Dividing costs of aquisition in lots

the center coin on the top row is a previously unknown reverse for Constantine I

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You know I don't think we got to see a nice picture and attribution for every single one of those coins in that second photo. They were promised to us but that thread died out. I demand satisfaction!

 

I have only bought one lot before and at that time I never did keep a record of how much was spent. I would have been confused too, it was a good coin mixed with some decent and low grade stuff.

 

Gee, whiz...

 

This is my approach as well

 

Occasionally I'm buying lots, usually counting 5-10 coins, once I bought 22 Nabatean coins and once a group of 20 Central Asian obols. It's mainly concupiscence, though, a way of overcoming my usual frugality by thinking: I'm going to sell a few. But I rarely do. I hardly ever trade, and all the times I did, I ended up unhappy.

So, those coins are booked as cost plus shipping divided by the number of coins, but in fact I'm paying a lot for the nicest coins, and the others end up in a tray that I have been planning to offer for trading - since 2014.

This is the last lot I bought, eight rather crude, nice imitations of Roman coins, about 350 AD. Here they are on the kitchen table.

 

that is me also, no more lots unless they have something I gotta have!

 

I have to ask, what is the point of assigning cost if you are not a dealer?

 

Maybe I can put it another way. I bought the coin below in the early 1980's in a lot. The average coin was about 72 cents each. I sold all the rest of the junk (for a profit), thus this one technically has no cost?

Marcus Agrippa, struck by Caligula, 39 - 40 AD
Æ As, 29mm, 11.0 grams
Obverse: M AGRIPPA L F COS III, Head left.
Reverse: S C, Neptune standing left holding dolphin and trident.

Reference:
RIC58 (Caligula)

 

I think most probably they will be re-sold one day, either by us or by our heirs. It will be then of some use to know, either by us because we won't remember, or by them as they have no idea....

Q

 

Well, I worded my comment wrong. I do of course see the value of recording prices paid, and I do it for my collection as well. There are various aspects to the idea. For example, as a dealer, if I am looking at a potential lot, I assign a value of $0 to the least coins in the lot. If the remaining coins are sellable for profit, its good to go. I cant average them out for resale.

But then again, as my business is profitable, technically speaking all the coins in my collection cost me nothing in a way.

 

I get your point. We have of course a different perspective : You have to keep in mind the business you're running and make your living with, while we take in account the pleasure of having owned a coin for a while when we sell for less than we've bought

Q

 

This is an interesting intellectual exercise, although I'm not quite certain it's all that practical. Nevertheless, my educational background compels me to offer my thoughts on this topic -- possibly useless, since I've never purchased a lot.

There's a difference between cost and value that I think is being missed here. If I buy a single lot of 20 coins for $200, my average per-coin cost is $10. While some of the coins may be more valuable than others to me, that doesn't make their cost greater, since others may not agree with how I value them individually.

If I discard or give away 19 of the 20 coins, keeping the one that I really wanted, then my cost has risen to $200 for that coin. If I give away 10 of them, then my cost is $20 per coin. But other than average cost per coin, I really don't see the logic in trying to assign any other amount to each coin. Any other calculation is assigning a value to the coins, not a cost.

 

All of this is really well-put. What I'm seeing is a discussion of value within the parameters of a given cost (whatever was paid for the lot), which may not be practical, but at the end of the day almost everything about collecting ancient coins is impractical, and wonderful.

 

Not a glittering bunch of coins but at 3.34 GBP each, I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I look at the Max Thrax and Trajan.

And husband is asking how much I am spending, he is impressed with these.

 

Well put, but in an ideal scenario cost and value will be synonymous (which is why many people assign more to one than another, for balance). If cost and value do not match up in whichever method one uses to assign, they likely a mistake has been made in purchasing the lot!

 

I have a bad habit of using a business approach in valuing inventories. I need underlying values to assign as cost to each coin, so that I can assign burden to each of them. Therefore, if I feel that certain coins have a higher value, then I calc a % that that coin represents to total cost, then burdens can be spread over the inventory proportionate to the coins value to the total cost. But, that is just years of making stuff.

 

In English man, English!

 

LOL, yeah, I know, I know.