"Fresh" Investment Grade Coins at Urbid

I think this is my 4th FA post this week. Maybe my fifth. Sorry.

Still, gold is moving up and there is a little more than one day left on a
one ounce gold krugerrand, 1979, that I have listed at UrBid Auction Site.
Minimum bid is $350, no reserve. SH&I is $18, but I will reduce SH&I to $7
if payment is made by check or money order. As I type, Kitco is showing
gold at $376.10 and they offer 1 oz gold krugerrands for sale at $384 plus
their shipping charge.

Anyone wanting to own an ounce of gold may not find it any cheaper today
than at UrBid auctions, here;

http://urbid-auction-site.com/cgi-bi...tem=1062267958



Keep in mind, though, that gold moves both directions, and just a week or so
ago, gold was moving down to $344 or there abouts, off of a high of over
$360. Bill

"Andy Martin" wrote in message news:3f4c11da_3@newsfeed...
"Bob Flaminio" wrote in message
...
Andy Martin wrote:
As I sit here and look at the 1970 "Redbook" at an 1804
small 8 Half Eagle listed for $750.00 and check current pricing, the
same grade coin is now listed at $6950.00 in PCGS price guide.

That translates to a return of about 7% per year. Not bad, but not as
well as you would do in the stock market, which has averaged 10.1% since
1926.

--
Bob

Bob,
What was the price of the coin above in 1926? What is the % of increase on
it since then? I would imagine considerably more that 10.1%. Keep in mind
this is at least an MS63 coin.

I have an old edition of B. Max Mehl's "Star Rare Coin Encyclopedia".
He offers to pay $7 to $10 for 1804 half eagles. If I act very
charitably to that old crook and assume that the retail value in 1926
was only $20, then you get an annualized compound interest rate of
only 7.9%.

Suppose that you could buy an 1804 half eagle for face value in 1926.
Instead of buying that, if you invested $5 in stocks in 1926 and
averaged an annual return of 10.1% then you would have $8,252.65
today.

Any way you look at it, the stock market is a better place for your
money.

Bob Flaminio wrote:

Alan & Erin Williams wrote:
Suppose that you could buy an 1804 half eagle for face value in 1926.
Instead of buying that, if you invested $5 in stocks in 1926 and
averaged an annual return of 10.1% then you would have $8,252.65
today.

Any way you look at it, the stock market is a better place for your
money.

The fallacy is that after October, 1929 your $5 very likely became $0
and the company in which you invested went bust.

If you invested in one company, sure. The average I quoted is for the
entire market, which did not go bust. It sucked for a long time -- in
fact, if you invested the day before the crash you didn't get back to
break even until the 1950s -- but it didn't disappear.

--
Bob

I'm not sure which companies could have sold you a whole share for $5.
Unless I'm mistaken market index funds were not available...I'm not at
all certain about mutual funds but I think not.

You are right that it 'sucked for a long time', the market continued to
decline *after* the crash for three years. Off the top of my head,
there was no upswing until August, 1932.

Alan
'recession, hell!'