the same TPG eligible grade.

The same applies to the pillar coinage which I was only using for illustrative purposes.  Recently, I bought a reference book which has mintage data for Bolivia, Guatemala and Peru. Mintages for Peru were a lot higher than I expected, except for 1752 and the 4R.  Many are higher than quite a few Union dates per my example with the 1767 1/2R.  This probably means that somewhat more than I thought still exist but not many more and definitely not in what I would describe as a collectible quality.  However, the existing scarcity isn't primarily a function of the age but the lack of local collecting and geographic isolation.  Similar to Union though even more extreme.  Contemporary and even older (much older) coinage from practically everywhere else (especially Europe) is apparently more common or a lot more common.  The coins aren't that expensive though, except in high grade or isolation; certainly not compared to the more expensive Union or ZAR silver or bronze.

In the future, the problem for both series (pillars and Union) and others with a similar profile is this one.  Markets such as the US and South Africa dominated by a TPG centric mindset have unrealistic quality expectations. By this, I mean the traditional quality doesn't seem to be good enough for a much higher proportion of today's collector base.

I really don't mind coins with a bit of wear to them. It shows the coin has changed hands and was used for its purpose rather than being held in a box or safe from the day it left the mint. Sure it's nice to have a mint state specimen to show off all the details and lustre, but XF/AU coins show off all their glory at half the price. These days I draw the line at good/fine coins. I did a quick search to look at 1931 shilling specimens being listed at between R2000 - R4000 and thought to myself these coins are practically worn away so you paying 4grand for date, the only legible thing on the coin. I understand if you had the entire collection bar the shilling that it would mean something to you to complete your set, but other than that the coin doesn't justify the price in my opinion. 

With regards to Peru pillars. I would think even if they had a high mintage, that because they are already pushing 300 years that would negate the mintage. By now all the best preserved coins would be found in collectors hands where they would have been exchanged over the years and the rest would have been remelted for new coinage. From the previous posts I see they coins are not uncommon among shipwreck finds but I would then again think that any recent finds would have heavy saltwater damage and not be comparable with the higher grades already in collector hands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GROOVIE COINS
2 minutes ago, BruinersCoins said:

Hi J,

 

Thanks for your words of wisdom. And I mean that sincerely.

My question still remains, in a country with 60 odd million people, why have not developed the other themes as vigorously as we have the 1965 and or 1931? What about for example error coins? The cheaper coins?

By the way I am 56.

If I may be so forward to insert my opinion. I would have thought the reason the 1931 and 1965 series are so scarce to begin was due to circumstance. 1931 on the back of the great depression the state would have tried to cut down on national spending, along with that unnecessary coinage as what was in circulation already, met demand.

regards Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BruinersCoins

1965 coins are important to South African collectors J. They are first year issues. The year we introduced our own coin sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dcdoberman

Good day Numis

I believe we (South Africans) have a very , very small true collectors base. I say this because if you collect SA coinage I believe the ZAR coinage to be the premium coinage in SA numismatic , correct?  These coins are internationally recognizable too. Now if you consider you could make up a 1892 (first year of issue and only year that includes the penny and crown) in nice AU condition for less than a thousand dollars, then you are dreaming if you think a 1965 one cent could ever be worth 2000 dollars.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
testrarossa
3 hours ago, BruinersCoins said:

Hi J,

 

Thanks for your words of wisdom. And I mean that sincerely.

My question still remains, in a country with 60 odd million people, why have we not developed the other themes as vigorously as we have the 1965 and or 1931? What about for example error coins? The cheaper coins?

By the way I am 56.

Hi I ll add my 2 cents too. SA might have a population of 60+Million but if 2/3 live in poverty collecting coins when same coins buy mieliemeel isn’t going to happen. 

As another member also mentioned in a similar post the middle class are being squeezed and all hobbies are taking a hit. 

46 minutes ago, dcdoberman said:

Good day Numis

I believe we (South Africans) have a very , very small true collectors base. I say this because if you collect SA coinage I believe the ZAR coinage to be the premium coinage in SA numismatic , correct?  These coins are internationally recognizable too. Now if you consider you could make up a 1892 (first year of issue and only year that includes the penny and crown) in nice AU condition for less than a thousand dollars, then you are dreaming if you think a 1965 one cent could ever be worth 2000 dollars.

Regards

Agree with your assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
testrarossa

I would say due to its low mintage the 2002 UNC silver R1 world summit must be a true modern rarity. Seen less than 10 on auction over the years but there’s about 20 graded at NGC. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
6 hours ago, GROOVIE MOVIES said:

I really don't mind coins with a bit of wear to them. It shows the coin has changed hands and was used for its purpose rather than being held in a box or safe from the day it left the mint. Sure it's nice to have a mint state specimen to show off all the details and lustre, but XF/AU coins show off all their glory at half the price. These days I draw the line at good/fine coins. I did a quick search to look at 1931 shilling specimens being listed at between R2000 - R4000 and thought to myself these coins are practically worn away so you paying 4grand for date, the only legible thing on the coin. I understand if you had the entire collection bar the shilling that it would mean something to you to complete your set, but other than that the coin doesn't justify the price in my opinion. 

With regards to Peru pillars. I would think even if they had a high mintage, that because they are already pushing 300 years that would negate the mintage. By now all the best preserved coins would be found in collectors hands where they would have been exchanged over the years and the rest would have been remelted for new coinage. From the previous posts I see they coins are not uncommon among shipwreck finds but I would then again think that any recent finds would have heavy saltwater damage and not be comparable with the higher grades already in collector hands. 

To me,  a "nice" coin can still have wear, even noticeable wear.  The distinction is a combination of factors.

Most well circulated South African coins seemed to have been cleaned, even multiple times.  This isn't unusual especially for "older" coins but many Union aren't really that old.  If you have a chance, you should compare how SA coins in a similar condition compare to those from elsewhere where collecting is more established.  I mentioned the US because I am most familiar with the coinage here.  ZAR coinage to me looks better than Union.

Most Union coinage seems to have acquired circulation wear quickly.  One contributor on the NGC Forum implied that low silver content might have something to with it for New Zealand which was 50%.  Even if true, I don't know how this applies to 80% for 1950 and earlier for Union.

All I can tell you is that with the US centric standard I have, that I don't find most Union coins appealing.  It's a combination of the wear, color and surface quality.

For pillars, I was referring to minor denomination not the 8R but wasn't clear in my prior posts.  Given the age, it's a lot more likely that the few high remaining high quality survivors were saved by collectors, as opposed to by random chance but who knows.  I agree with you though that many would have been melted upon conversion to the decimal system in the 1800's, as happened with Union.  Many also continued to circulate until silver was removed from circulating coinage, as I understand occurred in Bolivia in 1909.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
6 hours ago, BruinersCoins said:

Hi J,

 

Thanks for your words of wisdom. And I mean that sincerely.

My question still remains, in a country with 60 odd million people, why have we not developed the other themes as vigorously as we have the 1965 and or 1931? What about for example error coins? The cheaper coins?

By the way I am 56.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to single you out.

Not sure how long you have been a collector but there is no demonstrated correlation between the size of the collector base and population, other than obviously the participation rate cannot be greater than 100%.

The primary determinant in the size of the collector base is cultural.  Many participants on this forum and in the US (both on forums and otherwise) have the misplaced belief it is substantially economic but it isn't.  Economics is a lot more important in a country like the United States but even here, doesn't explain why collecting is more established here than practically everywhere else.  Lack of money doesn't explain the low participation rate among women and minority groups, since the participation rate is almost nonexistent even in the USA. 

There are millions of these people who have good incomes and some have noticeable wealth but they don't collect.  They don't because they have no affinity for it and having more money isn't going to change their mind.  Even in relatively poor countries such as Bolivia, there are at least tens of thousands who can afford to collect to the same financial level as in the USA.  They don't because they would rather spend their money elsewhere and couldn't in large numbers even if they wanted to do so because the coins most collectors want to buy don't exist in a noticeable supply.

The point of my comments here is that marketing coins to people who have no interest isn't going to make any difference.  Just look at the historical comments on this forum.  As I have asked multiple times, if existing collectors show such minimal interest in the coin and mostly or entirely on the financial aspects, why would any non-collector other than by random chance?  There are far better "investments" for anyone's money than coins.

Error coins are a niche market, regardless of what country or coin you have in mind.  There is no prospect that hardly any of these coins will be worth any noticeable amount because the variety of potential errors is large to huge, most of these coins have no distinction other than some narrow scarcity (all are scarce or rare by definition) and these coins don't fit most collector's collections.  Most collectors collect "sets", either by denomination, type and recently by theme.  Error coins generally don't "fit" into how most collectors actually collect.

In the USA since the collector base is disproportionately large and collectors are used to paying ridiculous prices for mediocre and undistinguished coins, US coin errors sell for high prices by international standards but almost never versus other US coinage.  Look at the Heritage archives and you will see that most sell for two or three digits, less than $1000 USD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
4 hours ago, dcdoberman said:

I believe we (South Africans) have a very , very small true collectors base. I say this because if you collect SA coinage I believe the ZAR coinage to be the premium coinage in SA numismatic , correct?  These coins are internationally recognizable too. Now if you consider you could make up a 1892 (first year of issue and only year that includes the penny and crown) in nice AU condition for less than a thousand dollars, then you are dreaming if you think a 1965 one cent could ever be worth 2000 dollars.

Regards

ZAR is easily rated as the premier coinage from South Africa, both by locals and foreigners.  Many foreigners will recognize ZAR, Union and some RSA (less so probably for the more recent coinage since it changes so often) but I have provided my position on this subject elsewhere before.

If you are implying that there is outsized financial buying in your country in your first sentence, I agree with this statement 110%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
2 hours ago, testrarossa said:

I would say due to its low mintage the 2002 UNC silver R1 world summit must be a true modern rarity. Seen less than 10 on auction over the years but there’s about 20 graded at NGC. 

 

My web search identifies the mintage as 118.  As a noncirculating coin with an ask price by one dealer now of R7500, there is every reason to believe that practically every single coin in existence now (which is most) will continue to exist for as long as it will matter to anyone reading my comments.

As a more recent and post Apartheid coin it might draw minimal attention from non-collectors who might randomly buy it but if R7500 is reflective of the actual price, there are certainly much better values out there for the same money from South African coinage.

My best guess is that decades from now, it will be lost in a sea of obscurity from the seemingly endless number of NCLT which has and will be struck by the SA Mint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dcdoberman
10 hours ago, jwither said:

ZAR is easily rated as the premier coinage from South Africa, both by locals and foreigners.  Many foreigners will recognize ZAR, Union and some RSA (less so probably for the more recent coinage since it changes so often) but I have provided my position on this subject elsewhere before.

If you are implying that there is outsized financial buying in your country in your first sentence, I agree with this statement 110%.

This exactly my point, you could easily purchase a ZAR 1892 mint state set (1p to 5s) for under 5000 $ and this would be what any true SA numismatic dreams of owning and has real beauty and numismatic history. Now the financial chappy would not think of this as having any merit because of the low price tag , he would much rather buy a Sammy Marks gold 3p at 50000$ ! This 3p is something a true numismatic can easily overlook as he wouldn't even have a place in his collection for this BS coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
testrarossa
14 hours ago, jwither said:

My web search identifies the mintage as 118.  As a noncirculating coin with an ask price by one dealer now of R7500, there is every reason to believe that practically every single coin in existence now (which is most) will continue to exist for as long as it will matter to anyone reading my comments.

As a more recent and post Apartheid coin it might draw minimal attention from non-collectors who might randomly buy it but if R7500 is reflective of the actual price, there are certainly much better values out there for the same money from South African coinage.

My best guess is that decades from now, it will be lost in a sea of obscurity from the seemingly endless number of NCLT which has and will be struck by the SA Mint.

Maybe maybe not. Only time will tell. I don’t agree with you thou. The silver rand is probably RSA more active collecting series. Decades later it’s not easy getting hold of alternative language R1 without breaking the bank. I agree that there is better value to be had elsewhere but we like what we like. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
2 hours ago, testrarossa said:

Maybe maybe not. Only time will tell. I don’t agree with you thou. The silver rand is probably RSA more active collecting series. Decades later it’s not easy getting hold of alternative language R1 without breaking the bank. I agree that there is better value to be had elsewhere but we like what we like. 

 

Low mintage coinage has the advantage of a higher visibility over "older" coins.  For example, in this instance, this S1R is definitely more common than the 1937 and 1943 proof set and possibly also versus the 1944-1946.  However, the price is already higher and I agree with you that more collectors are trying to buy it.  Hence the higher price.

The point I was trying to make which probably wasn't clear is that there are a lot of low mintage NCLT issued by the SA Mint.  This coin is only one of many.  So while I agree with you that the S1R is the most widely collected from RSA at any meaningful outlay, my suspicion is that anyone else could make a similar claim for any number of others in this series or other NCLT.  

The price of the 1960's alternative language coins is driven by perception and not the scarcity.  This should be evident since these coins are almost certainly more common than practically every single KGV proof outside of the 1923 and in a few instances maybe the 1931.  Prior to the internet age, prices were set by the catalogue.  This pricing was invented (as in made up) but due to communication limitations functioned as the actual price.  Due to what I describe, these coins have been among the most expensive for the entire time most collectors in your country have been alive.  Buyers are used to these prices and will pay it not because of the relative merits as a collectible, but because this inflated perception has lasted until this day and they believe they can recover most, all or even more of their money back at resale.  This perception is no different than with US 20th century "key" dates.

I also can't speak for you but I don't believe that most buyers of this coin, other low mintage NCLT or the more expensive South African coinage generally really like it that much.  I make this statement because I suspect that an outsized percentage are not real collectors but financial buyers.  It's a comment I have made many times and it is based upon the comments on this forum and the price structure. 

If a poll were taken on the opinions I have expressed here on future pricing, I'd say the overwhelming percentage disagree with me.  The reason most do (not necessarily you) is because my views are contrary to their personal preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri

At the moment, the two "hottest" South African coin series/categories on BidorBuy (according to my selling records) are the RSA R1 series and error coins of the RSA.

Regarding the R1 series, there are  a couple of collectors "fighting" for the top spot in the NGC registry with no holds barred...

The R1 series are truly shining at the moment.

Pierre

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
4 hours ago, Pierre_Henri said:

At the moment, the two "hottest" South African coin series/categories on BidorBuy (according to my selling records) are the RSA R1 series and error coins of the RSA.

Regarding the R1 series, there are  a couple of collectors "fighting" for the top spot in the NGC registry with no holds barred...

The R1 series are truly shining at the moment.

Pierre

 

 

 

I think the RSA S1R will maintain its "popularity" in the sense that it will continue to be one of if not the most widely collected series from South African coinage.  Most of the coins are either relatively common or not having been struck for circulation, exist in far above average proportion in high quality or near the original state.  This makes it relatively easy (by South African standards) for a large number of buyers (notice I didn't just say collectors) to participate.   With the larger collector base, compete for the scarcer coins at higher prices.  It's the same dynamic as exists in US collecting but at a lower scale.

Checking the NGC World Coin Price Guide (since my SA catalogs are in storage), the mintages start near 1500, excluding the alternative language coins from the 60's and a few Springbok dates in proof.  The latter are already expensive.  All the others, far too common except due to the TPG grade where the price will ever be material by my standards, except maybe for the condition census coins where the number is very low.  

As for the NGC Registry, I see 46 and 51 participants.  It's a respectable number but there are never more than a minimal number competing for the #1 spot (regardless of the coinage) which makes future price projections for the "best" coins a "crapshoot".

The other thing I will add is that I consider the whole concept a complete farce.  It's a contrived competition designed to separate people from their money by paying to have what are disproportionately common to incredibly common coins entombed in a piece of plastic where authenticity isn't much a factor and the supposed or actual quality differences are numismatically irrelevant.

Since the competition is marketing driven, the point system is also designed to award a disproportionate number of points to a series such as this one in the highest TPG grades.  The grades are lower but these S1R in the highest grades receive more points than most (and maybe all) ZAR MS 2/6.  I have noticed the same distortions in the US Registry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
5 hours ago, Pierre_Henri said:

At the moment, the two "hottest" South African coin series/categories on BidorBuy (according to my selling records) are the RSA R1 series and error coins of the RSA.

Regarding the R1 series, there are  a couple of collectors "fighting" for the top spot in the NGC registry with no holds barred...

The R1 series are truly shining at the moment.

Pierre

 

 

 

On errors, I'm not sure how many buyers you have.  If it's any noticeable number and the prices are remotely what I would describe as financially meaningful, my suspicion is that it's predominantly or entirely because the buyers have a distorted perception of the future price prospects.  There have been more than a few posts on this forum since I joined where contributors who should have known better incorrectly compared the desirability and pricing to non-error coins.

There is absolutely nothing significant about the scarcity of any error coin, given that these coins are supposed to be struck by accident which means that all should at least be somewhat scarce if not rare by definition.  Moreover, those who hold this view apparently don't understand how collectors generally collect.  I have never heard of a single country where collecting has any "critical mass' where the collector base considers it necessary to include hardly any error in their definition of "complete" sets which is why they don't want it and won't buy it except at nominal amounts.

Another reason most of these coins have no distinction is because the number of error types is so vast and some are a lot more noticeable or distinctive than others with most having no distinction whatsoever.  https://conecaonline.org/

Most collectors are traditionally set collectors,  either by date and denomination, by type and more recently among many younger collectors (at least in the USA) by theme.  Proportionately, there aren't many who randomly buy scarce or rare coins (whether actual or imagined), whether errors or otherwise.  In the USA, there is a club called CONECA and there are probably at least a few hundred who collect it as their primary specialty.  However, this is out of an active collector base of maybe two million (my guesstimate) and most buyers are buying a random coin here and there for nominal amounts by US standards.

The US errors which have the highest interest and prices are from "classic" series.  An example is an Indian Head cent struck on a quarter eagle ($2.5 gold) planchet.  The buyers of this coin are probably concurrently set collectors of IHC.

However, the vast majority are from existing circulation designs and lack sufficient distinction to draw much collector interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...