Numista Values, Minimum Values, etc

My thoughts about Numista's coin and banknote values aggregated into a single thread:

1) For many reasons, I don't think Numista should list coin or banknote values at all. Crowd-sourcing values is a great idea prone to a million errors, as has been discussed in many threads here. To be blunt, there is no uniform value for a coin or banknote. Neither NGC, nor PCGS, nor Krause, etc etc agree on values for most coins and banknotes. Bluesheet, Greysheet, wholesale, retail, spot, etc etc. Valuing coins and banknotes is a difficult and worthy goal, but beyond what I think should be the mission of this website. There are far too many variables to consider, and no amount of statistical maneuvering can account for the variables.

Numista now gives recent ebay sale prices for some coins and banknotes. I agree with the addition of this feature, despite my disinterest in ebay. This feature is an objective measure of a coin or banknote's value, showing a range of prices paid for coins and banknotes in various conditions. We can see the raw data - who paid what, when, and where along with photos. This information is objective and factual, thus, far more reliable than the anonymous, unsupported, and often dated values input by members here.

2) If Numista must list values - which, despite my objection, I'm sure it will - coins containing precious metals should never list a value less than the melt value indicated on the same page. Spot prices are volatile and crowd-sourced valuations cannot accommodate the volatility over time and by location etc.

Apuking mentioned this in another thread (https://en.numista.com/forum/topic112716.html) and Limbru offered what appears to be an elegant and simple solution.

Yet, I still see many coins valued here at less than melt. Yes, it is possible to find coins at less-than-melt. For example, I bought a roll of America Silver Eagles some years ago for about US$10 each. Now the coins command a serious premium over melt - they commonly sell for US$30+. But still some ASEs are valued here at $18 when today's melt shows them at $19. What's the value? Another example: France 50 francs Hercules - melt today shows US$16.42, but Numista shows values as low as US$13. Again, I don't think Numista should list values at all, but if it does, the value should never show less than melt.

3) For circulating coins and banknotes, Numista should set a minimum default value equal to face value. For example, many coins in the US presidential dollars series show a value of 80 or 90 US cents. (Rutherford B. Hayes dollar coins shows values as low as 85 US cents today.) I don't doubt that someone somewhere acquired these coins for less than face value. Or perhaps they were acquired at or above face value but then the exchange rate flipped. I have bags of euro and other coins that I acquired for less than face value, but that is not a fair measure of their intrinsic value. Either way, Numista should have a default valuation of no less than face for circulating coins and banknotes, especially for major currencies like the US dollar. It just looks silly.

These are my opinions. Some will agree, others will disagree, and still others will tell me to search the forums for similar threads, which I already did. Posting my thoughts in Free Discussion because I don't think my opinions will change anything and Xavier et al. have heard these arguments ad infinitum. But I feel better now!

Just an observation which I've made before.  It seems most euro coins and eurozone banknotes are pinned to face value for all grades below UNC.  Not sure if a different algorithm is used. A couple of examples:

N#109

N#204879 

rsirian1

Just an observation which I've made before.  It seems most euro coins and eurozone banknotes are pinned to face value for all grades below UNC.  Not sure if a different algorithm is used. A couple of examples:

 

N#109

N#204879 

Somewhat belatedly, AFAICT the algorithm is the same everywhere: the values displayed are the median of the values entered.

The trick is that the values entered are converted into euros - apparently at the exchange rate as of entry time - before calculating the median. So for euros, if someone bought the items for face value, it would show face value, because the conversion is always 1:1 - but since the euro is currently at long-term lows relative to (e.g.) the dollar, if someone entered a value of $1 back when a euro was worth $1.20, it would be converted to 83 eurocents, which would then be treated as $0.80 today, resulting in the erroneous values.

Presumably a similar problem involving floating silver prices is at fault for the apparent under-melt values of precious metal coins.

Of course Numista does also show the melt value… and the converted face value for that matter.

Yes, Numista does also show the melt value, which fact makes publication of any crowd-sourced “values” at less than melt value look even sillier. Sure, we can all imagine a thousand scenarios where collectors buy and sell coins above / below the coin's current melt value (I won't bother elucidating), but, by convention, we all understand that a coin that contains precious metals is always worth at least the coin's melt value. So, if Numista insists upon publishing values, I propose that the default minimum value should be the coin's melt value. And, the solution could be as simple as:

If “value” is < “melt value” then print “melt value” or “BV” (for bullion value), etc etc

Now it's been a thousand years since I studied BASIC, fortran, etc etc, but I'm sure that one of the young whipper snappers around can make it work.

That's my 2 cents.