<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Evaporation of the Premium Factor in the Carson City $20 Market</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.raregoldcoins.com/market-blog/the-evaporation-of-the-premium-factor-in-the-carson-city-20-market/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.raregoldcoins.com/market-blog/the-evaporation-of-the-premium-factor-in-the-carson-city-20-market</link>
	<description>Douglas Winter Numismatics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:17:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Jackson</title>
		<link>http://www.raregoldcoins.com/market-blog/the-evaporation-of-the-premium-factor-in-the-carson-city-20-market#comment-1026</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Jackson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:28:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.raregoldcoins.com/?p=5842#comment-1026</guid>
		<description>Hi Doug,

I will say this. I do not like the common date 1924, 1928, and 1904 (as examples) double eagles. They should be treated as gold bullion because they are way too common. But I will also say that some of the cc double eagles are too common for me too. Dates like the 1875cc and 1890cc even in higher grades are somewhat common. All you need to do is look at the last Heritages auctions. I believe nearlt 20 1890 cc double eagles! Maybe these coins are due to be compressed to the more common dated coins!

Larry Jackson</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Doug,</p>
<p>I will say this. I do not like the common date 1924, 1928, and 1904 (as examples) double eagles. They should be treated as gold bullion because they are way too common. But I will also say that some of the cc double eagles are too common for me too. Dates like the 1875cc and 1890cc even in higher grades are somewhat common. All you need to do is look at the last Heritages auctions. I believe nearlt 20 1890 cc double eagles! Maybe these coins are due to be compressed to the more common dated coins!</p>
<p>Larry Jackson</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reid</title>
		<link>http://www.raregoldcoins.com/market-blog/the-evaporation-of-the-premium-factor-in-the-carson-city-20-market#comment-1022</link>
		<dc:creator>reid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.raregoldcoins.com/?p=5842#comment-1022</guid>
		<description>Doug: While the common numismatic double eagle  dates may be  a good value; the rarer dates in the better grades may be better value because they havent risin at all with the price of gold. While the common dates are at thier highest levels ever. the rarest double eagles have all backed off thier highs .The condition census double eagles have not made new highs in the last year either. As you pointed out earlier there is compression across the price  lines. ;In my opinion these compressed prices are not the normal state of things.What do you think.?As usual isnt the best where it is at in coins?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doug: While the common numismatic double eagle  dates may be  a good value; the rarer dates in the better grades may be better value because they havent risin at all with the price of gold. While the common dates are at thier highest levels ever. the rarest double eagles have all backed off thier highs .The condition census double eagles have not made new highs in the last year either. As you pointed out earlier there is compression across the price  lines. ;In my opinion these compressed prices are not the normal state of things.What do you think.?As usual isnt the best where it is at in coins?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

