10 Budget Picks

By Mike Thorne, Coins Magazine June 29, 2009

When faced with the assignment to pick 10 (or more) great coins that retail for $100 or less, I have at least two big problems: First, how do I limit my list to just 10 coins? Second, and this is often the bigger problem, how do I keep myself from trying to buy all the coins I’ve talked about?

Before presenting my list of coins and the reasons I chose them, let me establish some ground rules. First, the coin values will be based on the May 2009 issue of Numismatic News “Coin Market.” Second, the grade of the coin will be the one with a value closest to but below the $100 limit. Generally speaking, if I like a particular coin in one grade, I like it in all collectible grades. Thus, if a coin is worth $100 in Extremely Fine, I would also urge you to buy two of it in Very Fine if it’s worth $50 in that grade, and so on.

If you’ve read any of my articles and columns over the years, then you’re probably aware of my preference for certified coins, particularly coins certified by the major services. My reasons for recommending certified coins are that if you buy them you will avoid the potential problem of getting an altered or counterfeit piece, you won’t have to worry about whether the coin has been cleaned or had its surface altered in some way, and your new acquisition will come in a holder that’s desirable for long-term storage. In addition, the coin is likely to be accurately graded.

Notice that I said “likely to be accurately graded.” I’m a firm believer in the admonition to buy the coin, not the holder. In other words, I think you should learn to grade for yourself and should only buy coins that you feel are at least the certified grade and have the look that you like. I have seen coins certified in high mint state or proof grades that I wouldn’t want, because I think they’re ugly, usually because they’re darkly toned or they look cleaned. Of course, this may be just the look that you like. My point is that you should purchase a coin based on whether or not you like it, not on the grade on the holder and the price.

Finally, don’t be afraid to stretch a bit on what you have to pay for the coin. The coins I’ve selected are scarce coins with good demand. Over time, they’re almost guaranteed to be worth more than you paid for them. With that background, here’s my top 10.

1. 1908-S Indian Head cent in Very Good-8. This is a coin I find hard to resist. For one thing, it was the first cent coined in San Francisco, the first branch-mint cent, in other words. For another, it had a mintage of just 1,115,000 pieces, which gives it the third lowest mintage of any Indian Head cent. Not only that, but if it were a Lincoln cent, it would also have the third lowest mintage, nudging out the much more expensive 1914-D for that ranking.

On top of all the reasons I’ve given you, you can still purchase a circulated specimen for less than $100. It’s worth $77 in Good-4, $82 in VG-8, and just barely tops the $100 mark at $105 in Fine-12. I would urge you to buy one or more of this date as soon as you can, however, as this is a coin that I fully expect to be too high priced to make a $100 list in the not-too-distant future.

About the date, Richard Snow, writing in A Guide Book of Flying Eagle and Indian Head Cents, says, “These cents are scarce and popular, so demand is high. Many come with weak feather tips. Search for fully struck examples.” Of course, this tip about weak feather tips is irrelevant if you’re searching for examples that cost less than $100.

Other scarce Indian Head cents that you should still be able to find for less than $100 in G-4 include the dates from 1869-1872. I predict that they’ll all surpass the $100 level in the future.

2. 1911-S Lincoln cent in EF-40. Like many collectors, I got started with the Lincoln cent, and I spent many hours searching through rolls and even sacks of wheaties. Actually, they were all wheaties when I started collecting.

It turns out that 2009, as the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, is a great year for picking a Lincoln cent for my top-10-under-$100 list. With the spotlight on the series, good things are bound to happen with better, early dates. And the 1911-S is definitely a better date.

With a mintage of just slightly more than 4 million pieces, the 1911-S is the best, mintagewise, of the early S-mint semi-keys. In EF-40, the 1911-S lists for $75, and it’s only $105 in AU-50. In A Guide Book of Lincoln Cents, David Bowers calls it “a key date in all grades,” and I won’t argue with that.

If you believe, as I do, that Lincolns are poised for better things valuewise, then another good date to consider is the 1924-D, which is still valued below $100 in some decent circulated grades. It’s a $60 coin in VF-20, and with a mintage of slightly more than 2.5 million pieces, you should put it on your list along with the 1911-S. That mintage places the 1924-D fifth on the list of regular-issue Lincoln cents, behind only the 1909-S V.D.B., the 1931-S, the 1914-D, and the 1909-S, all of which are at or past the $100 mark in all collectible grades.

3. 1924-S or 1926-S Buffalo nickel in F-12. This time I’m giving you two coins for the price of one. In terms of mintage, these two dates rank fourth and first, respectively, with the 1926-S being the only date of which fewer than 1 million pieces were struck (970,000). Both dates are right at the $100 mark in F-12 ($96 and $100, respectively), and both take a huge leap in VF-20 ($455 and $375, respectively).

In The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels (3rd edition), David Lange writes the following about the 1924-S: “In low grades, 1924-S is yet another issue that performed poorly between 1960 and 1990, only to make an impressive recovery since then.” A 1924-S in F-12 should have decent design detail but not enough to qualify it for the major price increase that occurs at the next level. You should buy one quickly if you want to get it under the $100 level, however, as I think it’ll soon surpass that dividing line.

As indicated above, the 1926-S is already at the $100 level in F-12. Lange writes, “In the first edition of this book, published in 1992, I made the observation that 1926-S nickels grading F seemed undervalued. The market evidently agreed, as revealed by the price advance from 1990-2000, this value then doubling since 2000.” I would urge you to seek out nice examples of this date in this grade before the price doubles yet again.

4. 1913-S Barber dime in VG-8. I find this date hard to resist. With a mintage of just 510,000 pieces, the 1913-S ranks second in the entire series, behind only the key date, 1895-O (440,000). Despite this super-low mintage, the 1913-S is worth only $50 in VG-8, although it does surpass $100 in F-12 ($120).

The key to the value (or I should say, lack of value) of the 1913-S is hoarding, according to David Lawrence, writing in The Complete Guide to Barber Dimes. Recognizing its low mintage at the time, collectors saved the 1913-S, with the result that it’s more plentiful than some other Barber dimes with higher mintages. Its low mintage continues to be attractive, however, and “collector demand keeps the price up.” I look for it to continue to rise and urge you to salt away a few while the price is still so reasonable.

5. 1926-S Mercury dime in VF-20. This is one of several Mercury dimes with a relatively low mintage. In fact, with just 1,520,000 produced, the 1926-S has the fifth lowest mintage of the entire series, behind only the 1916-D, the 1921 and -D, and the 1931-D. Here’s what David Lange, writing in the second edition of The Complete Guide to Mercury Dimes, has to say about the date: “Fairly common in grades Good through Fine, grades VF and higher are genuinely scarce.”

But in VF, the 1926-S is not excessively expensive at $70. In EF-40, it jumps to $290, so I would urge you to buy the coin in VF at your next opportunity. I would expect it to pass the $100 mark in that grade fairly quickly.

Before I leave the series, I would like to point out that the 1921 and 1921-D can still be purchased in a collectible grade for less than $100. The more plentiful of the two, the 1921, lists for $60 in G-4 and $75 in VG-8. Although Lange writes that it is common in grades VG and below, I predict that the price will continue to rise because of demand.

The 1921-D lists for $78 in G-4 and is well above the $100 mark in VG-8 ($125). I think we will soon see solid Gs selling for $100 and up. If you can find a nice one at a good price, jump on it.

6. 1913 Barber quarter in F-12. I like Barber coins in general and Barber quarters in particular. Beyond the big three (1896-S, 1901-S, and 1913-S), the series contains several scarce dates with mintages well below 1 million pieces. Of course, the big three have long since passed the $100 mark in any grade.

This has not happened for any of the other dates in the series, although the 1914-S is getting pretty close at $82 in G-4. Interestingly, only 264,000 pieces were struck of the 1914-S, which is the same mintage as the much more expensive 1916-D Mercury dime. The 1914-S has the fourth lowest mintage of the series.

Just 484,000 pieces were struck at the Philadelphia Mint in 1913, which gives the date the fifth lowest mintage in the series. I suspect the 1913 suffers by comparison with its companion date, the 1913-S, which had a mintage of just 40,000 and is fast approaching the $2,000 mark in G-4.

According to David Lawrence’s second edition of The Complete Guide to Barber Quarters, the 1913 is “very scarce because of its low mintage, but saved to some extent.” He classifies it as R4 (“Scarce. May or may not be available at larger shows.”) in F/VF, and “Coin Market” values it at $75 in F-12. A nice VG-8 at $26 would also seem to be bargain priced.

7. 1913 Barber half dollar in VG-8. It wasn’t all that many years ago that I could list the three lowest mintage Barber halves (1914, 1915, and 1913, in that order) in an article about great coins selling for $100 or less. Today, only the 1913 is left, the one with the highest mintage (188,627). To put this mintage in perspective, the two key dates in the Walking Liberty half dollar series, the 1921 and 1921-D, both have mintages over 200,000 and both have long since passed the $100 mark in any collectible grade.

In The Complete Guide to Barber Halves, David Lawrence rates the 1913 as R3 (“A tough date. Only a few likely to be found at larger shows.”). This is the same rating he gives the 1914 and 1915. The 1913 lists for $77 in G-4 and $88 in VG-8. Care to wager how long it will be before this is a $100 coin in any grade?

8. 1921-S Walking Liberty half dollar in VG-8. In terms of mintage, at 548,000 produced the 1921-S ranks fifth in the series, behind only the 1921-D, 1921, 1938-D, and 1916-S, in that order. With the exception of the 1938-D, which is worth $90 in G-4 and $100 in VG-8, the other three dates are above the $100 line in all collectible grades. In G-4, the 1921-S lists for $46, and it’s still only $70 in VG-8. It takes big leaps in value thereafter, going to $220 in F-12 and $750 in VF-20. From there on, it fully deserves its status as the “King of the Walkers.”

If you can find decent specimens under $100, I would urge you to buy them, particularly if they just miss the requirements for a F-12. You can see how close the 1938-D is to the $100 mark in G-VG, and I believe there are more of it available than the 1921-S. Which would you think is the better buy?

9. 1886-S or 1889-S Morgan dollar in EF-40. This is another two-for-one deal, as both of these coins have similar mintages and similar values. With a mintage of 750,000, the 1886-S lists for $90 in EF-40. With a slightly lower mintage (700,000), the 1889-S is actually a little less expensive in that grade ($82).

I like any Morgan dollar with a mintage under 1 million pieces, and the 1886-S and 1889-S are two good dates to acquire. According to David Bowers, writing in A Guide Book of Morgan Silver Dollars, these are two dates that weren’t released at the time of their mintage. “By the second decade of the 20th century the [1886-S] was considered to be one of the great rarities in the series, exceeded only by the ‘impossible’ 1889-S. Both issues were mostly stored in the San Francisco Mint. Beginning about 1942, and continuing until the 1950s, the San Francisco Mint had quantities available for the asking, and many went to the Nevada casinos, but there was no numismatic market.”

In his encyclopedia of silver dollars, Bowers estimated the survival of “25,000 to 50,000 [1889-Ss], which for a Morgan dollar is not many.” His estimate of 20,000 to 40,000 of the 1886-S is similar. Look for coins with nice color that don’t have the appearance of being cleaned, and buy all you can afford.

10. 1927 Peace dollar in MS-60. Here, I was tempted to give you another two-for-one selection, but the coins would have to be in different grades. Specifically, I’m talking about the 1927, which I’ve listed, and the 1927-S. Both have mintages below 1 million pieces, and both can be purchased in decent collectible grades for less than $100. Actually, I would look for the 1927 in MS-61 or MS-62 rather than in MS-60, which can be a pretty bad-looking coin.

With a mintage of 848,000, the 1927 is worth only $70 in MS-60, with a jump to $185 in MS-63. Although its mintage is slightly higher at 866,000, the 1927-S is more expensive, with a value of $80 in AU-50 and $148 in MS-60. Bowers reports that the 1927-S is characterized by weak strikes, so keep your eyes peeled for better strikes of this date.

Well, that’s my list of 10 (actually more than 10) great coins that can still be purchased for less than $100 apiece in decent collectible grades. As you should be able to guess, I could easily put together several other lists of 10 great coins. For example, I didn’t mention any coins that are typically collected by type rather than by date. Just last night, I bid in a Heritage Exclusively Internet auction and won a nice-looking 1831 Liberty Cap 25-cent piece, graded VG-10 by ANACS, for less than $75. This is a coin with a “Coin Market” value of $95, so it could have been on a less-than-$100 list.

The point is that there are literally dozens of great U.S. coins that combine scarcity with relatively low prices. With a little study, you, too, can compile your own list of sub $100 coins that are fun to own and almost guaranteed to increase in value. Of course, you may find yourself bidding against me if you’re trying to buy them at auction. Good luck.

Chinese Government Wants To Purchase Another $80 Billion Of Gold!

By Patrick A. Heller June 30, 2009

Nine weeks ago, the Chinese government admitted to the mainstream media that it had added 14.6 million ounces of gold reserves from 2003 through 2009. For years before that disclosure, several of us non-mainstream media members had reported this activity to smaller audiences.

It wasn’t until about June 9 that the mainstream media was told that the Chinese government was planning to purchase an additional huge quantity of gold. The information became public when U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was interviewed on Fox News by Greta Van Susteren.

Kirk accompanied Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on his trip to China in May. While the Chinese were laughing at Geithner during his speech at Beijing University for claiming that the U.S. dollar was strong (By the way, laughing at a speaker is a major social no-no in China, a sign that Geithner’s comments were not respected at all!), Kirk was engaged in a private conversation with lesser Chinese officials. In this non-public discussion, Kirk was told that the Chinese were extremely concerned about the likely near term decline in the U.S. dollar because of the explosion of government debt. As part of the reaction to this concern, the Chinese government had established another reserve to stockpile petroleum and was planning to purchase another $80 billion of gold (about 85 million ounces at today’s price level).

Kirk’s revelation about the Chinese plan to purchase another $80 billion of gold was the very last comment in the interview. This extraordinary news received almost no coverage until last week when multiple hard-asset Web sites picked up the interview.

This information is not fresh news, even though the mainstream media did not report it until Kirk’s interview. For instance, I discussed the substance of it in the April 28 edition of this column. Let me repeat the relevant paragraph for you:

“By the way, the way the Chinese government operates is not open and direct. Changes in policy are signaled by speeches or papers by lesser officials. And [as] has been shown repeatedly, when the Chinese government issues a statement that it is considering something such as purchasing gold, they really mean that they have already been actively doing it. It is entirely possible that China’s central bank gold reserves are much higher than they now confirm.”

So, when the Chinese, by their indirect method, disclosed that they plan to purchase another $80 billion of gold, you can just about guarantee two facts. First, the Chinese are already buying this gold. Second, the amount of gold planned to be purchased is larger than they stated.

How much is 85 million ounces of gold in relation to anything? The potential International Monetary Fund (IMF) gold sale that has been bantered about since 2002 as a means to knock down the price of gold is less than 13 million ounces. Annual worldwide gold mine production is roughly 60 million ounces. The Central Bank Gold Agreement, covering governments, central banks, and official organizations such as the IMF that hold about 80 percent of the world’s official gold holdings, limits annual sales to 16.1 million ounces.

How can the Chinese accumulate this much more gold without the spot price rising significantly? The simple answer is that this is not possible. The price of gold is going to have to rise by a lot, much faster than mainstream financial experts want us to believe. The price will not rise in a straight line, but the longer you wait for any ‘pullback’ to offer a buying opportunity, the greater your risk that you might not be able to purchase anywhere close to current gold price levels.

This past weekend, I attended the International Paper Money Show in Memphis, Tenn. I was surprised how many dealers, whose livelihood does not involve trading gold at all, told me that they regularly read this column and have personally laid in a good stash of physical gold for their own protection.

Provided by numismaster.com

Why Are Some Rare Coins Undervalued?

Bootstrap Error Lincoln Cents In Circulation

By By Patrick A. Heller
June 23, 2009

What is reported in the mainstream financial headlines is often contradicted by the details behind the headlines.

For instance, there is no sensible reason why anyone would want to lease precious metals at a negative rate. That is, in addition to the risk of not getting back any metal at all, the lessor gets back less metal than they originally loaned out!

Yet, the one-month lease rates for gold and silver have been negative since June 2. I find it hard to believe that a profit-seeking owner of gold or silver would enter into a contract that guarantees a loss. After all, the owner would simply stay even if he did not lease the metal at all.

The only sensible explanation for such an action is that there is something else going on behind the scenes to compensate the gold and silver lessors for their losses at dumping physical metals on the market at a negative rate of return.

As I have explained in past columns, the U.S. government has a lot to gain from suppressing the prices of gold and silver – such as propping up the value of the U.S. dollar – and appears to have long subsidized the dumping of physical precious metals on the market.

So, right now physical gold and silver is being dumped on the market unrelated to supply or demand factors. It seems obvious to me that the only reason for the temporary bump in supply (leases have to be eventually paid back) is to suppress precious metals prices.

Trading in the gold and silver markets is frequently opaque, meaning that much of the activity occurs without being public knowledge. As a result, inside knowledge can often be used profitably by short-term traders who detect which way the market is headed before it actually goes there. The most profitable information tends to be the kind that cannot be easily double-checked because, by the time it can be verified, so many other parties are in on the story and have already placed their trades.

In consequence, traders learn which unverifiable sources tend to be accurate over the long haul. Bill Murphy, the chairman of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) is a veteran commodity trader who receives all kinds of inside tips as to what is really happening. He has enough experience that he can sort out the real from the imaginary stories with a high degree of accuracy. When Bill Murphy has something to say, I pay attention.

In his daily subscription commentary last Wednesday, he revealed, “Early this morning I received a phone call from someone in the gold industry whom I have met previously. He has a friend at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which is affiliated with the Comex. This ‘friend’ has been at the Merc for 35 years and is a pro’s pro, having been around the trading block a few times.”

“He told my source on Friday [June 12] that the U.S. government told Goldman Sachs on Thursday afternoon to take the price of gold down. Note the Thursday evening MIDAS (Murphy’s) comments after gold closed at $960.70 during the Comex trading hours …

“All of that AND THE GOLD CARTEL HAS THE AUDACITY TO TAKE GOLD DOWN $6 ON NOTHING in the Access Market. If you want to appreciate just how important GOLD is, please take in the above comments. Gold SHOULD HAVE upticked $4 in the Access Market, not downticked …

“The takedown in the Access Market was a prelude for Friday when Goldman orchestrated a further hit to $939.50, or down $21.40 from the Thursday Comex close, with more selling to come on Monday.”

The headlines that were reported referred to the U.S. dollar getting stronger and to oil prices falling, and that was why the prices of gold and silver declined. Well, from the time that gold touched $990 two weeks ago, the value of the U.S. dollar index has increased from 79.5 to 80.5. During the past two weeks, through Monday’s Comex close, the price of gold has fallen about 7 percent, entirely out of proportion to being a response to a stronger dollar. At the same time, through Monday’s Comex close, silver had fallen more than 15 percent from its peak two weeks earlier.

Actually the current headlines crediting a strong dollar causing the price of gold to decline are contradicted by recent history. When the price of gold topped $1,000 in February, the U.S. dollar index was 87.5. As the dollar index is now lower than 87.5, that theory would indicate that the price of gold should be even higher over $1,000 today.

It has become more obvious that the prices of gold and silver do not trade either in conjunction with or opposite to changes in the stock market indices, U.S. dollar index, the price of oil, long-term U.S. Treasury debt interest rates, or other financial statistics. Rather, for more than the past decade, the most important factor has been whether there was active price suppression activity.

Since 2002, the threat of an International Monetary Fund gold sale of about 400 tons has been trotted out repeatedly, but it seemed that it was only brought up when the price of gold threatened to make a major move upwards. Finally, a few weeks ago, it was reported that the U.S. Congress was on the verge of approving this sale (for such a sale to take place it must have support from 85 percent of the voting membership, with the U.S. holding a 16.9 percent vote).

Last week, a war funding bill passed Congress and was sent to President Obama for signature. This bill contained the approval for the IMF gold sale. Although the bill received significant news coverage for other provisions, the approval of the IMF gold sale did not get the major headlines that previous discussion of such a possible step garnered. It was almost as if the impact from the actual event was no longer relevant to the gold market. Perhaps someone in the U.S. government was so upset that the price of gold didn’t fall in conjunction with this bill passing that he or she ordered gold and silver to be knocked down this Monday just to make a point.

Perhaps the most intriguing recent story is that of the two men with Japanese passports who were stopped at the Italian border on a trip to Switzerland. The false bottom in one of their briefcases hid $134 billion of supposed U.S. government bearer bonds. As best I can learn (the story has almost a total news blackout in the U.S.). Most of the bonds were of the $500 million value plus a few $1 billion bonds. Apparently the bonds looked good enough to seem genuine except that the $500 million bonds were dated 1934, before the U.S. government ever issued bonds of that large a denomination.

There has been any number of conspiracy theories about the source of these counterfeit bonds. One attributes them to the Italian mafia. Another has the Italian mafia and the Venezuelan government working together (the Venezuelan government has denied any involvement, which they would do even if they were involved). Another theory considered the bonds to be genuine and represented an attempt by the Japanese government to try to secretly unload some of their U.S. dollar-denominated debt.

Perhaps the most interesting theory points out that the bonds were of such high quality that they could have passed inspection except for the flaw of the 1934 date. The means of smuggling them virtually guaranteed that the couriers would be caught carrying them and the counterfeit bonds discovered. It is possible that one or more parties is signaling that it has the capability of producing counterfeit U.S. bearer bonds of such high quality that they cannot be detected. However, rather than produce actual counterfeits, this party wants to advertise that it is risky to accept any U.S. government bonds as being genuine. If this was the intention of whoever made these fakes, that could easily hurt the value of the U.S. dollar as investors become afraid to purchase such bonds.

While gold and silver prices have declined from two weeks ago, they are still up significantly from the beginning of the year. The reasons for the recent lower prices seem to come more from artificial manipulations rather than free market trading activity. As such, I consider it more of a sign that we are getting ever closer to the day when precious metals prices will rise by leaps and bounds. The more people know about the real news stories, and not just the headlines, the sooner that gold and silver price suppression schemes will completely fail.

Provided by numismaster.com

China and IMF Gold Sales; The Real Story

– Posted Tuesday, 23 June 2009 | Digg This Article | Share this article| Source: GoldSeek.com           China’s recent veiled threats towards the establishment have been taken to heart.  As China announced increased gold reserves from 600 to 1,054 tonnes it was an obvious warning.  Initially I thought it was a direct threat against the ocean of treasuries being issued, but I think I have a clearer answer now.  China wants the IMF’s gold!             For years the IMF has “threatened” to sell their gold.  The final approval had to come from the US since they have veto power.  It finally came this past week.  For the gold they will receive an insignificant amount of money in today’s terms of $13 billion in paper, sorry I mean bits, or computer digits or whatever you want to call them, which can literally be created in the blink of an eye.  The 400 tons of gold being traded for this instant gratification would take a full two months of production from every gold mine in the world to produce.  Producing gold is quite a lot more labor intensive and thus gold’s worth is, or should be, much greater.             It became clear to me this morning that the threats by China were threats that they’d better push through the sale of the IMF’s gold or else.  Unless you’ve been living on the moon lately, and possibly even then, you’ve noticed the tantamount battle taking place in gold.  It coincided with the Chinese announcing gold reserve increases twice and looking back it’s clear to me the threat was either sell me the gold, or I will take gold up and over $1,000 which would have brought in the momentum traders furthering the rally.             The establishment hasn’t wanted and on many days have restrained gold from moving towards it’s fair value.  But recently they were losing the battle, and I surmise, succumbed in part by approving the IMF sale.  A high gold price is not what they want and they will do everything in their power to slow the inevitable rise.  Please see the facts which are all public record that GATA has amassed over the years for much more detailed information.               Other than China “forcing” the IMF to sell them their gold, allowing China to dump some of their US dollars, what is really exciting to me about the sale is that it’s not really hurting gold.  Sure, it’s down a bit and just below the 50 day moving average which could certainly knock it down some more, but really it’s holding up well and ultimately, nothing but another of the hundreds of gifts, by way of lower prices, to those who take advantage.             Will this be like the infamous Brown bottom when Gordon Brown unwisely and with the obvious intent of knocking the gold price down, announced the sale of 395 tones of Britain’s gold for the bargain basement average price of $275 in 1999.             Could we be looking back in the years ahead and seeing today as another bottom, perhaps this period will be known as Jiabao’s Jack.  Whatever the case gold is in demand and perhaps the last large available quantity has been jacked.             I may be right, or I may be wrong in my line of thinking.  But it makes sense to me knowing how the Chinese operate, and knowing the structure of the world financial system is ultimately backed by gold, no matter what they tell you.                     In my free, nearly weekly newsletter I include many links and charts which cannot always be viewed through sites which publish my work.  If you are having difficulties viewing them please sign up in the left margin for free here or send an email to warren@preciousmetalstockreview.com with “subscribe” as the subject and receive the newsletter directly in your inbox, links and all.  If you would like to see what my portfolio consists of please see here. Until next week take care and thank you for reading.  Warren Bevan  If you found this information useful, or informative please pass it on to your friends or family.  And please take a look at my portfolio here for help deciding where to invest. Free Service                 The free weekly newsletter “Precious Metal Stock Review” does not purport to be a financial recommendation service, nor do we profess to be a professional advisement service.  Any action taken as a result of reading “Precious Metal Stock Review” is solely the responsibility of the reader.  We recommend seeking professional financial advice and performing your own due diligence before acting on any information received through “Precious Metal Stock Review”. *To unsubscribe send an email to newsletter@preciousmetalstockreview.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject

Call me skeptical
Posted by Dave

If a German company wants to dispense gold by vending machine, can a vending machine for slabbed coins be far behind?

I started having these thoughts when a colleague e-mailed me a link to a Fox News story. Perhaps you have already seen it as well, but just in case, here is a link. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527055,00.html

Theoretically vending coins could work. The rationale for slabbed coins, which are coins authenticated, graded and encased in holders by a third-party grading firm, is that you could trade them sight unseen.

Vending purchases definitely would qualify as buying sight unseen.

Not attracted to the idea? I’m not really either.

Buying coins sight unseen has never really taken root in numismatics. Quite the opposite has happened. Hobbyists look at the slabbed coins closely to see if they could be ungraded on a resubmission.

So, as the results of the law of unintended consequences, coins are actually scrutinized much more closely in the professional field, because of slabs.

Perhaps the U.S. Mint could make this idea work. If U.S. banks don’t want to dispense current coinage, the Mint could place machines that vend Lincoln cents and Presidential dollars at those places around the country where collectors have been crying out for the them.

Yeah. Now there is an idea.

by Alexander Green
Charlottesville, Virginia

Today you are richer than 99% of the people who ever walked the earth. 

That’s true even if you’re out of work, flat broke, your credit cards are maxed out, your car’s been repossessed and a sheriff’s deputy has already served your eviction notice.

I’m about to explain why – and share the best three words of advice you’ll ever get … 

According to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, Americans’ views on the general state of the country have hit an all-time low, with 81% saying the nation is on the “wrong track” – the worst-ever number for this barometer.

Some will say this simply reflects The Great Recession and the inevitable pain and suffering it has wrought. 

But that’s not the whole story. Increasing numbers have been saying this – not just for years but for decades, with large majorities claiming that the country is going downhill, life is getting tougher, our children face a declining future and the world in general is going to hell in a hand basket. 

Exactly why is pretty obvious …

We face the twin specters of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. American troops are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. TV programming is trash. Taxes are high. The federal deficit is ballooning, home prices are falling, the currency is weak, food and fuel prices have jumped, credit is tight, and the stock market just experienced its worst year since 1931.

Of course, the national media delivers the world through a highly distorted lens. It does this to attract attention. It takes viewers to sell advertising. 

And you don’t draw a crowd talking about buildings that don’t burn, planes that don’t crash, or companies that are hiring instead of laying off. 

Yet despite all the negative news, our general lot is getting better, not worse. As Greg Easterbrook of the Brookings Institution recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “Living standards are the highest they have ever been, including the living standards for the middle class and the poor. All forms of pollution other than greenhouse gases are in decline; cancer, heart disease and stroke incidence are declining; crime is in a long-term cycle of significant decline, education levels are at all-time highs.” 

Our ancestors just a few generations removed would marvel at life today. In the first half of the 20th century, for instance, most people earned a subsistence living through long hours of backbreaking work in forestry, mining, farms or factories. 

Today we work roughly half as many hours, physical toil has ended for most wage earners, and we have more purchasing power with far more leisure.

In the first half of our nation’s history, most Americans lived and died within a few miles of where they were born. Nothing – neither people nor news – traveled faster than a horse. And, as far as we knew, nothing ever would. Today we have instantaneous global communication, 24-hour broadband Internet access and same-day travel to distant cities. 

Formal discrimination against women and minorities has ended. There is mass home ownership, with central heat and air-conditioning – and endless labor-saving devices: stoves, ovens, refrigerators, dishwashers, microwaves, cell phones and computers.

Medicine was almost non-existent 80 years ago. In 1927, for example, President Calvin Coolidge’s sixteen-year old son Calvin Jr. developed a blister playing tennis without socks. It became infected. Five days later, he died. Before the advent of antibiotics, tragedies like this were routine.

Advances in drugs and technology have eliminated most of history’s plagues. There has been a stunning reduction in infectious diseases. 

We complain about the rising cost of health care. But that’s only because we live long enough to need more of it. The average American lifespan has almost doubled over the past century. 

We have low-cost access to information, art and literature. We have almost every imaginable political and economic freedom. 

True, the federal government is a sprawling, metastasizing leviathan that needs to be beat back with a stick. But compare it to most governments in most countries down through the ages. 

In short, we enjoy economic and political freedoms that millions throughout history have risked theirs lives for. We live a long time, in comfortable circumstances, and enjoy goods and services in almost limitless supply. By almost any measure, we are living better than 99% of the people who have come before us. 

Yet Americans routinely tell pollsters that life is hard and things are getting worse. In short, we risk becoming the moping caricature that comedian Steve Martin creates when he grumbles, “the only joy I know is a dishwashing liquid.”

Seldom do we take a moment to appreciate our incredible good fortune being alive.

As Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins writes:

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here…

And none of us knows how long he’s going to be here. 

Take Eugene O’Kelly, former Chairman and CEO of accounting giant KPMG, for example. 

Four years ago, he was diagnosed with inoperable, late-stage brain cancer. He was told he had three to six months to live. He was 53. 

Suddenly, the life of this rich, powerful and privileged man, whose days were filled with executive meetings and business appointments, became something very different. 

He was left with less than 100 days to live. 

“No more living in the future,” he wrote in his memoir. “(Or the past, for that matter – a problem for many people, although a lesser one for me.) I needed to stop living two months, a week, even a few hours ahead. Even a few minutes ahead. Sixty seconds from now is, in its way, as elusive as sixty years from now, and always will be. It is – was – exhausting to live in a world that never exists. Also kind of silly, since we happen to be blessed with such a fascinating one right here, right now. I felt that if I could learn to stay in the present moment, to be fully conscious of my surroundings, I would buy myself lots of time that had never been available to me, not in all the years I was healthy…”

With the clock counting down, O’Kelly made a list of his closest friends and colleagues and planned a final encounter with each one: 

“I stopped at each name and made myself recall, in the closest detail possible, all the moments the two of us had enjoyed together. How we met. What made us become friends in the first place. The qualities in them I particularly appreciated. The lessons I learned by knowing them. The ways in which having met him or her had made me a better person.”

His friends were touched – usually overwhelmed – to know how much they had meant to him. “Enjoy every sandwich,” he writes.

Most of us promise ourselves that one day – not too long from now – we’ll slow down. We’ll spend more time with our family. Enjoy a lazy day out with friends. Or just take a walk alone in the woods or on the seashore. Some day…

If – like me – you’re one of the millions who has often deluded himself this way, O’Kelly has three words of advice: “Move it up.”

Eugene O’Kelly died on September 10th, 2005.

Regards,

Alexander Green
for The Daily Reckoning

How to Avoid Purchasing Counterfeit Coins David Hall – June 8, 2009

The issue of counterfeit numismatic items produced in China and imported into the United States has become a “hot button” topic the past year.

Counterfeit U.S. coins, some housed in counterfeit Professional Coin Grading Service and Numismatic Guaranty Corp. holders, are now a numismatic fact of life. And the industry suddenly has a sense of urgency and outrage about the “problem.” But I have a very strong opinion that this isn’t all that it seems, and I know that coin buyers, both collectors and dealers, can easily avoid the issue altogether. It’s really quite simple.

This commentary is not about PCGS. Yes, we conduct counterfeit detection seminars; we display an extensive group of counterfeits at all major shows. And with the 17 million coins we’ve graded and all of the information we provide for coin collectors on our website (most of it free), we are arguably the strongest consumer protection group in the coin market. But this is not a commercial for PCGS. This is about you and your coins – the ones you own and the ones you want to buy.

There’s nothing I enjoy more than looking at a great collection of coins, and I have tremendous admiration and respect for people who invest the amount of time, energy, and money necessary to build a great collection.

I don’t want you to buy counterfeit coins from China or anywhere else. And since I’m at the center of the coin market, especially the grading and authenticating part of the market, I have some advice for you. Follow it and you shouldn’t have any problems with counterfeits.

First, to put it in perspective, counterfeiting of rare U.S. coins is not a new thing. I remember as a kid in the late 1950s and early 1960s seeing lots of 1932 quarters with added Mint marks, and 1916-D dimes, and 1909 V.D.B. cents, and 1914-D cents.

As a young dealer in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I had to learn about and avoid counterfeit U.S. gold coins made in Lebanon that were common at the fringes of the coin market. In 1988, an unscrupulous dealer put $1.8 million worth of coins in counterfeit PCGS holders (he got four years in jail and we took care of the problem for those who ended up with the coins).

I’ve seen a lot of counterfeiting of rare coins and it’s not going to stop. It’s a part of the coin market – the fringe of the market – but it’s a part you can easily avoid.

Here are the Dos and Don’ts for avoiding counterfeit coins:

First and foremost, buy from known dealers. Thousands of reputable dealers are in this country. They may overstate the importance of their own coins, and their pricing may or may not be the best, but they don’t knowingly sell counterfeit coins. And in the unlikely event that they do sell you a counterfeit, they’ll take care of the problem for you. Both PCGS and NGC have authorized dealer networks. This is a good place to start. Buy from PCGS and/or NGC dealers.

Second, don’t buy from unknown online dealers/auctions. And don’t pay any attention to supposed “feedback” on online auction sites, as it can easily be faked. And absolutely don’t buy coins from sellers in China. And forget about swap meets and pawn shops.

Look, you simply are not going to buy a counterfeit coin in a Heritage auction (or Bowers and Merena, or Stack’s, or the Goldbergs, you know the names). And if a problem ever happens, it will be taken care of. But online auctions from unknown seller – I guarantee you’ll get what you pay for and probably less.

This is just common sense. Buying a rare coin at a seemingly cheap price from an unknown source is like buying a Rolex watch or Gucci purse for $50 from a passerby in a big city. There’s no chance the coin, watch or purse is real.

The ultimate solution to the Chinese counterfeits of coins and holders, or any counterfeit coins period, is simple. Know your dealer, know your auction source.

I deal with the problem of counterfeit coins every day. I hope you never deal with the counterfeit coin problem. And I hope you have fun with your coins!

Newer Posts »