Topic: [WTS?] - ANACS MS 67 Silver Casascius Tenth with Exception (Read 2375 times)

Transaction complete.

Nice coin for a decent price .

Confirmed, atomicsix has purchased this coin.  Escrow has been funded with OgNasty.

I will leave this thread open until atomicsix has received the Super Tenth and escrow has been released.

Just posting this up here for reference, Iglasses just accepted my offer.

Going to escrow with OGnasty, and shipped from LesbianCow.

I have purposely sought out casascius coins with dust transactions in the past.  I was very interested to own coins that had Sochi Olympic spam on them.  I wanted it because it's a piece of history, not just monetary history.  This coin is different though, it has a significant amount of funds on it, but I don't think that hurts the coin and in fact will probably add to its premium over time.  As time goes on, it's going to be harder and harder to acquire coins not attached to your identity.  Sure, there will always be people who know how to get anon coins but most average people won't know and people with large banks accounts won't care about the premium.  This coin could be one that fetches a big price later on and I have no doubt this thing is going to get peeled some day because of it.

See if there was a section for this discussion this thread wouldnt have been hijacked....oh wait sorry back to the cas coin sale.

All,

Thanks to everyone for the comments (even the mean ones).  Add my name to the list of people that would love to see a sub forum for the discussion and sales of physical coins.

Now on to the matter at hand...

I don't see how the overfunding affects the value of the coin, but I do agree that it restricts the potential buyers to those would not mind the additional BTC being locked up in it.  If one wanted to, they could gather up all the addresses of these coins and overfund them with dust for next to nothing and there would be nothing the holders of those coins could to stop it.  Would that destroy the value of those coins?

As it happens I am out of town until 7/8 but I do have one person to PM with before a final decision is made on this coin.
Again, to thanks everyone for the input

ig

I agree also on adding the section, but obviously the powers that be do not. I suppose if we get a section then everyone else will also want a small section and it will get out of control.

I chimed in with my 2 cents towards the cause in your thread as well. I just don't see a reason for them (theymos, mods) not to do it honestly...

If they added a physical crypto subforum in the Goods section I truly think most people wouldn't even notice, unless they were already interested/involved in the physical crypto community on here.

Yeah, I started that a couple weeks ago but didn't keep up with it.  I'll go bump it if you guys want to keep trying.  I think there's enough interest...

Edit:  bumped.  Have at it ladies and gents. 

We've tried that before. Og posted a thread in the Meta section and many of us coin nuts chimed in, but the mods said something to the effect of there wasn't enough demand to justify it...   

Perhaps the Meta thread could get a nice bumping though.    I definitely agree a whole side section for physical BTC and other coins would be great.

I second that motion

I really wish there was a subforum to have conversations about the physical coins   

I think that quote from Nubbins was in response to me talking about valuation of coins (in terms of the price offered times face value, or 2x face value) when comparing one Casascius coin's market price to another Casascious coin's market price. I agree with Nubbins math. However the valuation, the answer that Nubbins math provides, needs to be thought of in terms of 2x, 3x, etc. when compared to a similar coin with a different market price or valuation.

Lesbian Cow, I'm glad you're willing to entertain the side conversations. I think it keeps Casascius coins relevant and new people educated. It also keeps your thread floating on the first page!

Interesting side conversation, thanks!

Nubbins' formula is correct from a collector's point of view, no doubt.

I guess what I am saying is that in my opinion it is the sale price, which is what the market will pay, which determines the relative numismatic value and seller's premium.  The face value is fixed.  

I also could be all wrong and have no idea what I am doing.

Personally, I have a shiny premium, which is why I prefer the silvers...

Cheers!

You don't price the coins you buy/sell in terms of their premium, but rather their absolute value?

Below is how at least one person thinks that coins should be priced:

Hi Quickseller,

Technically, I am not selling the coin, iglasses is.  I just have it in my possession - he will determine whether he wants to keep the coin or sell it to an offer received. 

I have just this year started collecting Casascius, and some other, physical coins.  I am certainly no expert, but I would happily pay 1.85 BTC for a MS67 Silver Tenth (that offer is good to anyone who has one).  Yes, I got this one for what I would consider a good deal at 1.65.  Now that the coin has 1.75 BTC loaded on it I am not sure what the coin is worth but iglasses and I wanted to find out, thus this thread. 

There was a bid via PM at 3 BTC and the highest on thread was 2.4 so I guess the market says it is worth somewhere in that range?

Cheers!

[/quote]
I think my point is somewhat proven by the fact that you are essentially selling the coin for what is essentially the same price you paid, the day (or close to it) that you received the coin. I understand you to be a collector of cas silver coins, somewhat assume that you have a good amount of money, so if the coin really would maintain it's value when it is loaded with additional funds, then I would think that a collector would pay for the coin a second time if their payment was accidentally loaded onto the coin (if the coin would maintain the same premium then the net effect to your finances would be zero, and you would get to keep what is a very rare coin).

I know that if I were to be offered a premium of 1.25 BTC on a MS67 cas tenth, then there is a pretty good chance that I may not even respond to them as I would think they are not serious about buying.
[/quote]

Well the basis for my theory is that unfunded and redeemed coins tend to sell at significant discounts verses what coins that are funded at their face value. I don't think I have seen any sales of redeemed cas coins that received a high grade, however I would hypothesize that the premium for a redeemed coin would be less then an unredeemed coin that received the same grade.

I don't think your 'attack' would work very well, because I think the amount the premium would decline by would be less then the additional amount loaded onto the coin. I am just throwing numbers out there, however a coin that is loaded with an extra 1 BTC might see it's premium decline by .1 BTC, so the net price would be .9 BTC higher. The issue in this case however is that this appears to not have been an intentional 'attack' but was rather a mistake, and you are trying to make good on someone else's mistake.

I think my point is somewhat proven by the fact that you are essentially selling the coin for what is essentially the same price you paid, the day (or close to it) that you received the coin. I understand you to be a collector of cas silver coins, somewhat assume that you have a good amount of money, so if the coin really would maintain it's value when it is loaded with additional funds, then I would think that a collector would pay for the coin a second time if their payment was accidentally loaded onto the coin (if the coin would maintain the same premium then the net effect to your finances would be zero, and you would get to keep what is a very rare coin).

I know that if I were to be offered a premium of 1.25 BTC on a MS67 cas tenth, then there is a pretty good chance that I may not even respond to them as I would think they are not serious about buying.

I do not think it hurts the value, but it does make the coin harder to sell in my opinion. The extra 1.6BTC is pretty much trapped/useless since we never actually redeem the coins.

This is an interresting issue...
Should a Casascius 0.1 BTC contain only the original 0.1 BTC to be a 'pure' coin?
Because if so, if you have bad intentions, a coins can be easily devalued by putting more btc on the public address, which are all public.
IMO it does not matter how many bitcoins are on the coin, it is about the physical amount of coins that were made and the grading.
But still food for though...