Numista shouldn't publish values

In an earlier thread, I ranted about the erroneous values published here on Numista for some coins. Among other things, I said that I think that the default value for any coin with precious metals, especially silver and gold, should never be less than the coin's melt value.

For fun, I will post in this thread coin values that I find here on Numista that are notoriously incorrect, in my humblest of opinions.

1957-D US Washington Quarter Dollar

N#54

Value listed here in Good condition is $0.50.

Melt value listed here is $3.53.

That's just silly. I would gladly buy all the silver quarters you have for 50 cents each!

Time to update the values.

I agree with most of your points that you made in your 1st  post re: banknotes in  Numista shouldn't publish coin banknote values. I haven't bought coins in decades so I cannot comment on their coin approximate values but I know that the majority of their banknote estimates have been off (far lower than what I paid).  I don't mind b/c I take the figures with a huge grain of salt - like their “rarity index.”  I have read criticism re: this index too but I don't really pay attention to it since most people online will submit whatever info they want. It is bound to be inaccurate.  I also suspect that their coin/banknote approximations are not for TPG notes (or graded coins).     

Most coin/banknote catalogues & guides are just that- guides intended to help a collector get a ballpark Book Value (BV) figure. The BV's are dated (old) the moment they are published. Sometimes the  BV's are too high but typically, they're too low.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to say that we won't see many more published catalogues since most collectors aren't interested in using the hard copy books these days & prefer more current online figures. 

When I first bought my massive 2 SCWPM (Krause catalogues), one for Modern & the other for older issues, I immediately got my pen out & started to adjust (cross out) their BV's with what I saw happening with notes from Bangladesh, Israel, Bermuda, etc to name just a few nations which were selling for 2 to 3 or 4X the BV of my 2016 guide in 2019 (before the pandemic).  I remember trying to buy the first 2002 UNC Euros & most of these figures being slightly above FV -far short of what I had to pay too but the market fluctuates & eventually the prices did come down. Most pricing panels for most catalogues prefer to err on the side of caution (rather than make generous claims) as this is better for the hobby too.

TCon

1957-D US Washington Quarter Dollar

 

N#54

 

Value listed here in Good condition is $0.50.

 

Melt value listed here is $3.53.

 

That's just silly. I would gladly buy all the silver quarters you have for 50 cents each!

 

Time to update the values.

If you click through the 57D link https://en.numista.com/catalogue/entry.php?id=28821 (or any of these other 90% silver quarters) you will see the Greysheet prices bottom out at $5.83.  Curiously if you look at any of the proof versions https://en.numista.com/catalogue/entry.php?id=111845 they bottom out at $4.68.  Besides being inconsistent between proof and low grade circulated, the circulated poor quality should be valued right at melt (I believe).  Maybe my point is that even a company with resources whose goal it is to track prices still has trouble with this.  I don't claim to know how often Greysheet update their prices that are pulled in here, but again maybe that's part of the point.

Having said all that, I wouldn't be surprised if Xavier were able to work in a precious metal value floor in the numista price shown, though I don't know where it would sit on his priority list.

There was some discussion I started around valuation here https://en.numista.com/forum/topic123253.html though in a different context.

Imho, banknote catalogue values should aim to trail the market values rather than lead them. In valuing notes for a catalogue, I would look primarily at prices realised in auctions of the main auction houses, and sample a pool of what the market is doing at shows.

Catalogue values as such would aim to be be advised minimum values.

Hibernia

Imho, banknote catalogue values should aim to trail the market values rather than lead them. In valuing notes for a catalogue, I would look primarily at prices realised in auctions of the main auction houses, and sample a pool of what the market is doing at shows.

 

Catalogue values as such would aim to be be advised minimum values.

Totally agree!

-the “Values Published” are just from an algorithm based on minimum values  & should not be the main focus for our collecting.

These posts remind me of what @qwerty844448 wrote in the "Fate of coin/currency forums" thread:

On Instagram and other social media platforms, I do come across people my generation claiming that they are coin collectors who are interested in Numismatics. Yet, whenever I send a picture of a coin from my collection to them, their only responses seem to be “How much is this worth?” and “Have you got it graded/authenticated?" and seem to be disinterested when I tell them that my 1961 10 kopecks coin from the USSR is worth nothing more than half a dollar. 

I realize everyone collects for different reasons & that Book Values (BV) & Fair Market Values (FMV) play a role in our decision/discussions of what to acquire. But I just wish that it wasn't such an obsession for some. (Perhaps that's why I didn't touch this post for a while & could care less about the values or rarity index). At times I wish the whole topic could be avoided but I know that's unrealistic (its the proverbial “elephant” in the room).    

I had no concern over values when I started (I just wanted an example of each signature combo) & its funny because I do enjoy getting something that is "tough" vs popular these days.  I do wish more collectors could look at the historical aspects, motifs & themes of what they collect & enjoy the hobby more based on the back stories (how they got the note, etc).  I have also found the trend to attain "top pops" a bit disturbing too. A nice grade is lovely but it shouldn't be the sole focus or the primary collectors' goal. But then again, am I being judgmental (which I try not to do)?

I also find that people who post “what its worth” question(s) on other forums often don't last long in this hobby! 

I sure do appreciate the interest in this topic, but…

I was going to use this thread to post coins where the Numista values were “notoriously incorrect” especially those that are significantly below melt value.

Oh, well, please continue :)

I didn't mean to hijack the thread!  I am still curious about your finds regarding posted value vs melt, and especially to know if there is always (almost always?) enough information - weight and composition - to reliably calculate bullion value.  I saw on a different thread that bullion prices are now updated hourly here by Xavier, so in principle you could get real time ish melt value.

I am always curious by the prices listed in catalogues especially Krause, as it seems to be miles behind the actual date that the front cover states.

As for prices on Numista? These are as fare as I am aware added by members who have recently purchased this particular coin, and paid that price. This could well cause confusion as it good have been bought from someone who had no idea of it's true value, thus buying it cheaply or bought at a much higher price than average as it was a coin the collector wanted badly, and was prepared to pay that price or lose it.

I have never been interested in the Numista valuations as they are not something I look at when buying a coin. If I want the coin and I think the price is reasonable, I buy it. Job done

TCon

1957-D US Washington Quarter Dollar

 

N#54

 

Value listed here in Good condition is $0.50.

 

Melt value listed here is $3.53.

 

That's just silly. I would gladly buy all the silver quarters you have for 50 cents each!

 

Time to update the values.

I will note that at the bottom of the page that you linked for the quarters, is the info:

Bullion value: USD 3.41

So while it is not substituted for the $0.50 it is available to you here on Numista.  I don't know if this is a recent change or update, but just noticed.  

I didn't mean to hijack the thread!  I am still curious about your finds regarding posted value vs melt, and especially to know if there is always (almost always?) enough information

+1 

(that was not my intent either)

In Canada we have a monthly magazine that contains a section called Trends. The man who runs it is constantly watching all the published sale values of Canadian coins. You can image the amount of work. They are all listed by denomination and grade. He determines the numismatic value and if it exceeds the bullion value he puts it in. Otherwise he puts a BV for that grade. Many coins do not have a value until they get into very high grades.  So many coins do not have a value unless they are ms60 +.  To do this here would require a huge amount of work.

I find the values listed as only a guide of what my fellow collectors have paid. The bullion value listed is good enough for me as I know it can be applied to the coin I am looking at. Regardless of grade I can apply it to the coins minimum value. If my fellow collectors have paid more I understand the coin has a numismatic value too (or they overpaid for it).