World Colonial

Does the actual number even matter? I don't think so. The primary if not only reason this question comes up on coin forums is because of the implications on the future price level. Whether it's 10MM or somewhere near my prior guesstimate of 2MM isn't likely to impact the future price level materially because the vast majority of collectors (however defined) aren't candidates to buy most of the (somewhat) more expensive (US) coins collectors currently own. The primary exception to my statement is mostly the coinage you collect: common pre-1933 US gold, Morgan and Peace dollars, and gold and silver NCLT.

There are certainly millions of high-grade post-1933 US coins that could be graded. It's never going to happen because it's economically self-defeating. Much of this coinage isn't worth the cost of grading now. If you are referring to US coinage dated prior to 1934, I didn't even hint at millions, but it is my inference that the TPG data isn't reflective of the scarcity much or most of the time. Why would anyone think that? There isn't any default reason to believe it for a number of reasons, starting with confirmed small to medium sized hoards of usually much harder to find non-US coinage. As for the US coin market "collapsing", I'm not expecting it in my lifetime except possibly due to economics. Longer term, anyone who has read up on US demographic trends will understand my conclusion. The primary US collector demographic (non-Hispanic Caucasian men) isn't growing or if it is, barely. It's more likely to shrink. The demographic groups accounting for all (projected) population growth have a (very) low to non-existent interest in coin collecting (except maybe as "investment") and they certainly have no cultural connection to US coinage. There is no basis to believe they will later either where they will even come close to collecting US coinage in anywhere near the same proportion. One other factor which I have never mentioned before is recent "woke" culture. It's limited to my knowledge and may turn out to be temporary. US collectors better hope so, because it's potentially disastrous to the economics of collecting US coinage and possibly much of coin collecting generally, including what I primarily collect now.

I'd have to find the article so you can read Garrett's comments and Stacks' reply in context. I tried to do that earlier today but would have to search the articles in the archive and I don't remember the publish date. It's out there if you want to do it. Stack wasn't specific. He didn't mention any specific coin or coins. I interpreted his comments generically, as I've tried to explain here.

It doesn't take sets of this size to impact the price level noticeably. Numerous individual coins will do it. For the non-US coinage I've used as a comparison, almost certainly not usually (large) collections. Outside of "name" collections, the few I've seen for my series have been both incomplete and (mostly) abysmal quality.

I previously posted a list of about a dozen factors which appear to correlate to survivability. That's what leads me to my conclusions. Here is another example. My avatar coin is an 1813 Mexico PCGS MS-66 1/4R. Last I checked, 10 in 66, 19 in 65, and 50 total with 45 in an MS grade. Probably zero duplicates due to the price and frequency of sale. Mintage unknown but probably several million. Actual number is potentially several hundred in an MS grade. This coin should easily be scarcer than the (vast) majority of US coins even of comparable age with a roughly comparable mintage. Is this a hoard coin? Maybe, but I've never heard it. I infer or know of numerous non-US hoards from the TPG data. Where it isn't a hoard, it should be evident that in at least 9 of 10 instances, the US coin will be (noticeably) more common in comparable quality with a (somewhat) comparable mintage. To your last comment, I think zadok's point is that we won't necessarily see it. Generational money doesn't necessarily sell because they don't need the money, as I infer you are in a position to know. There were also a sufficient number of affluent Americans in the past (probably concentrated in the NE) who could have saved or bought this coinage and still have it. Post-colonial America wasn't poor by contemporary standards. That's my inference anyway.

Not thinking in terms of this coinage because of those you listed, only a few Saints are actually scarce or rare. The rest of it is really common, except under the US financially motivated contrivance of TPG labels which most collectors don't actually care about in the context of US condition census coins. The Morgan dollar isn't representative either because of the outsized financially motivated buying. I'd estimate most of the most common dates even in UNC or "BU" potentially still aren't graded. For the key and semi-key dates, probably have been but I could still be wrong about that. For the other series you listed, I absolutely expect that most of the better coins have not been graded, potentially up to condition census grades. Most of the TPG counts in "high" quality (up to better MS) aren't low even now, but you need to remember that only the earlier WLH and Lincoln cent dates preceded album collecting and not by that long. It's not like most of this coinage is really worth that much. It's also not realistic to expect most who own it to be thinking in your context.

I'm not referring to average or lower circulated coinage. I'm referring to "high" quality whether the condition census grade or somewhat below it, regardless of what the TPG label is for the "top pop". That was my point in using my 1771 Peru 2R as a basis of comparison. It doesn't take even as single new "top pop" to noticeably negatively impact the price level, given the actual demand for these labels (not coins). A proportionately large increase several points below the condition census grade is usually enough to suffice.

I wasn't specifically referring to condition census coins. It's not as relevant as you consistently claim to very many collectors. It's a number on a holder label to almost everyone because they aren't ever going to buy it, and it does not even have (hardly) any relevance to what they do buy. Look at the comparison I made in my last post. Nine 1771 Peru 2R AU-58+ already graded with likely no duplicates. Given the preference among these collectors for TPG (virtually non-existent outside the US), potentially more out of a holder than in one. The number surviving for a coin like this one is presumably effectively a random event. But still, ask yourself, how likely is it that so many US coins with current TPG counts lower or near it even with noticeably higher mintages are (almost) as scarce or scarcer than this coin in this quality or otherwise? The most likely reason most are graded is TPG preference and mostly due to the higher price. Previously, I mentioned a Coin Week Article by Jeff Garrett claiming what you do. Harvey Stack posted a comment directly contradicting him. I agree with Harvey Stack because I think he was in a much better position to know. One admittedly anecdotal example is the Chapman collection of gold dollars profiled in Coin Week which actually did include numerous "top pops", up to MS-68. Previously Unknown Chapman Collection of $1 Gold Now Revealed (coinweek.com) Remember, post-1776 US metropolitan areas weren't an economic backwater, not like 1770's Lima, Peru.

Maybe. Back in 1998, my former boss told me he had a collection of post-1968 proof sets. I didn't ask him if he had anything else. All I remember is that he was disgusted when I informed him that he had been wasting his money on a SDB for decades. He certainly wasn't "active", whether anyone wants to call him a collector or not. Not sure how typical this example is of what you see. I'm aware that given the supply of so many common coins, someone has to own it. Usually when someone asks this question, it's in the context of future prices presumably including their own collection. If there really are 10MM US collectors or any number approaching it, the vast majority (probably in the vicinity of at least 70%) have no relevance on future demand, certainly not on the US coinage owned by most US collectors. Longer term, I expect demand for practically all post-1933 US coinage to decline noticeably first and then collapse. Only somewhat better for earlier dates.

This has been discussed before. No, I don't think the majority of "grade worthy" coins have been submitted, even from those that are financially worth submitting. It varies by series and coin since some coins and series are far more likely to be submitted due to the probability of fakes and buyer preference. It's a higher proportion for what you buy, but you don't buy the coins even most buyers spending around the same amount do. Definitely higher for pre-1933 US gold, Morgan dollars, and classic commemoratives. Still, there may be more 1881-S Morgan dollars out of a holder than in one, just not in the highest grades. Look at the TPG counts and estimates in Coin Facts. You can also compare the outdated Coin Facts commentary to the estimates or itemized census. Right on the same page, it's not unusual to see where (apparently) "new" coins previously not known were "discovered". Compare it to other presumably expected to be at least somewhat scarce coinage from outside the US with TPG counts in higher grades which exceeds what most expect. As one example, I own a 1771 Peru 2R NGC MS-62. Mintage is about 67K with a value around $2K. So, it's not real valuable but high enough where it makes sense to grade it. NGC and PCGS list 7 MS and 2 AU-58. I've seen five of the MS (including mine) and one of the AU-58. It's not a hoard coin either. It's an outlier for the series, but if this many exist of this coin, it's entirely believable that the potential number for the vast majority of US coins is also (noticeably) higher than commonly known now, especially where the counts are low in similar quality. Most collectors seem to assume the opposite, like the TPG pops more often overstate the scarcity due to resubmissions. They believe this because of their own unrepresentative experience, anecdotes from others, and potentially because they want to believe it. Compared to the 1771 Peru 2R, only a very low proportion of US coins should be scarcer, approach it in scarcity, or have similar survival rates in similar quality. It's only not likely or a lot less likely where this type of non-US coin is from a hoard.

I don't see much correlation. It took me until 2006 to join this forum after "lurking" for a bit. (I only joined PCGS about five years ago.) The only reason I knew of it was because I submitted for the first time in October 2005 and that's only because I finally accumulated a decent sized stash that I thought needed to be graded. It's still the largest and most valuable submission I've ever made. I assume these message boards are more widely known now, somewhat. You need to remember only a tiny fraction of the collector base ever submits a coin for grading or participates in registry sets. I'm not sure of the percentage that buys coins in a TPG holder but I'm confident it's quite low too. The vast majority likely do not collect at a financial level where their budget accommodates it.

I bought the first edition, I think. I haven't looked at any new ones. The main critique I had of the one I own is that it has too many die varieties included of expensive coins. Yes, these are Red Book varieties, but so what? Narrowing it down to now include condition census coins is an absurdity. If the authors really need or choose to do that, then it sounds like they are looking for reasons to publish a new edition. Coins don't become "great" from a holder label because it's not an actual attribute of the coin.

As I wrote in my earlier post, if the collector base is actually as large as some of the numbers stated here, we'd be running into them regularly. This is particularly true since the participation rate among most demographic groups is so much lower than the primary one. approaching zero often and they represent a noticeable proportion of the US population. If five or 10 million "active" collectors, then that's potentially between one in 10 to 20 Caucasian males. That's far too high. Who owns these coins and how many are there? I have no idea. I admit it. Concurrently, it's been my assumption that "investment" type US coinage (the more common Morgan and Peace dollars and pre-1933 US gold) is predominantly bought for financial reasons. There is too much of it and it's too expensive for it to owned by hobbyist collectors in more than low proportion. For the 1916-D dime, my recollection is PCGS Coin Facts estimates 10,000. Even accounting for duplicates, seems far too low. I'd guess 25K minimum which is "low" enough where the vast majority can realistically be owned by collectors. To me, it's coins like common date capped bust halves which are more of a mystery. Coin Facts to my recollection tops out at 8,000 or 10,000 whereas I think a more realistic number is at least 50,000 which is still only about 1%. It's probably higher.

There are also differences by ethnic group and the proportion of the population represented by these groups has increased. It's evident that the participation rate by many currently defined ethnic minorities is effectively zero, unless someone is now going to tell me that there are really large numbers of these people collecting coins from another culture at "meaningful" financial levels which I do not believe.

Yes, that's my assumption but I wasn't asking if you planned to have it graded. Just whether you were looking for the higher TPG equivalent quality.

Because of what I told you. Your collecting parameters have no market relevance. You are describing your preferences, not anyone else's. You should know that price is not primarily driven by scarcity and availability. There are plenty of coins (mostly ancients) which are scarcer than anything you or I collect which sell for low or very low prices. You should also know that virtually no one actually cares about your quality criteria, including you since you won't even pay for it above immaterial prices. The price of the modern may be a small fraction. It's still financially immaterial. The difference is usually equivalent from as little as the price of a pack of chewing gum to the cost of movie ticket, in the quality most collectors will accept. It's not factor because hardly anyone evaluates voluntary consumption expense as you imply. It's a hobby, not an "investment".

What price range applies here? Is your quality criteria "gem", a better UNC, or something else? With your comparison of the George VI and QEII portraits, some of it is presumably the mintage but mostly I think it's collector preference for the Gillick portrait which resulted in a higher survival rate too. The Gillick portrait is one of my 20th century favorites. I find KGVI rather ordinary.

A collector only needs one and most of them don't care if it's UNC either where they will pay meaningful premiums for it. I've also told you most of the price differences are trivial. You're exaggerating trivial price differences which virtually no one cares about, other than you. Price variances from less than a dollar on tow end to somewhat more than nominal low-cost purchases, approaching 95% to 99% of the time. I wasn't referring to mintages or survivors. The sources I listed prove that your claim of this coinage not being collected is wrong, again. Then why are you exaggerating such immaterial price differences? That's the underlying source of every disagreement I have with you on these topics, the price. There is no market significance to the scarcity difference with the coinage we discuss, seldom any market significance with quality differences which you exaggerate even more than US collecting generally, and I don't disagree with your assessment of current demand, only your unrealistic future claims.

On the number of collectors? Even aside from definitional differences, it's not possible.

Where are you looking? Is it mostly at coin shows?

There is no practical difference to most collectors between the scarcity of this coinage. I've told you this before, but you won't accept it. So, eBay sales are imaginary? So are world mint sales? Sales at however many B&M sell it? Franklin Mint didn't sell the hundreds of thousands to millions of "Coin Sets of All Nations"? The scarcity difference is of no relevance to most collectors. It's only relevant to a tiny fraction like you, and you won't even pay the prices you think it should be worth. That's behind your claim that it "isn't collected".

You’re making a generalization which doesn’t describe how most collectors collect non-US coinage. Collectors don't generally make an arbitrary distinction using the metal content. What you describe is an arbitrary “coin dump” you’ve invented, numbering maybe 50,000 in the 70's to over 100,000 now, using an inconsistent and arbitrary cut-off date. You’re thinking in the context of how you collect as a US based collector, from your local dealers ‘bargain bin” which doesn’t reflect most collecting of non-US coinage, either in the US or elsewhere. You're making this distinction because you exaggerate meaningless price differences. The price differences between the vast majority of the world coinage you call “modern” and the vast majority of the immediately preceding “classics” are almost always immaterial. It’s material to you because you're measuring what is actually an alternate low budget consumption expense using percentages. The relative price is the best indication of collector perception, not an arbitrary definition from the metal content. As an example, I just bought one roll each of 60’s Canadian silver dollars, halves and quarters at $4.75, $9.25, and $18 per coin. It’s maybe 2X to 3X an earlier dated base metal coin in comparable quality. That’s a trivial difference and not unusual. Your claim is demonstrably wrong. What you're describing is collectors refusing to pay the price you think this coinage should be worth. That's the real disagreement underlying all our differences of opinion. I've told you this before. You think this coinage should have a higher preference than it does, collectors should assign it higher prices, and since you dislike collective perception, you claim it "wasn't collected", just as you do for US moderns which is equally wrong. National mints sales, eBay, Franklin Mint "Coin Sets of all Nations", and thousands of B&M dealers worldwide factually prove you wrong.

I don't know the current state of the sports card market, but it's not comparable to coins other than both are mass produced objects and subject to financial speculation. I consider modern sports cards a mass-produced piece of cardboard, but the cultural connection is much stronger than coins.

Above I mentioned US Mint customers as one indication. Post above mine mentions registry set members. There are also registered users at Heritage and GC, though Heritage includes more than just coins and some proportion of non-US-based collectors. Then there is eBay which currently has (right now) about 1.7MM US listings, another 1.6MM for world (including Canada), and 175K ancient and medieval. This is an even less precise measure, because it's not all by US based sellers and it contains a lot of overpriced material that will never sell or coins collectors don't actually want, but it is a data point, imprecise as it is. You may know number of coin club members with ANA affiliated clubs. Number of dealers is another indication, but no idea how this compares to the past. My assumption is fewer dealers than previously but if not, definitely B&M. Checked in ATL recently and there seem to be about half a dozen in the metro area that I would describe as traditional hobbyist dealers with a similar number of bullion or "investment" sellers. (World Numismatics, the one with the best inventory here when I was a YN in the 70s, closed about a year ago.) Not counting pawn shops or "We Buy Gold" outlets. Number of coin club members for the metro area from a prior review of the ANA website indicated maybe a few hundred. This is for a population approaching 6MM now. I wouldn't call ATL a numismatic desert, but it's not the NE US either.

I think 5MM is way too many. That would be about one in every 60 to 70 people in the country. This ratio also incorporates demographic groups which have a much lower to non-existent participation rate (women and currently defined minorities), meaning the participation rate of the primary collector demographic will have to be noticeably higher. Are collectors really encountering other collectors that often as this number suggests?