Sobering auction for those in hope of price appreciation . NY International.

[Deinomenid]

I know, I know,  just buy for the love of it but the Spink auction  today at the NY International was quite shocking to me.

The ancients section was mostly selling off one collection,  the bulk of which seemed to be acquired in the 60's and  70's. Many of the lots  listed the original purchase price, and 50 years later are selling for the same NOMINAL  price as they were back then. I'm sure the prior owner got  great pleasure from  the coins and it was not an investment etc etc, but to  have such low  nominal returns and  in some  cases horrific  real (post-inflation) returns  over  half a century made me pause slightly! Maybe  the original purchaser  consistently bought  poorly, I've no  idea, but  here are a few examples.

Oh, and I tried to rationalize it  by saying many purchases were  in Swiss francs so  that was a great asset to  own,  but even  in  Switzerland  the CHF has fallen  in real  terms  by 70% over 50 years. 2.5% annual inflation even there apparently over the period.

Same nominal price as 1982   https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY29T/kings-of-lydia-kroisos-c-56453-55039-bc-ar-hemistater-sardes

 Same price as 1969!   https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2C3/caria-rhodes-ar-didrachm-c-340-316-bc

Halved in real terms https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2D7/lesbos-bi-stater-c-550-450-bc

Same nominal price as 1974 https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2M6/lucania-poseidonia-ar-third-stater-c-530-500-bc-excessively-rare

DOWN in nominal terms since 1969 https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2DW/ionia-ephesos-ar-tetradrachm-c-320-300-bc-mnesarchos-magistrate

Halved in nominal terms  since  1975 https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2GV/ionia-samos-ar-drachm-c-408-380-bc-hegesianax-magistrate

I'm  not cherrypicking a few extremes, and some did ok but most  have lost money in real terms over a very long period.

 

But even  ones that appeared to have done well,  like this

https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2HU/lycia-phaselis-ar-stater-c-250-220-bc-aristarchos-magistrate

were actually flat in real terms.

 

I've been collecting since around 2000 and always had at the back of my mind that probable  price appreciation would  excuse any slightly (ahem!) aggressive bids  I make. I guess not!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ComicMan]

As with any hobby, don't put in any money that you are not prepared to lose, right? Unfortunately (or fortunately), the only coins that I can even see working as an investment are unique pieces or those of exceptional quality in gold. Like the Diocletian medallion that was recently auctioned off for 2 million, I am willing to bet that that one will hold its value quite well.

But think about it this way, if ancient coins really were a good investment I am sure I would never be able to purchase a truly nice piece. If I ever truly need to sell off my collection their resale value will also not be 0 as with my running shoes since these are ancient objects that are quite desirable for a lot of people. But I highly doubt I will ever make money off of them, maybe the next person who holds them will be as happy as I was though.

[John Conduitt]

I'm thinking that the sort of collector who bought coins like this from sellers like 'Leu Bank' for CHF4,000 in 1974 is the sort of collector who buys from the Leu Fixed Price List today. My parents' house was worth about that in 1974.

[idesofmarch01]

Your post piqued my interest, so I randomly chose coin #2 and used ACSEARCH to find "caria rhodes didrachm."

The search turned up 1,894 hits (some of which will be duplicates, of course) and scrolling down the list, my impression is that for coins in approximately the same condition as the one in this auction, the current prices were modest: $150 - $500 or so.  (Disclaimer: I have zero expertise in these types of coins so maybe there are distinguishing attributes that make some worth more or less than others, and I wouldn't be able to discern these.)  So the hammer price seems to be in line with today's market for this coin.

Possibly many of this particular type have been found in the intervening 50 years, keeping the prices low.

It may be that this particular type of coin is considered less interesting to current collectors than it was to old collectors.

Another, less benign reason might be that these were modest quality coins when acquired 50+ years ago, and they remain modest quality coins in today's market.  If he/she bought them from a dealer, he/she would have paid the normal dealer markup which can take years or even decades to catch up to current auction prices.  

Even in the short period I've been collecting ancient coins, it's been my observation that commonly available, middle quality coins rarely, if ever, benefit predictably from the effects of inflation or appreciation while coins in visibly better condition than, say, 90% of the same type can appreciate astronomically.  

I'm curious what other collectors with expertise in these coins think about this topic.

 

 

[Nvb]

Considering most of the original purchase prices were in CHF, this is noteworthy:

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/switzerland/exchange-rate-against-usd

 

• Switzerland Exchange Rate against USD data is updated monthly, available from Jan 1957 to Dec 2022. 
• The data reached an all-time high of 4.373 in Dec 1970 and a record low of 0.780 in Aug 2011.

if I’m interpreting this right, 1 CHF was worth as much as 4.3 USD around the time of purchase for many of these coins 

[DonnaML]

33 minutes ago, idesofmarch01 said:

Your post piqued my interest, so I randomly chose coin #2 and used ACSEARCH to find "caria rhodes didrachm."

The search turned up 1,894 hits (some of which will be duplicates, of course) and scrolling down the list, my impression is that for coins in approximately the same condition as the one in this auction, the current prices were modest: $150 - $500 or so.  (Disclaimer: I have zero expertise in these types of coins so maybe there are distinguishing attributes that make some worth more or less than others, and I wouldn't be able to discern these.)  So the hammer price seems to be in line with today's market for this coin.

Possibly many of this particular type have been found in the intervening 50 years, keeping the prices low.

It may be that this particular type of coin is considered less interesting to current collectors than it was to old collectors.

Another, less benign reason might be that these were modest quality coins when acquired 50+ years ago, and they remain modest quality coins in today's market.  If he/she bought them from a dealer, he/she would have paid the normal dealer markup which can take years or even decades to catch up to current auction prices.  

Even in the short period I've been collecting ancient coins, it's been my observation that commonly available, middle quality coins rarely, if ever, benefit predictably from the effects of inflation or appreciation while coins in visibly better condition than, say, 90% of the same type can appreciate astronomically.  

I'm curious what other collectors with expertise in these coins think about this topic.

 

 

That Rhodes coin is not what I would call attractive. Overpriced in the original sale, and I am rather surprised that it sold for as much as it did now.

[Nvb]

For what it’s worth, I already wish I had bid more aggressively on this coin. A high price for a common issue, but among the finest examples you’ll ever come across 

https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2NJ/lucania-thurium-ar-stater-400-350-bc

 

 

 

Edited January 16 by Nvb

[Deinomenid]

9 minutes ago, Nvb said:

Considering most of the original purchase prices were in CHF, this is noteworthy:

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/switzerland/exchange-rate-against-usd

 

• Switzerland Exchange Rate against USD data is updated monthly, available from Jan 1957 to Dec 2022. 
• The data reached an all-time high of 4.373 in Dec 1970 and a record low of 0.780 in Aug 2011.

if I’m interpreting this right, 1 CHF was worth as much as 4.3 USD around the time of purchase for many of these coins 

That’s correct but it doesn’t affect the argument if the currency you are translating into is the same.  All purchases in this auction were $ which you can translate into CHF (original consigner’s unit of purchase)  at very roughly parity so you can fairly easily compare nominal chf purchase prices.

[idesofmarch01]

15 minutes ago, Nvb said:

Considering most of the original purchase prices were in CHF, this is noteworthy:

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/switzerland/exchange-rate-against-usd

 

• Switzerland Exchange Rate against USD data is updated monthly, available from Jan 1957 to Dec 2022. 
• The data reached an all-time high of 4.373 in Dec 1970 and a record low of 0.780 in Aug 2011.

if I’m interpreting this right, 1 CHF was worth as much as 4.3 USD around the time of purchase for many of these coins 

I think you have this reversed.  In 1970 it took around 4.4 CHF to buy one U.S. dollar.

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

Lesson learned: don't consign to Spink!

[Deinomenid]

@idesofmarch01 re “commonly available, middle quality coins rarely, if ever, benefit predictably from the effects of inflation or appreciation while coins in visibly better condition than, say, 90% of the same type can appreciate astronomically”

 

I was hoping for the same. But the really rare coins  in this sale also had terrible price performance such as LUCANIA, POSEIDONIA, AR THIRD-STATER, C. 530-500 BC [EXCESSIVELY RARE]

This sold for the same price in common currency 50 years on. One auction doesn’t prove anything, and as TheTrachyEnjoyer says it may be an issue with the sale (though it was well publicized at a major industry meet) or it may just reflect the purchaser overpaying but oh boy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ominus1]

..well....i see my collection being sold by Christies...but in reality(and after i'm dead, i don't believe i'll care :P)... they'll probably be sold off the porch o me house..><

[Hrefn]

My impression is that the relative importance of condition as a component of price determination increased enormously in the field of US coin collecting about the time TPGS began to pervade the field.  No one really felt a need to divide uncirculated coins into ten gradations before the late 1980’s as far as I remember.    Brilliant uncirculated, Choice BU, and gem brilliant uncirculated was as much categorization as required.  It has taken almost 50 years, but the mania for perfection and the asymptotic price curve for higher grades has permeated the market for ancient coins as well.  Ancients will never be as homogeneous in production as modern, machine made coins, and the TPGS system will never fit the field as well.  But the TPGS phenomenon, fostered by very well financed major dealers, has had a major impact. 

Consequently, mid grade coins have appreciated in price modestly if at all, while the choicest coins have increased markedly.   It is good news for collectors who do not focus on condition, so far as future purchases go.  Bad news for collectors who are very selective regarding condition.

 

[filolif]

I wouldn't exactly read too much into a single auction and draw a broad conclusion. Each auction is unique. There is a reason most auctions don't list consigners original purchase price. Spink listed them to try to help juice the prices because they know they are high. In this case, because the consigner seems to have overpaid for the quality of the coins. But some coins in this sale did pretty well too (even with the original overpayment).

Edited January 16 by filolif

[John Conduitt]

6 minutes ago, Deinomenid said:

This sold for the same price in common currency 50 years on. One auction doesn’t prove anything, and as TheTrachyEnjoyer says it may be an issue with the sale (though it was well publicized at a major industry meet) or it may just reflect the purchaser overpaying but oh boy!

Spink don't have any trouble getting high prices.

The fact that it's likely half or more of all ancient coins have been discovered since the 1970s will surely have something to do with it. I think it's also pretty clear the buyer vastly overpaid, unless it was normal to buy average coins for the price of a car or a house. Perhaps there was some sort of tax advantage. I think the high prices paid are probably why they were included in the descriptions, which isn't exactly common practice.

Coins I've bought where I have the prices from old sales seem to have done reasonably:

- 3 denariii for an average of £60 each that Ken Bressett bought for $2 in 1950. CPI would put those at $22.50 each.
- Saxon coin I bought for $1000 sold for $425 in 1985. That aligns with CPI.
- Farthing I bought for $160 cost $70 in 1973. That should be $400, so it hasn't done as well.
- Siliqua that cost me £325 was £125 in 1982. That should be £470 by CPI. A lot of siliquae have been dug up since 1982.

They're not expensive coins, but on average have appreciated more or less as expected.

[Nvb]

54 minutes ago, idesofmarch01 said:

I think you have this reversed.  In 1970 it took around 4.4 CHF to buy one U.S. dollar.

I stand corrected. 
I even thought about this before posting and still got it backwards. Sigh 

• The ever appreciating currency is a “self fulfilling prophecy”: the Swiss tend to invest in local stocks in CHF or to hedge foreign currency exposure

https://snbchf.com/chf/chf-history/long-term-view/

[David Soknacki]

Thank you @Deinomenid for re-opening the discussion on ‘ancient coins as an investment.’

Based on my experience and observations, on average ancient coins preserve some of their value, but in comparison to other options they offer poor returns.

I’ve been an ancients collector since the 70s, and over that period have traced the values of my purchases. After adding all the costs, including inflation, then subtracting a dealer’s selling commission, on average I don’t make a profit when I sell a coin. Sometimes I don’t recover nominal cost. A few times I do well.

… but there is a silver lining. If the tax authorities ever audit when my collection is sold, my heirs will probably be able to show that it was done at a loss.

Also, thinking one can do well over the long term in ancients usually doesn’t factor in opportunity cost. Here is an example. I purchased the Sybaris nomos below in Mar 1997 from a CNG auction for USD 1 100, which is about USD 1 900  in today’s money. What is it worth today, net of a dealer’s commission and selling costs? Charitably, let’s say USD 2 700.  As a comparison, investing that amount in the S&P 500 would be worth about USD 14 000.

I expect that if I invested many hours searching for mis-priced material, purchased and sold in lots, travelled to shows and otherwise treated the hobby as a business, I could reduce my losses. Maybe even make a profit. But that would change the nature of my activity.

For myself ancient coin collecting is a great hobby, but as an investment? Not so much.

Edited January 16 by David Soknacki
fixed grammar

[AncientJoe]

Part of the issue was horrible advertising by Spink! I was unaware of this sale and just asked a few friends who also hadn't heard about it. 

I haven't looked closely enough at the prices the collector paid but it is curious that almost all coins were purchased privately rather than at auction: perhaps they were uniformly overcharged for them.

The quality of many of the coins left a lot to be desired but some were still steals at these prices. I'd have bid on several had I known about the sale and it's not because of a lack of paying attention to upcoming auctions.

[ewomack]

Coins of any kind are, overall and in general, a terrible investment. I just expect to lose money in the long run, otherwise I would drive myself insane dithering over purchases. To balance this out, I now buy very few coins and have become excessively picky about what I do purchase. I have to really, really, really, really, want a coin to buy it. A "wow, that's cool" or "that's probably good enough" won't cut it anymore. I've got to want a coin with my entire being. As such, I've passed on a lot of things that I would not have passed on even a few years ago. My few experiences selling provided sobering experiences. On a coin by coin basis, I came out ahead on some of them, but the ledger stood at quite a deficit overall. I just lost money. The top 10% of the market will likely appreciate greatly, but those kind of specimens require extensive resources to acquire. I'm not in that league and never will be. So, where I sit I have accepted that, overall, I will likely lose money. It helps keep my desires and wallet in check. It has also greatly reduced the number of purchases that I've regretted.

[Roman Collector]

29 minutes ago, Hrefn said:

My impression is that the relative importance of condition as a component of price determination increased enormously in the field of US coin collecting about the time TPGS began to pervade the field.  No one really felt a need to divide uncirculated coins into ten gradations before the late 1980’s as far as I remember.    Brilliant uncirculated, Choice BU, and gem brilliant uncirculated was as much categorization as required.  It has taken almost 50 years, but the mania for perfection and the asymptotic price curve for higher grades has permeated the market for ancient coins as well.  Ancients will never be as homogeneous in production as modern, machine made coins, and the TPGS system will never fit the field as well.  But the TPGS phenomenon, fostered by very well financed major dealers, has had a major impact. 

Consequently, mid grade coins have appreciated in price modestly if at all, while the choicest coins have increased markedly.   It is good news for collectors who do not focus on condition, so far as future purchases go.  Bad news for collectors who are very selective regarding condition.

 

There was a time (a century ago) when ancient coin collectors valued completeness over condition and assembled collections of tens of thousands of coins in their areas of interest. Naturally, these coins would be in average, collectable condition, with the rarities perhaps in lower states of preservation (beggers can't be choosers when it comes to rarities). Many of us who specialize in a certain field of numismatics, such as @David Atherton, @Ryro, @maridvnvm and myself still collect this way. But I feel like we're a dying breed. So much so that our heirs will likely sell our collections at a loss.

Encapsulation by third-party grading companies has changed the emphasis in numismatics from quantity to quality. This demand for high grade material -- ludicrous as it sounds when we're talking about 2000 year old coins that had been buried in dirt -- has led to thousands of sestertii being tooled and smoothed, essentially ruining what would have been treasured in decades past.

Case in point:

See this sestertius of Faustina the Elder? It has an exceedingly rare obverse inscription in the dative case. Literally fewer than a half-dozen known. And the coin has been RUINED by extensive tooling and smoothing, turning a rarity into a modern fantasy piece. Great Jupiter, people!!! If you're going to tool and smooth something, at least choose only common coins to "improve" and spare the great rarities from this monkey business!

At least the British Museum understands the importance of acquiring rare coins like this no matter their grade.

 

The tooled coin sold at Roma just makes me sick. And it wouldn't have happened but for the (modern) demand for high-grade material.

[Ryro]

25 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

There was a time (a century ago) when ancient coin collectors valued completeness over condition and assembled collections of tens of thousands of coins in their areas of interest. Naturally, these coins would be in average, collectable condition, with the rarities perhaps in lower states of preservation (beggers can't be choosers when it comes to rarities). Many of us who specialize in a certain field of numismatics, such as @David Atherton, @Ryro, @maridvnvm and myself still collect this way. But I feel like we're a dying breed. So much so that our heirs will likely sell our collections at a loss.

Encapsulation by third-party grading companies has changed the emphasis in numismatics from quantity to quality. This demand for high grade material -- ludicrous as it sounds when we're talking about 2000 year old coins that had been buried in dirt -- has led to thousands of sestertii being tooled and smoothed, essentially ruining what would have been treasured in decades past.

Case in point:

See this sestertius of Faustina the Elder? It has an exceedingly rare obverse inscription in the dative case. Literally fewer than a half-dozen known. And the coin has been RUINED by extensive tooling and smoothing, turning a rarity into a modern fantasy piece. Great Jupiter, people!!! If you're going to tool and smooth something, at least choose only common coins to "improve" and spare the great rarities from this monkey business!

At least the British Museum understands the importance of acquiring rare coins like this no matter their grade.

 

The tooled coin sold at Roma just makes me sick. And it wouldn't have happened but for the (modern) demand for high-grade material.

Zeus almighty, the tail is wagging the dog Did we just turn into the...

"Lunatic fridge, I know you're outa beer. You're hiding, an array of moldy cheeses.

Lunatic fridge..."

Strong start to the year for us "sexy completests" as the media is surely to dub us:

And a few stray shots that are still on point:

[kevikens]

Supply and demand. Thanks to metal detecting the market is awash with medium grade silver coins and saturated with lower grade late imperial bronzes. It does not help that increased  counterfeiting scares off potential collectors. In addition I think demand for Ancients is down as a percentage of the population as school students are much less  likely to study Ancient and Medieval history or to study Classical languages both of which create interest in all aspects of those periods of history. Also there is nagging fear, whether rational or not, that one's collection of today may be seen as unlawful cultural appropriation tomorrow. with attendant problems of selling it later on..

[David Atherton]

52 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

There was a time (a century ago) when ancient coin collectors valued completeness over condition and assembled collections of tens of thousands of coins in their areas of interest. Naturally, these coins would be in average, collectable condition, with the rarities perhaps in lower states of preservation (beggers can't be choosers when it comes to rarities). Many of us who specialize in a certain field of numismatics, such as @David Atherton, @Ryro, @maridvnvm and myself still collect this way. But I feel like we're a dying breed. So much so that our heirs will likely sell our collections at a loss.

This. Collecting fashions change ... currently it is all about condition - which is fine if you are into that sort of thing. But for me, ancient coins are about the history. If I can enjoy that history via an EF, VF, or F grade denarius - great! Grade is not a primary motivator for me.

The influx of modern coin collectors to ancients via slabs with their hyper condition minded mentality has changed the dynamic of the hobby.

[El Cazador]

5 hours ago, Deinomenid said:

I know, I know,  just buy for the love of it but the Spink auction  today at the NY International was quite shocking to me.

The ancients section was mostly selling off one collection,  the bulk of which seemed to be acquired in the 60's and  70's. Many of the lots  listed the original purchase price, and 50 years later are selling for the same NOMINAL  price as they were back then. I'm sure the prior owner got  great pleasure from  the coins and it was not an investment etc etc, but to  have such low  nominal returns and  in some  cases horrific  real (post-inflation) returns  over  half a century made me pause slightly! Maybe  the original purchaser  consistently bought  poorly, I've no  idea, but  here are a few examples.

Oh, and I tried to rationalize it  by saying many purchases were  in Swiss francs so  that was a great asset to  own,  but even  in  Switzerland  the CHF has fallen  in real  terms  by 70% over 50 years. 2.5% annual inflation even there apparently over the period.

Same nominal price as 1982   https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY29T/kings-of-lydia-kroisos-c-56453-55039-bc-ar-hemistater-sardes

 Same price as 1969!   https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2C3/caria-rhodes-ar-didrachm-c-340-316-bc

Halved in real terms https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2D7/lesbos-bi-stater-c-550-450-bc

Same nominal price as 1974 https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2M6/lucania-poseidonia-ar-third-stater-c-530-500-bc-excessively-rare

DOWN in nominal terms since 1969 https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2DW/ionia-ephesos-ar-tetradrachm-c-320-300-bc-mnesarchos-magistrate

Halved in nominal terms  since  1975 https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2GV/ionia-samos-ar-drachm-c-408-380-bc-hegesianax-magistrate

I'm  not cherrypicking a few extremes, and some did ok but most  have lost money in real terms over a very long period.

 

But even  ones that appeared to have done well,  like this

https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-8GY2HU/lycia-phaselis-ar-stater-c-250-220-bc-aristarchos-magistrate

were actually flat in real terms.

 

I've been collecting since around 2000 and always had at the back of my mind that probable  price appreciation would  excuse any slightly (ahem!) aggressive bids  I make. I guess not!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I strongly disagree here, the lots I was bidding on - brought In astronomical pricess, way above what I would expect coins of sub-par quality would go for… only a few Tetradrachms And didrachms were solid… but boy, I was wrong - prices were insane- i lost all my targets and was only competitive on 2 coins out of 10 on my watchlist 

[El Cazador]

4 hours ago, idesofmarch01 said:

Your post piqued my interest, so I randomly chose coin #2 and used ACSEARCH to find "caria rhodes didrachm."

The search turned up 1,894 hits (some of which will be duplicates, of course) and scrolling down the list, my impression is that for coins in approximately the same condition as the one in this auction, the current prices were modest: $150 - $500 or so.  (Disclaimer: I have zero expertise in these types of coins so maybe there are distinguishing attributes that make some worth more or less than others, and I wouldn't be able to discern these.)  So the hammer price seems to be in line with today's market for this coin.

Possibly many of this particular type have been found in the intervening 50 years, keeping the prices low.

It may be that this particular type of coin is considered less interesting to current collectors than it was to old collectors.

Another, less benign reason might be that these were modest quality coins when acquired 50+ years ago, and they remain modest quality coins in today's market.  If he/she bought them from a dealer, he/she would have paid the normal dealer markup which can take years or even decades to catch up to current auction prices.  

Even in the short period I've been collecting ancient coins, it's been my observation that commonly available, middle quality coins rarely, if ever, benefit predictably from the effects of inflation or appreciation while coins in visibly better condition than, say, 90% of the same type can appreciate astronomically.  

I'm curious what other collectors with expertise in these coins think about this topic.

 

 

I concur here, prices were extremely strong even for a weak material