Sunday, February 19, 2012
Observations from a big comicbook show
I just got back from the 2012 Megacon comicbook convention. I have to say, comicbooks were selling briskly! Dealers were complaining that much of their good material sold quickly. By the time I got there on Saturday, the second day of the show, I felt lucky that I found anything good for full guide prices. Seemed like all of the good material still lingering on the dealers display were overpriced. And for the priviledge of paying guide for nice items, I had to really search!
Interestingly, I've been hearing anecdotal feedback about coins and currency sales as well. Things are picking up a bit. Perhaps this is a sign that the economy is improving, or just new confidence in collectibles in general. Whatever the case, good material costs more than guide. If you can find it for guide, you may be doing better than you think if you buy it.
Steve
Sunday, February 5, 2012
A Secret Between Us
Let me guess...you saw the title of this thread and your curiousity got the better of you. You had to open it up and find out what it said, right? If so, congrats. I think your curiousity is going to pay off for you. Read this all the way through and you'll see why.
Way back in the year 2009 (remember then?) we were in a deepest part of the great recession and people needed money. At the same time, the company that produces coinstar machines was growing by leaps and bounds. Coinstar machines make it so convenient to cash in your change...just pour it into a machine and they deduct a fee for "folding money". This set up the perfect storm for recirculation of old coinage. So many people on hard times brought in their old coins to cash them in that the banks were awash with coinage. So the banks didn't order much new coinage, and mintages were abnormally low.
Now lets talk about one of my favorite coins, the Jefferson Nickel. I love them as a collectible coin. I've always thought they are under-rated as a coin. They have overdates, repunched mintmarks, silver varieties, and unique toning that makes them very fun to collect. Plus, unlike many coin series, they are inexpensive enough to collect by date and mintmark, which speaks volumes about the future potential of the series.
By now, you've probably figured out that this article is about the 2009 nickel. Yes it is! But here's the interesting part. The 2009 Philadelphia ("P") mint nickel was the first to be found in pocket change in the middle of 2009. 39.8 million of these nickels were minted, making them the lowest mintage for a few decades. Because of that, these nickels were well received in the aftermarket. I watched prices of these nickels climb to about $80 a roll before they showed up in large numbers. Then this glut of nickels, and competition to sell them drove the roll prices down to about the $18 level (that I witnessed) before supplies started to dry up. Prices then began to climb and they are now at about $60 per roll (early 2012 prices).
Here's the cool part. The Denver mint 2009 ("D") nickels seem to be following in the footsteps of the "P" mint nickels. They have a slightly higher mintage of 46.8 million. But interestingly, they weren't even released until a few months into 2010! I did see a roll of these nickels that may, or may not have been a genuine ebay listing that surfaced in 2009 that sold for almost $200 a roll. That doesn't matter. My point is that these nickels were released almost a year later than their "P" mint cousins. What happened then? Well, I watched their per roll price fall from $60 per roll downward to a low of $8 each. Yours truly, bought a few of them at $8 on speculation a few months ago. Since that time, the price has steadily risen to about $15 per roll individually and it sure does seem like the prices are drying up. I managed to buy some more on a bulk purchase that will cost me about $11 per roll delivered.
To recap, the "P" mint started at $80 per roll, suffered through a glut of sales on ebay that drove the price down to about $18 a roll before rebounding to about $60 per roll. The "D" mint rolls were released a year later, and in part because they are almost as rare, appear to be following the same path. Like every collectible that I mention in this blog, you need to make up your own mind on purchasing these, but it wouldn't surprise me to see these selling for $50 a roll within a year or so.
If you buy some 2009-D Nickels, you need to make sure that you are buying uncirculated "BU" rolls. Original bank rolls. Focus on getting them as cheap as you can per roll after factoring in your shipping costs. Once you get them, don't open the rolls. Some of their value is tied to the fact that they are unsearched.
Now remember, this is our secret...your reward for reading this blog. Here's a link that sorts lowest prices first on ebay for your research: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=2009%20d%20nickel%20roll%20-p&_dmpt=Coins_US_Individual&_fln=1&_sc=1&_sop=15&_ssov=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m1539&_mPrRngCbx=1&_udlo=4&_udhi=
Collector Steve
***Update: When I wrote that article, I finished buying some rolls at $11 each. Some I got as cheap as $8. It appears they are now around $16 each for the best deal. That's a 50% to 100% return so far in about 6 months or so. You can make a killing in collectibles if you apply the right concepts.
Way back in the year 2009 (remember then?) we were in a deepest part of the great recession and people needed money. At the same time, the company that produces coinstar machines was growing by leaps and bounds. Coinstar machines make it so convenient to cash in your change...just pour it into a machine and they deduct a fee for "folding money". This set up the perfect storm for recirculation of old coinage. So many people on hard times brought in their old coins to cash them in that the banks were awash with coinage. So the banks didn't order much new coinage, and mintages were abnormally low.
Now lets talk about one of my favorite coins, the Jefferson Nickel. I love them as a collectible coin. I've always thought they are under-rated as a coin. They have overdates, repunched mintmarks, silver varieties, and unique toning that makes them very fun to collect. Plus, unlike many coin series, they are inexpensive enough to collect by date and mintmark, which speaks volumes about the future potential of the series.
By now, you've probably figured out that this article is about the 2009 nickel. Yes it is! But here's the interesting part. The 2009 Philadelphia ("P") mint nickel was the first to be found in pocket change in the middle of 2009. 39.8 million of these nickels were minted, making them the lowest mintage for a few decades. Because of that, these nickels were well received in the aftermarket. I watched prices of these nickels climb to about $80 a roll before they showed up in large numbers. Then this glut of nickels, and competition to sell them drove the roll prices down to about the $18 level (that I witnessed) before supplies started to dry up. Prices then began to climb and they are now at about $60 per roll (early 2012 prices).
Here's the cool part. The Denver mint 2009 ("D") nickels seem to be following in the footsteps of the "P" mint nickels. They have a slightly higher mintage of 46.8 million. But interestingly, they weren't even released until a few months into 2010! I did see a roll of these nickels that may, or may not have been a genuine ebay listing that surfaced in 2009 that sold for almost $200 a roll. That doesn't matter. My point is that these nickels were released almost a year later than their "P" mint cousins. What happened then? Well, I watched their per roll price fall from $60 per roll downward to a low of $8 each. Yours truly, bought a few of them at $8 on speculation a few months ago. Since that time, the price has steadily risen to about $15 per roll individually and it sure does seem like the prices are drying up. I managed to buy some more on a bulk purchase that will cost me about $11 per roll delivered.
To recap, the "P" mint started at $80 per roll, suffered through a glut of sales on ebay that drove the price down to about $18 a roll before rebounding to about $60 per roll. The "D" mint rolls were released a year later, and in part because they are almost as rare, appear to be following the same path. Like every collectible that I mention in this blog, you need to make up your own mind on purchasing these, but it wouldn't surprise me to see these selling for $50 a roll within a year or so.
If you buy some 2009-D Nickels, you need to make sure that you are buying uncirculated "BU" rolls. Original bank rolls. Focus on getting them as cheap as you can per roll after factoring in your shipping costs. Once you get them, don't open the rolls. Some of their value is tied to the fact that they are unsearched.
Now remember, this is our secret...your reward for reading this blog. Here's a link that sorts lowest prices first on ebay for your research: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=2009%20d%20nickel%20roll%20-p&_dmpt=Coins_US_Individual&_fln=1&_sc=1&_sop=15&_ssov=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m1539&_mPrRngCbx=1&_udlo=4&_udhi=
Collector Steve
***Update: When I wrote that article, I finished buying some rolls at $11 each. Some I got as cheap as $8. It appears they are now around $16 each for the best deal. That's a 50% to 100% return so far in about 6 months or so. You can make a killing in collectibles if you apply the right concepts.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Another Score
I had to travel today. I spent part of my lunch hour at a coin shop in a samll town. I found a 1913-P Type II Buffalo nickel graded MS63 in an NGC slab for a bargain price of $50 even. The Redbook guide says it is a $80 coin in this grade but one sold last week on Ebay for $125 in the same grade in the same Slab. (A special thanks and a shout-out to my friend Curvey for looking that up for me over the phone!)
I think I'll keep it. It's a nice type coin and it's worth enough to where it is worth its storage space.
Collector Steve
I think I'll keep it. It's a nice type coin and it's worth enough to where it is worth its storage space.
Collector Steve
Monday, January 23, 2012
I've got a time machine and $800
Here's the situation. The year is 2010, I have $800 and a time machine. The year 2010 is when I bought my comicbook price guide, so bear with me. Unfortunately, since I'm on a budget, I bought my time machine as a "scratch and dent" model so it will only go back 8 years. Now I'm a really big comicbook fan, so I set my time machine to transport me to a really big comicbook convention in the year 2002. I figure Spiderman comicbooks are a good safe bet, so my plan is to spend my $800 on some Spiderman comicbooks at the convention and then zip back to the year 2010 with my investment. Hopefully, I'll choose the right comicbooks.
But now the big question: What do I buy? Should I spend my $800 on one really important comicbook in low grade? Or maybe a somewhat important comicbook (or two) in mid-grade? Or perhaps I should buy a really mint version of a not so important comicbook. What do I do?
Here are my choices:
1. I can buy a "good" copy of Amazing Spiderman for exactly $800. This agrees with the 2002 price guide loaned to me by a friendly dealer. This book, in "good" isn't really that good at all. A good comicbook looks pretty rough, but it is still intact. Hmmm....It would be nice to have a Spidey #1!
2. Or, I can afford two comicbooks in Fine, like a Spiderman #5 in Fine for $414, which is an early Dr. Doom appearance (a really cool bad guy) and a Spidey #6 in Fine, which is the first appearance of the Lizard (another cool bad guy), for $375. I'd still have enough change to buy an overpriced lunch for my $800. These books look better than average, but they still show some wear.
3. Lastly, I could spend my $800 on a Near Mint copy of Spiderman #17. This is the not-so-important second appearance of the Green Goblin (yep, another cool bad guy). By guide, it is a $875, but the dealer gave me a 10% discount. I figure maybe I can pass on that savings to the next guy and sell it for 10% off when I get back to the future (pay the good Karma forward).
I think I'll take option #2. I figure I may as well take the middle of the road option by buying the two comics in Fine condition since I don't know the outcome. Note that I'm careful to pay the dealer with currency dated before 2002 so as not to arouse suspicion. :)
Now I jump in my time machine and go back to the future to see how I did with my new purchase.
Option #1 is now worth $1500
Option #2 is now worth $636 plus $513 for the #5 and #6 respectively, totalling $1149. Say $1170 after factoring the lunch money that I could have invested in something other than a hotdog.
Option #3 is now worth more than $2000. I don't know exactly how much because the 2010 price guide only goes to a low end Near Mint grade. Even with the 10% discount I need to give it for the sake of fairness (or Karma), I'm sure it's worth more than $2000 in the slightly lower (but still very high) grade.
So what can we conclude?
The return on our investment is a kinked line, like a "V" or a "U" where the Y-axis is return on investment and the X-axis is grade and I chose badly by selecting the middle of the curve. It seems that it is better to spend a set amount of money either on a very key item in low grade, or a somewhat key item in a very high grade. This is probably because collectors want items that are very key, even if they are in low grade, or the items that are in very high grade, even if they aren't as important. Oh, and for the record the better collectibles in this scenario averaged around a 10% return.
So, does this work with other collectibles?
Quickly, here's a scenario:
In the 1990 Redbook price guide, $65 will either buy you:
1. A very rare "key", but very worn 1914-D cent in Good (low grade).
2. Six Fine (mid-grade) 1910-S (semi-key) cents at $10 each with $5 left over for lunch. (or 6.5 coins if you want to think of it that way).
3. A Choice Uncirculated (MS-63) 1919-S cent...(an uncommon but definitely not key coin).
How do those do in the 2012 Redbook Price guide?
1. The 1914-D cent guides for $215.
2. The six 1910-S cents (combined) guide for $143 after figuring in a similar return for the lunch money.
3. The 1913-S cent sells for $275.
The average return on the best two selections in this example is about 6.2%.
Note that the selection of the coins was somewhat difficult due to the fact that the price of a low grade key coin and a mint state coin was so high relative to the price of a mid-grade more common coin. It took many mid-grade coins to be equivalent to the amount you'd spend on one nice coin and the 1914-D isn't even the absolute key of the series! The comics, on the other hand, were all fairly key. In effect, the division line between key vs. non-key coins is more obvious than it is with comics; possibly due to the fact that comics are keys due to their content/popularity, rather than their production numbers. (i.e., with coins, it's obvious if you have a key or not, but with comics, the transition is more subtle).
Regardless, low grade and key or high grade and non-key trumps mid-grade semi-key material most of the time for the same dollar value.
Collector Steve
But now the big question: What do I buy? Should I spend my $800 on one really important comicbook in low grade? Or maybe a somewhat important comicbook (or two) in mid-grade? Or perhaps I should buy a really mint version of a not so important comicbook. What do I do?
Here are my choices:
1. I can buy a "good" copy of Amazing Spiderman for exactly $800. This agrees with the 2002 price guide loaned to me by a friendly dealer. This book, in "good" isn't really that good at all. A good comicbook looks pretty rough, but it is still intact. Hmmm....It would be nice to have a Spidey #1!
2. Or, I can afford two comicbooks in Fine, like a Spiderman #5 in Fine for $414, which is an early Dr. Doom appearance (a really cool bad guy) and a Spidey #6 in Fine, which is the first appearance of the Lizard (another cool bad guy), for $375. I'd still have enough change to buy an overpriced lunch for my $800. These books look better than average, but they still show some wear.
3. Lastly, I could spend my $800 on a Near Mint copy of Spiderman #17. This is the not-so-important second appearance of the Green Goblin (yep, another cool bad guy). By guide, it is a $875, but the dealer gave me a 10% discount. I figure maybe I can pass on that savings to the next guy and sell it for 10% off when I get back to the future (pay the good Karma forward).
I think I'll take option #2. I figure I may as well take the middle of the road option by buying the two comics in Fine condition since I don't know the outcome. Note that I'm careful to pay the dealer with currency dated before 2002 so as not to arouse suspicion. :)
Now I jump in my time machine and go back to the future to see how I did with my new purchase.
Option #1 is now worth $1500
Option #2 is now worth $636 plus $513 for the #5 and #6 respectively, totalling $1149. Say $1170 after factoring the lunch money that I could have invested in something other than a hotdog.
Option #3 is now worth more than $2000. I don't know exactly how much because the 2010 price guide only goes to a low end Near Mint grade. Even with the 10% discount I need to give it for the sake of fairness (or Karma), I'm sure it's worth more than $2000 in the slightly lower (but still very high) grade.
So what can we conclude?
The return on our investment is a kinked line, like a "V" or a "U" where the Y-axis is return on investment and the X-axis is grade and I chose badly by selecting the middle of the curve. It seems that it is better to spend a set amount of money either on a very key item in low grade, or a somewhat key item in a very high grade. This is probably because collectors want items that are very key, even if they are in low grade, or the items that are in very high grade, even if they aren't as important. Oh, and for the record the better collectibles in this scenario averaged around a 10% return.
So, does this work with other collectibles?
Quickly, here's a scenario:
In the 1990 Redbook price guide, $65 will either buy you:
1. A very rare "key", but very worn 1914-D cent in Good (low grade).
2. Six Fine (mid-grade) 1910-S (semi-key) cents at $10 each with $5 left over for lunch. (or 6.5 coins if you want to think of it that way).
3. A Choice Uncirculated (MS-63) 1919-S cent...(an uncommon but definitely not key coin).
How do those do in the 2012 Redbook Price guide?
1. The 1914-D cent guides for $215.
2. The six 1910-S cents (combined) guide for $143 after figuring in a similar return for the lunch money.
3. The 1913-S cent sells for $275.
The average return on the best two selections in this example is about 6.2%.
Note that the selection of the coins was somewhat difficult due to the fact that the price of a low grade key coin and a mint state coin was so high relative to the price of a mid-grade more common coin. It took many mid-grade coins to be equivalent to the amount you'd spend on one nice coin and the 1914-D isn't even the absolute key of the series! The comics, on the other hand, were all fairly key. In effect, the division line between key vs. non-key coins is more obvious than it is with comics; possibly due to the fact that comics are keys due to their content/popularity, rather than their production numbers. (i.e., with coins, it's obvious if you have a key or not, but with comics, the transition is more subtle).
Regardless, low grade and key or high grade and non-key trumps mid-grade semi-key material most of the time for the same dollar value.
Collector Steve
Portfolio Rebalancing...when you collect more than one thing...or Gold...or whatever
I was just on a coin collecting forum, and a fellow forum member posed the question of whether it makes sense to sell some of their collectible coins to buy gold, or even vice versa. I gave my answer (my "two cents") and I realized that the method needed to be repeated here. So here goes:
Suppose you believed that it was a good "investment" to buy gold and silver. Truth be told, when you factor in inflation, gold makes a poor investment because it only goes up in price when the dollar is weak, and the dollar is only weak when inflation is present, so the net result is that it just breaks even with inflation over the long term. But there can be short term run-ups (or crashes) in price that can significantly outpace inflation or underperform it. (Side note: Check out Exchange Traded Funds which trade like stocks, such as ticker symbol "DGP").
Back to our example. If you wanted to hold gold and silver, a good way to do it might be to buy an equal dollar value of each. For example, imagine you were to buy $1,000 worth of gold and $1,000 worth of silver. Then you monitor the price of both. At some point, you might see that the value of gold and silver fluctuated where you had $1,200 worth of gold and only $800 worth of silver. If that happened, you could "rebalance" your portfolio. This means you would bring the dollar value of each back to the original one to one (1:1) or 50%/50% ratio. So what you'd do is sell $200 of your gold and use that money to buy $200 worth of silver. Then you'd have $1,000 worth of each again. Now why in the heck would you do that? Because when Gold went up and silver went down, you'd be selling the gold at a relative high and buying silver at a relative low. Remember...the idea is to buy low and sell high right? Would it help? In some cases, yes. But remember that when you buy and sell gold and silver, you will incur transaction fees, right? Because of that, you might not want to balance very often.
Another example. You don't have to maintain a 1:1 or "50/50" ratio. Suppose you decided you wanted a portfolio of 60% Gold and 40% Silver. You could buy $100 worth every month for 10 months. If gold and silver didn't move much, after 10 months, you'd have about $600 worth of gold and $400 worth of silver. Now suppose they started to shift in value. They might shift because Silver is not just a precious metal, but also an industrial metal with rising and falling demand. (yes, gold is an industrial metal too...but to a lesser degree). Anyway, Silver stagnates, but Gold rises. Soon, you have $900 worth of gold and $400 worth of Silver. At that point, you would go through the Math to figure out how much gold to sell. Since you have a combined $1300, you should have $780 worth of gold and the rest in silver. So you sell off $120 in gold and buy more silver.
What else can you balance? You could balance a portfolio of Gold and Cash in a 70% Gold/30% Cash ratio. If Gold climbs too high, you sell gold. If gold drops, you buy more with your cash to rebalance. Neat, huh?
Finally, let's discuss collectibles. It is possible to balance a portfolio of collectibles. Some ideas: You could balance your coin collection's value vs. a portfolio in gold. You could balance your coin collection's value against cash. You could balance your coin collection's value against your comicbook collection's value. You could even balance three things....like maintain the value of your coin collection, your comicbook collection, and gold in a 40%/40%/20% ratio.
One last thing to realize. This rebalancing is more effective when the items in it are fluctuating up and down...rather than certain types of collectibles that will only keep moving up in fits and starts. But this can also create a situation where you are selling winners to buy losers. Imagine if Bill Gates decided back in the early 1980's to balance a portfolio of MicroSoft Stock and Cash in a 50%/50% ratio? If he did that, he'd still be rich, but not nearly as much. In fact, he'd have been over-investing in the relative "loser"...the U.S. Dollar. Balancing a portfolio of anything can cut your gains because you're not fully invested in a winner, but it can also help set a bottom floor on losses because you don't hold through a peak. For example, if you were balancing a portfolio of Silver and Cash back when Silver hit $50 an ounce, you would have sold some of your silver near that peak. But on the other hand, you wouldn't have owned as much silver either because you were keeping money in cash. Portfolio balancing creates some tough decisions!
Collector Steve
Suppose you believed that it was a good "investment" to buy gold and silver. Truth be told, when you factor in inflation, gold makes a poor investment because it only goes up in price when the dollar is weak, and the dollar is only weak when inflation is present, so the net result is that it just breaks even with inflation over the long term. But there can be short term run-ups (or crashes) in price that can significantly outpace inflation or underperform it. (Side note: Check out Exchange Traded Funds which trade like stocks, such as ticker symbol "DGP").
Back to our example. If you wanted to hold gold and silver, a good way to do it might be to buy an equal dollar value of each. For example, imagine you were to buy $1,000 worth of gold and $1,000 worth of silver. Then you monitor the price of both. At some point, you might see that the value of gold and silver fluctuated where you had $1,200 worth of gold and only $800 worth of silver. If that happened, you could "rebalance" your portfolio. This means you would bring the dollar value of each back to the original one to one (1:1) or 50%/50% ratio. So what you'd do is sell $200 of your gold and use that money to buy $200 worth of silver. Then you'd have $1,000 worth of each again. Now why in the heck would you do that? Because when Gold went up and silver went down, you'd be selling the gold at a relative high and buying silver at a relative low. Remember...the idea is to buy low and sell high right? Would it help? In some cases, yes. But remember that when you buy and sell gold and silver, you will incur transaction fees, right? Because of that, you might not want to balance very often.
Another example. You don't have to maintain a 1:1 or "50/50" ratio. Suppose you decided you wanted a portfolio of 60% Gold and 40% Silver. You could buy $100 worth every month for 10 months. If gold and silver didn't move much, after 10 months, you'd have about $600 worth of gold and $400 worth of silver. Now suppose they started to shift in value. They might shift because Silver is not just a precious metal, but also an industrial metal with rising and falling demand. (yes, gold is an industrial metal too...but to a lesser degree). Anyway, Silver stagnates, but Gold rises. Soon, you have $900 worth of gold and $400 worth of Silver. At that point, you would go through the Math to figure out how much gold to sell. Since you have a combined $1300, you should have $780 worth of gold and the rest in silver. So you sell off $120 in gold and buy more silver.
What else can you balance? You could balance a portfolio of Gold and Cash in a 70% Gold/30% Cash ratio. If Gold climbs too high, you sell gold. If gold drops, you buy more with your cash to rebalance. Neat, huh?
Finally, let's discuss collectibles. It is possible to balance a portfolio of collectibles. Some ideas: You could balance your coin collection's value vs. a portfolio in gold. You could balance your coin collection's value against cash. You could balance your coin collection's value against your comicbook collection's value. You could even balance three things....like maintain the value of your coin collection, your comicbook collection, and gold in a 40%/40%/20% ratio.
One last thing to realize. This rebalancing is more effective when the items in it are fluctuating up and down...rather than certain types of collectibles that will only keep moving up in fits and starts. But this can also create a situation where you are selling winners to buy losers. Imagine if Bill Gates decided back in the early 1980's to balance a portfolio of MicroSoft Stock and Cash in a 50%/50% ratio? If he did that, he'd still be rich, but not nearly as much. In fact, he'd have been over-investing in the relative "loser"...the U.S. Dollar. Balancing a portfolio of anything can cut your gains because you're not fully invested in a winner, but it can also help set a bottom floor on losses because you don't hold through a peak. For example, if you were balancing a portfolio of Silver and Cash back when Silver hit $50 an ounce, you would have sold some of your silver near that peak. But on the other hand, you wouldn't have owned as much silver either because you were keeping money in cash. Portfolio balancing creates some tough decisions!
Collector Steve
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Would you rather have a 1839 Large Cent or a 1939 Nickel? (Rate of Return)
Here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say you have $80 burning a hole in your pocket and you want to buy a coin. But imagine also that you're a collector like me. Though the artistry and beauty of the coins excite you...because after all, that's why you collect coins in the first place...you also demand a good return on the coins. Like even though money is tight, perhaps you can justify your purchase because the coins you buy will be purchased at a good price and you're thinking in the back of your mind that you'll start selling off your coins when you retire in 22 years.
So you go down to your favorite brick and mortar coin store and it's really busy! There is a sign in the window that says, "going out of business sale". Oh my God! Your world is crashing around your ears. So you go in and you see old Vick, the owner. You expect him to explain how the internet finally got to him and he couldn't compete. Instead, he's all smiles and tells you that he's won the lottery and is in a hurry to sell off his inventory and move to Florida. Great for him! Vick tells you that he's having a sale and all of the items have been discounted nicely. So you look around, and you see a couple coins that catch your eye.
One is an 1839 Large Cent. This is the Head of '38 Beaded Cords variety. It's in Extremely Fine condition, has original, unmolested surfaces, and it's on sale for exactly $80. It has a guide price of $110. Hmm...this isn't exactly making a killing on it, but its a good deal and you feel maybe you could sell it online for what you paid if you needed to.
The other coin that you're interested in is a 1939-D Jefferson Nickel in Gem Uncirculated, MS-65. It's a typical Gem, but it is the key to the series. It is also $80. And coincidently, it also has a guide price of $110 in MS65 condition.
It's at this point that analysis paralysis sets in. "Gee, that nickel is the key to the series...but look at the classic beauty of the cent!" "What do I do?" "What do I do?!"
Then you notice that the cent is exactly 100 years older than the nickel. Is there any significance to that? Is it better to buy the older coin? It is 100 years older. It's gotta be rarer, right?
The 1839 cent is 100 years older, or 173 years old.. It's guide value is $110. The nickel is "only" 73 years old. It also guides for $110, but it's a "new" coin. Surely an "old" coin is better than a "new" one, right?
Not so fast.
Think of it like this: The 1839 cent has had 173 years to grow in value to its $110 guide price. But the nickel grew in value to $110 in only 73 years. It's really hard to estimate what a good starting price would be for each one, but it does seem like the 1839 cent is growing in value slower. So a question that comes to mind is what was that nickel worth...say....72 years ago. Was it still worth a nickel then, or did coin dealers value it at 10 cents because it was the key to a 2 year old series??? Maybe we can't answer that question, but we can approach it another way.
I have in my library, a 1990 price guide. This is the redbook price guide, the same one that quotes $110 for each of the coins in the 2012 edition. In 1990, the MS65 nickel was listed at $55.00. The cent was valued at $85.00! So in 22 years, the nickel doubled in the guide. Yet the cent only increased in value about 30%. If we assume that the rate of increase will continue for another 22 years when you retire, then the guide value of the nickel *MAY* double again to $220 and the large cent *MAY* increase another 30% to about $143.
***Caution...heavy math ahead**** (if math bores you, stop reading now)
So it seems that the nickel is rising in value faster. It is doubling in guide price every 22 years. What kind of return is that? I mean, what percent? Well, there is a really neat trick called "THE RULE OF 72s". The rule of 72s works like this. If you divide 72 by the interest rate, it should approximate the doubling time. Or stated another way, if you divide 72 by the the doubling time, it should approximate the interest rate of return.
For example, if a collectible doubles in value in 9 years, what is the percent return? Well, 72 divided by 9 equals 8. So the answer is 8%.
Another (harder) example, what about a collectible that increased in value by a factor of 8 in 30 years? Well, first, we need to figure out how many times it doubled. If it doubled once, it would be twice as expensive. If it then doubled again, it would be 4 times as expensive. If it doubled one more time, it would then be 8 times as expensive. So if an item is 8 times more expensive, it doubled 3 times, right? If it doubled 3 times in 30 years, then...on average...it doubled every 10 years. So now we know the doubling time....10 years. So 72 divided by 10 (doubling time) equals 7.2 years....or 7.2% return.
Back to our Jefferson nickel. It doubled in 22 years. It's doubling time is 22 years. So 72 divided by 22 is about 3.25...so around 3.25%. Our Jefferson nickel probably stayed ahead of inflation, but barely. And the cent actually lost value compared to inflation!
Something to consider is this. The nickel's guide value is $110, but you buy it for $80. So it seems like your nickel would give you 3.25% of $110 every year...so it should go up in value about $3.50 a year at first. That $3.50 per year is actually a higher percent of your $80 purchase...its probably about 4%. In other words, because you bought it cheaper, your return is higher, because you get the return associated with a value of $110, but you actually only spent $80.
Here's a simpler example. If an item worth $100 is going up in value 5% a year, and you bought it for full price, you'd expect to get 5% return on your investment. But if you bought it for half price, you would expect more return on your $50 purchase. This is because the item will go up $5 in value every year because it's worth $100 and growing at 5%. Yet, you only paid $50, so that $5 increase in value every year actually represents 10% of the $50 investment.
One more extreme example. An item worth $100 goes up in value 4% a year. In the short run, this means the value of the item should increase $4 a year. Now imagine that you cherry picked that item and purchased it for only $5. It will go up in value $4 a year, but you only paid $5 for it. You're getting a $4 annual return on your $5 purchase...thats an 80% return on your money!
You can see that the best way to boost your returns on your collectible "investments" is to buy them for way below guide and focus on things that are moving up in value faster. IN OTHER WORDS, TRY TO CHERRY PICK THE NEWER, MORE EXPENSIVE STUFF. If you could buy that Jefferson nickel for half price, or $55, then you'd be making double the 3.25% rate of return we calculated....which is 6.5%. That's pretty good in an era when a savings account pays you only 1%. Maybe old Vick would consider selling you the Jefferson for $55 since he just won the lottery.
Post Script: Please realize that past performance (rate of return) is not an indication of future performance. For example, changing collector demographics could hurt or help the change in value of any collectible. Also realize that the 1839 cent in this example is much rarer. What made the Jefferson Nickel outperform it was likely due to a greater number of collectors putting together sets. That too could change. But I know this one thing. While the race does not always belong to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, that's probably how you should bet.
Collector Steve
So you go down to your favorite brick and mortar coin store and it's really busy! There is a sign in the window that says, "going out of business sale". Oh my God! Your world is crashing around your ears. So you go in and you see old Vick, the owner. You expect him to explain how the internet finally got to him and he couldn't compete. Instead, he's all smiles and tells you that he's won the lottery and is in a hurry to sell off his inventory and move to Florida. Great for him! Vick tells you that he's having a sale and all of the items have been discounted nicely. So you look around, and you see a couple coins that catch your eye.
One is an 1839 Large Cent. This is the Head of '38 Beaded Cords variety. It's in Extremely Fine condition, has original, unmolested surfaces, and it's on sale for exactly $80. It has a guide price of $110. Hmm...this isn't exactly making a killing on it, but its a good deal and you feel maybe you could sell it online for what you paid if you needed to.
The other coin that you're interested in is a 1939-D Jefferson Nickel in Gem Uncirculated, MS-65. It's a typical Gem, but it is the key to the series. It is also $80. And coincidently, it also has a guide price of $110 in MS65 condition.
It's at this point that analysis paralysis sets in. "Gee, that nickel is the key to the series...but look at the classic beauty of the cent!" "What do I do?" "What do I do?!"
Then you notice that the cent is exactly 100 years older than the nickel. Is there any significance to that? Is it better to buy the older coin? It is 100 years older. It's gotta be rarer, right?
The 1839 cent is 100 years older, or 173 years old.. It's guide value is $110. The nickel is "only" 73 years old. It also guides for $110, but it's a "new" coin. Surely an "old" coin is better than a "new" one, right?
Not so fast.
Think of it like this: The 1839 cent has had 173 years to grow in value to its $110 guide price. But the nickel grew in value to $110 in only 73 years. It's really hard to estimate what a good starting price would be for each one, but it does seem like the 1839 cent is growing in value slower. So a question that comes to mind is what was that nickel worth...say....72 years ago. Was it still worth a nickel then, or did coin dealers value it at 10 cents because it was the key to a 2 year old series??? Maybe we can't answer that question, but we can approach it another way.
I have in my library, a 1990 price guide. This is the redbook price guide, the same one that quotes $110 for each of the coins in the 2012 edition. In 1990, the MS65 nickel was listed at $55.00. The cent was valued at $85.00! So in 22 years, the nickel doubled in the guide. Yet the cent only increased in value about 30%. If we assume that the rate of increase will continue for another 22 years when you retire, then the guide value of the nickel *MAY* double again to $220 and the large cent *MAY* increase another 30% to about $143.
***Caution...heavy math ahead**** (if math bores you, stop reading now)
So it seems that the nickel is rising in value faster. It is doubling in guide price every 22 years. What kind of return is that? I mean, what percent? Well, there is a really neat trick called "THE RULE OF 72s". The rule of 72s works like this. If you divide 72 by the interest rate, it should approximate the doubling time. Or stated another way, if you divide 72 by the the doubling time, it should approximate the interest rate of return.
For example, if a collectible doubles in value in 9 years, what is the percent return? Well, 72 divided by 9 equals 8. So the answer is 8%.
Another (harder) example, what about a collectible that increased in value by a factor of 8 in 30 years? Well, first, we need to figure out how many times it doubled. If it doubled once, it would be twice as expensive. If it then doubled again, it would be 4 times as expensive. If it doubled one more time, it would then be 8 times as expensive. So if an item is 8 times more expensive, it doubled 3 times, right? If it doubled 3 times in 30 years, then...on average...it doubled every 10 years. So now we know the doubling time....10 years. So 72 divided by 10 (doubling time) equals 7.2 years....or 7.2% return.
Back to our Jefferson nickel. It doubled in 22 years. It's doubling time is 22 years. So 72 divided by 22 is about 3.25...so around 3.25%. Our Jefferson nickel probably stayed ahead of inflation, but barely. And the cent actually lost value compared to inflation!
Something to consider is this. The nickel's guide value is $110, but you buy it for $80. So it seems like your nickel would give you 3.25% of $110 every year...so it should go up in value about $3.50 a year at first. That $3.50 per year is actually a higher percent of your $80 purchase...its probably about 4%. In other words, because you bought it cheaper, your return is higher, because you get the return associated with a value of $110, but you actually only spent $80.
Here's a simpler example. If an item worth $100 is going up in value 5% a year, and you bought it for full price, you'd expect to get 5% return on your investment. But if you bought it for half price, you would expect more return on your $50 purchase. This is because the item will go up $5 in value every year because it's worth $100 and growing at 5%. Yet, you only paid $50, so that $5 increase in value every year actually represents 10% of the $50 investment.
One more extreme example. An item worth $100 goes up in value 4% a year. In the short run, this means the value of the item should increase $4 a year. Now imagine that you cherry picked that item and purchased it for only $5. It will go up in value $4 a year, but you only paid $5 for it. You're getting a $4 annual return on your $5 purchase...thats an 80% return on your money!
You can see that the best way to boost your returns on your collectible "investments" is to buy them for way below guide and focus on things that are moving up in value faster. IN OTHER WORDS, TRY TO CHERRY PICK THE NEWER, MORE EXPENSIVE STUFF. If you could buy that Jefferson nickel for half price, or $55, then you'd be making double the 3.25% rate of return we calculated....which is 6.5%. That's pretty good in an era when a savings account pays you only 1%. Maybe old Vick would consider selling you the Jefferson for $55 since he just won the lottery.
Post Script: Please realize that past performance (rate of return) is not an indication of future performance. For example, changing collector demographics could hurt or help the change in value of any collectible. Also realize that the 1839 cent in this example is much rarer. What made the Jefferson Nickel outperform it was likely due to a greater number of collectors putting together sets. That too could change. But I know this one thing. While the race does not always belong to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, that's probably how you should bet.
Collector Steve
Saturday, January 14, 2012
I'll tip you off
I'm trying to get readers. If you subscribe to this blog, I (think) you'll get notifications when I put up new posts.
Need incentive?
OK, here's what I'm going to do.
When I see something I think is a good deal...but it is an item that I'm not going to buy...I'll post it. I don't want these to be considered buy recommendations, so much as examples. If you are going to buy them, I expect you to do your own due dilligence to decide on your own that they are items that make sense. OK?
So sign up and receive notices.
Collector Steve
Need incentive?
OK, here's what I'm going to do.
When I see something I think is a good deal...but it is an item that I'm not going to buy...I'll post it. I don't want these to be considered buy recommendations, so much as examples. If you are going to buy them, I expect you to do your own due dilligence to decide on your own that they are items that make sense. OK?
So sign up and receive notices.
Collector Steve
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
