Author Topic: 1984 Pagoda's  (Read 10778 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Underbidder

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2012, 03:40:03 PM »
I wonder if its possible somehow a digit got accidently dropped from the mintage number. Funnier things have happened.
A mintage figure of 2600 would be way more in line with other silver medals, and with the number of sets graded, as Batman pointed out.  The figure of 260 always seemed odd, out of place, and didn't make sense.

Offline badon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Karma: -81
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2012, 03:53:34 PM »
I wonder if its possible somehow a digit got accidently dropped from the mintage number. Funnier things have happened.
A mintage figure of 2600 would be way more in line with other silver medals, and with the number of sets graded, as Batman pointed out.  The figure of 260 always seemed odd, out of place, and didn't make sense.

That is an interesting possibility. It's speculation for now, but I don't think it can be ruled out. The only thing we can determine for now is that it appears the mintage was never sold and never dispersed. It probably remained concentrated in the hands of a few dealers who bought them from the mint originally. That means there would be several other hoards coming to the market, if the mintage were higher.

We saw that happen with the 1989 3.3 oz silver God of War & wealth. After the first 50-coin hoard hit the market, there were a few other hoards that surfaced also, as prices continued to rise. We haven't seen that happen with the pagodas yet.

In the case of 1989 GoWaW, a significant fraction of the full mintage is not yet accounted for. We will not be surprised to see more of them turn up in the near future. However, the known mintage fraction of the 1984 pagodas is much higher, which decreases the likelihood that additional hoards will come to market, which in turn means that if another hoard does come to market, it will be much more meaningful for the pagodas than it would be for the 1989 GoWaW.

It still wouldn't be conclusive, but it would be an interesting clue. If we see another 30 pagoda sets get dropped on the market, it will be interesting. Before anyone had heard of pagodas, I talked to several dealers in modern Chinese coins who had been in the business for decades. All of them told me they had never seen one in-person before.

If there are significantly more pagodas out there, they must be in the tight hands of only a few people. Otherwise, the career dealers would be telling me they have encountered them at least once in the last 30 years.

Online pandamonium

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Karma: 34
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2012, 04:16:09 PM »
The mysterious pagado mintage.  Seems many Chinese coins are mysterious.  Makes sense that more sets would have come into the market when prices were high.  For me, it is better to own one then none at all.  Its a good gamble even if mintage were 2600 instead of 260  (PF 68 are for cheap skates like me) :) .........

Offline SANDAC

  • Supporter
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2264
  • Karma: 118
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2012, 05:16:32 PM »
Here are some number to spice up the discussion:
Take a look at NGC 3493608 and 3546002.  They contain a big collection of Chinese medals.  There are 86 Pagoda, 24 gold fish, and 23 GoWaW.  The NGC population contains 216 Pagoda, about 20% of the Mr Ge's population.  The 86 Pagoda in these two NGC submission account for 40% of the 216 Pagoda population.  So an argument can be made that the NGC Pagoda population is warped by the two submission.  For comparison, Mr. Ge says there are 2430 GoWaW actual mintage.  NGC population shows 293, so that's 12% of the actual mintage.  If we remove the 86 coins from the 216 Pagoda population, then ((216-86)/1040) we get 12.5% of the actual Pagoda mintage.  So the ratio of NGC population to actual mintage of Pagoda and GoWaW are comparable if NGC 3493608 and 3546002 are removed.


Offline SANDAC

  • Supporter
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2264
  • Karma: 118
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2012, 05:24:05 PM »
I guess what I tried to say is this:  Both GoWaW and Pagoda are medals.  They both received lots of publicity and experienced great rise in price.  Price have fell for both of them.  Giving the same price exposure and publicity, NGC Pagoda population is 20% of actual mintage whereas GoWaW is 12%.  This would suggest Pagoda's population is actually larger than the published 260/coin.  But I'm making an argument that because Pagoda's population is so small, a large submission or two can warp the ratio, and if these large submission is taken out, then the population become comparable to that of GoWaW.

Of course I'm biased, I happened to own the Pagoda.

Offline badon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Karma: -81
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2012, 05:43:25 PM »
So, in other words, you have no idea how many there actually are :)

Offline badon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Karma: -81
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2012, 05:52:22 PM »
I just had another thought. With the Coin Compendium, not only can we track the specimens using the certification numbers, but we can also use the CC sighting system to find out if they're actually hitting the market or not. A lot of pagodas have been graded, but I have not seen anything even close to that quantity actually being offered for sale. That could be because the people holding them are the same people that submitted them, and they are not willing to sell.

What I claim to have seen can be proven definitively with the Coin Compendium's sighting system. If it is proven, then we have to ask the question, why are they not being sold after grading? If it is dealers that own the coins, how are they making money by sitting on so many rare coins? They must be betting on higher prices. If it is collectors sitting on them, they may not care if prices go higher or not, if they want to keep the coins.

Small collectors like to submit coins with other collectors. I know a lot of people here are saying they own pagodas. Did you get them from a dealer, or did you submit them yourself. Did you submit them together with other collectors or dealers?

The Coin Compendium has a barely functioning inventory system where you can track your collections of coins that you own or want to own. The only way we're going to get good data with that is if collectors add their collections to the CC themselves. Once other tasks are done, I can improve the inventory system to make it fun and easy to showcase your collection on the CC. Hopefully that will get us some more data.

Offline KonaJim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Karma: 5
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2012, 06:10:08 PM »
The bottom line is price is king.  And you are wrong, there are many savvy investors.  I could name you 25 with ease.  Clark Smith knows what he's doing.  He would not sell the set for the price offered if he thought he could get more money for it.  People, I won't name, name's, have been pushing these B.S. Pagoda sets for a while now.  They have been a poor investment...period.

Offline badon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Karma: -81
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2012, 06:20:18 PM »
I honestly cannot think of a single rare modern Chinese coin that has not been widely ridiculed as a poor investment. Pandas were the first, when everybody thought China only cared about culturally significant coins. Some of those coins are now worth over $1 million, up from silver bullion value. Now, everyone is saying the culturally significant coins are a poor investment, and pandas are what's hot.

Because of the Button Gwinnett Effect, if modern Chinese coins remain a popular area of collecting, every coin will get its time to shine. It is only a question of when, and how much. At the lowest of the low, pagodas are still up over 400% from where they started from. If that's a poor investment, then at the very least, I know I'm in the right market.

Offline KonaJim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Karma: 5
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2012, 06:27:12 PM »
A poor investment is something that goes from a price of $ 28,000.00 to $ 3,850.00.  You don't see the 1995 Proof Panda going for $ 3,850.00.  It takes a real man to admit that sometimes he is wrong.

Offline poconopenn

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2664
  • Karma: 226
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2012, 06:48:24 PM »
http://china-mint.info/forum/index.php?topic=3646.30

My comment in above link will tell the story. IMO, NGC might grade some plated sets as silver set prior to realize the mistake, similar to the fiasco in 1984 silver plated goldfish set.

Offline badon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Karma: -81
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2012, 07:31:48 PM »
A poor investment is something that goes from a price of $ 28,000.00 to $ 3,850.00.  You don't see the 1995 Proof Panda going for $ 3,850.00.  It takes a real man to admit that sometimes he is wrong.

Actually, yes I have seen 1995 1 oz gold proof pandas go for the $3000 price level - They dropped to that level right after I bought them at the $8000 price level, so I bought more. I'm very glad I did.

Also, as far as I know, the only sales of 69 grade pagodas prior to the one that sold for the $25,000 price level were all private, and all of them sold for much, much less. The price at $25k seems to have been too much too soon, and should be considered an outlier that is not statistically significant. At the time, $8000 would probably have been a more reasonable price, which would then have dropped to our current $4000 price level for a 69 grade 4 coin pagoda set.

http://china-mint.info/forum/index.php?topic=3646.30

My comment in above link will tell the story. IMO, NGC might grade some plated sets as silver set prior to realize the mistake, similar to the fiasco in 1984 silver plated goldfish set.

Thanks for posting that poconopenn. I have no doubt that worry about fakes has contributed to the temporary decline in prices for the pagodas. I know of several that were certified by NGC by mistake, which I dutifully reported, and which NGC has now seemed to have prevented from occurring again.

One interesting thing I want to add about my role in the market for pagodas:

At the same time I was talking about pagodas, I was also talking about goldfish. The goldfish went up in value, where they have plateaued. The pagodas went WAY up in value, dropped, and have now plateaued. There's nothing I have done to cause that difference in performance between pagodas and goldfish. They both have similar stories, similar mysteries, and similar problems with fakes.

The only thing that is significantly different is their mintages. The pagodas are known to have a very low mintage. Not so much rarity is currently ascribed to goldfish. Guess which one is more expensive today? The pagodas, of course. The market may be immature, but it is not completely crazy (at the moment). It still makes sense, and all the fundamentals are still in operation. Mintage rarity, grade rarity, relative rarity, popularity, and the Button Gwinnett Effect are all performing their normal roles, with any deviances from expectations well within the bounds of an immature market.

Offline poconopenn

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2664
  • Karma: 226
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2012, 08:07:51 PM »
Here are some number to spice up the discussion:
Take a look at NGC 3493608 and 3546002.  They contain a big collection of Chinese medals.  There are 86 Pagoda, 24 gold fish, and 23 GoWaW.  The NGC population contains 216 Pagoda, about 20% of the Mr Ge's population.  The 86 Pagoda in these two NGC submission account for 40% of the 216 Pagoda population.  So an argument can be made that the NGC Pagoda population is warped by the two submission.  For comparison, Mr. Ge says there are 2430 GoWaW actual mintage.  NGC population shows 293, so that's 12% of the actual mintage.  If we remove the 86 coins from the 216 Pagoda population, then ((216-86)/1040) we get 12.5% of the actual Pagoda mintage.  So the ratio of NGC population to actual mintage of Pagoda and GoWaW are comparable if NGC 3493608 and 3546002 are removed.



Perhaps, many graded pagoda and goldfish coins sumbitted by these two NGC submission accounts were misgraded. It is known to long term (20 years +) coin collectors that the grading companies tend to grade coin loosely in a coin bull market and tighter in a bear market. I do not believe this is intentional. In a bull market, grading company has to hire more graders who are inexperence and tend to give a higher grade to avoid complain and make many mistakes, while in a bear market, grading companies keep the experence graders and layoff the Jr. graders.   

Offline Panda Halves

  • Supporter
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
  • Karma: 45
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2012, 08:17:39 PM »
I fail to see how pagodas are related to this Button Gwinnett phenomenon.
Konajim quite accurately uses the 1995 proof panda as an example of a good investment to refute pagoda performance.
The 1995 Proof panda is the Button Gwinnett of panda dates (irrespective of variety)
Pagodas are a sub-set of the entire modern Chinese coin market. They have a low relative mintage but are no means the lowest.
Button Gwinnett matters to a sub-set of specialty Declaration of Independance signature collectors the way a 1995 proof panda matters to a huge sect of panda collectors. As such, I don't see how a pagoda is a "Button Gwinnett" coin the way say, a 1995 proof panda is.
At best pagodas are the Robert Livingston's of Modern Chinese coins...

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/livingston_r.htm

Offline SANDAC

  • Supporter
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2264
  • Karma: 118
Re: 1984 Pagoda's
« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2012, 08:32:36 PM »
http://china-mint.info/forum/index.php?topic=3646.30

My comment in above link will tell the story. IMO, NGC might grade some plated sets as silver set prior to realize the mistake, similar to the fiasco in 1984 silver plated goldfish set.

I only dimly remembered the discussion on Pagoda so it is quite interesting to re-read that old thread.  This quote from davidt3251 was prescient:

"You know what they say about wanting to buy a rare coin for $1075. First you have to buy the same coin for $6250 (to draw out the supply)"
http://china-mint.info/forum/index.php?topic=3646.msg18241#msg18241

Was he referred to something specific or was that just a number he grabbed out of thin air?  Because you can use that ratio of 6250/1075 and re-write it as:
"You know what they say about wanting to buy a Pagoda set for $4300. First you have to buy the same coin for $25000 (to draw out the supply)"

So it looks like I overpaid by $200 with my $4500 Pagoda purchase.