World Colonial

On 12/18/2023 at 12:33 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Do you think that the volume of non-modern coinage submitted yearly has increased in recent years vs. 10 or 20 or 30 years ago ?  You would think that most of the coins have already been submitted, right ?  Once the TPGs were established in 1986-87, I would think the initial rush was the highpoint.

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 You can also compare the outdated Coin Facts commentary to the estimates or itemized census.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.

On 4/26/2024 at 10:52 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

We'd see more of them posting online, too. 

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.

On 4/21/2024 at 3:41 PM, powermad5000 said:

I had another thought this morning on this topic. To add twist to attempting to achieve the goal of figuring out this number, I started thinking about some lower mintages of older issues. I'll just use the 1916 D Mercury Dime as an example. With only 264,000 minted, if there were more than 264,000 collectors of older coinage and especially these dimes, none of these would be available for sale as they would all be residing and filling that slot in each collection, yet, there are still many examples available for sale and these come up in AG and G in auctions frequently. That means either collectors don't want it in these grades or that there are not that many collectors to deplete the number for them to be available.

Which led me to think then we have collectors all scattered about all the different issues and some who only collect by specialty such as error collectors. We have collectors who collect only ASE's and nothing else. We have collectors that only collect Lincoln Wheats and nothing else. We have collectors that only collect anything from the Barber series (dimes, quarters, halves) and nothing else. We have collectors that only collect Capped Bust halves and nothing else. This then also adds to the impossibility of trying to pin down the total number of collectors overall.

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.

On 4/19/2024 at 5:45 PM, RWB said:

Here's a simple Census Bureau population diagram as of Dec 31, 2023. Population for age 10 and under is essentially non-involved. Age 10-20 is limited new involvement; from 20 to about 40 is likely limited or intermittent involvement, and 40 to 70 would be primary acquisition & involvement. Above 70 is the deaccession phase. Several generations ago the collector population would have skewed lower largely because of collection from circulation and very low premium on added value. (That is, a coin collection represented limited loss compared to base value of the pieces. This began to change in the 1950s and was declining rapidly in the mid-1960s.)

A situation which has not changed is strong dominance by males in all aspects of coin collecting.

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.

On 4/18/2024 at 9:56 PM, VKurtB said:

Because it is NOT in my plan to get ANY of my shillings handled by a TPGS (heck, I’ve DE-slabbed three), I am not working on gemmy coins, but rather coins as I prefer them, which is long on detail and luster, while tolerating a nick or three. See? My disdain for “technical grading” is complete and utter. 

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.

On 4/18/2024 at 8:47 PM, cladking said:

Even though debased coinage is USUALLY scarcer and often much scarcer than the coins they replace they usually sell for a small fraction of the price.  

Why would you think this is?  

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".

On 4/16/2024 at 9:33 PM, VKurtB said:

Yes, there, plus local shows, auctions, and the odd online auction. The last category is mostly larger lots of coins. I have a healthy sized hoard of replaced upgraded stuff. I am pretty sure that Allen Berman can pretty well wipe out my later shilling “holes” if I send him a need list prior to the next show we both are in attendance. I have bought many of my better pieces from him.

I tend to opt for better examples, very few of which come inexpensive, regardless of alloy. From my experience, the toughest era to find in really nice shape is anything from the beginning of WW2 until the earlier 1950’s.  Almost magically, when Elizabeth II ascended the throne, more shillings tended to be saved. 

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.

On 4/16/2024 at 8:23 PM, cladking said:

Repeating things that aren't true has no effect on anything.  You can find fistfuls of Unc and gemmy British silver for every 500 fine coin you can find yet the sterling sells for more.   Then you can find a lot more of the 500 fine than cu can the cu/ ni yet the 500 sells for more.  

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.

On 4/16/2024 at 8:23 PM, cladking said:

Mintage and sales are irrelevant.  The only things that count are how many survive and how many want one.  

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. 

On 4/16/2024 at 8:23 PM, cladking said:

I'm selling.   Not because I have as much profit as possible but because of my age.  

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 4/16/2024 at 11:43 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Any decent trade organization -- dealers, PNG, ANA, etc. -- should have hard numbers on this as I have said numerous times here.

On the number of collectors?

Even aside from definitional differences, it's not possible.

On 4/16/2024 at 4:50 PM, VKurtB said:

As an ardent collector of British shillings, I can confirm that finding high quality British CuNi pieces is taking some time and checking lots of stock boxes. Luckily there is no shortage of dealers at the bigger shows to check. I filled a lot of holes with a single bulk lot at auction. I am enjoying the hunt for the balance. 

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

On 4/15/2024 at 9:04 PM, cladking said:

No.  what I am describing is collectors refusing to pay much less for scarcer coins because they are base metal.  There's a simple reason they won't pay a lower prices for scarcer coins: 

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.

On 4/15/2024 at 9:04 PM, cladking said:

They don't collect them because they are believed to be common debased junk.  Part of the reason they are considered such is that mintages are higher and quality is lower on average.  

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"?

On 4/15/2024 at 9:04 PM, cladking said:

I can find handfuls of nice chBU, XF, and VF British sterling for every "common" mid-'20's .500 fine debased junk.   Then I can find handfuls of high grade .500 fine for the '50's era cu/ ni coins in BU.  

It's this way in "every" country.  

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".

On 4/15/2024 at 6:07 PM, cladking said:

Referring to the debased coinage as "modern" makes sense because its introduction in every case marked the beginning of the cessation of collecting new coinage.  In a few case copper coins that were unaffected by the debasement continued to be collected but in most (such as the US) all coin collecting of new coin ceased.   This happened in this country in 1965 but in most countries it was earlier and in a few it was later.  

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.

On 4/15/2024 at 6:07 PM, cladking said:

Referring to the debased coinage as "modern" makes sense because its introduction in every case marked the beginning of the cessation of collecting new coinage.  In a few case copper coins that were unaffected by the debasement continued to be collected but in most (such as the US) all coin collecting of new coin ceased.   This happened in this country in 1965 but in most countries it was earlier and in a few it was later.  

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.

On 4/14/2024 at 6:37 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It's almost like you are describing what happened to baseball cards, circa the mid-1960's:  cards destroyed....being thrown out....treated shabbily....and then a demand surge for the next few decades

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.

On 4/14/2024 at 12:51 PM, VKurtB said:

The United States Mint said, years ago, during the beginning of the State Quarter series, that there was an insane number of coin collectors based on how many albums, folders, and maps were being sold for State Quarters. Many were given as gifts. How many survived? We may never know. We know for certain that the number of collectors had been overstated. My son’s maps were completed with all uncirculated coins, and remain “upstairs in the man cave” today.

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.

On 4/13/2024 at 6:07 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I define coin collector as ACTIVE...either buying or LOOKING at coins...or reading, posting, learning about coins in between purchases.

I'm going to say about 5 million with maybe half of them under the age of 21.  That does NOT include bullion investors who might buy AGEs or Saints which are both coins and bullion.

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?

On 4/14/2024 at 9:32 AM, cladking said:

This market is still in its infancy and how it matures will largely be dependent on things that haven't happened yet. 

I'm 59, born in 1965 the year clad was first struck.  The coins have been collected my entire life, just not as you think it should be.

The market is not in any infancy and is already mature. It just hasn't matured to your preference.  In the next few decades, 1965-1998 US moderns will mostly disappear from circulation, never mind that your usage of demographics has no demonstrated predictability on collector preferences, and never did.

No, this isn't the 1960's when you think US collectors supposedly preferred their circulating change.  In the 60's, US collectors mostly collected at FV and where they didn't, there wasn't a large supply of affordable alternatives.

Now and recently, there is the internet which makes 95% of all coinage ever made available practically on demand with over half a century of additional coinage previously not available, both circulating and NCLT.  Most of this coinage is affordable by US collecting standards while the collector base will never approach your prior claims and inferences because the non-collecting public doesn't find it that interesting.

On 4/14/2024 at 9:32 AM, cladking said:

I would expect some parallels to the 1960's but even more differences.  I expect most collectors to be young and middle aged adults but with substantial numbers of young people putting together their own collections purchased online or gleaned from bank rolls.  

If this were credible, it would have already happened.  The reason it hasn't is because you're describing 1960's style collecting at scale, not the future.  This type of collecting has virtually no correlation on the price level because it's almost never an actual preference, just as it wasn't in the 60's.

I don't know if he watches the forum anymore, but a prior poster (Tom) used to write in great detail about the collecting habits of young(er) collectors.  Your description doesn't have any similarity to what he wrote, at all.

On 4/14/2024 at 10:41 AM, samclemen3991 said:

Finally, I tend to focus on Seated material, but have grown curious as to whether there are any actual dealers, besides individuals on E-Bay , who market modern clad coins circa 1965-say 1999?

Any information appreciated.  james

The only one I know is Mitch Stevens who posts as "wondercoin" on the PCGS forum though not as often as previously.  I understand his son Justin is running their coin business now.  He's probably the best source for anyone looking to put together a registry type set of circulating pre-1999 US moderns.

Otherwise, eBay is good enough for most everything else.

On 4/14/2024 at 9:18 AM, cladking said:

Yes!  Exactly.  Most collectors hear words like "rare coins" and they're expecting coins with five figure price tags.  But the reality is even rare moderns are not going to have as high a price as comparably rare classics for many decades.  It takes time for markets to shake out.  

What coins are you comparing now?

The market does not need any more time.  Relative preference between series is and has been established longer than practically most reading this thread have been alive and definitely collecting.  For any series collectively, it's entirely due to cultural perception from the coin attributes.

The US moderns which have high prices currently are due to similar reasons as older coinage.  Coins like the FDR "no S" proofs, 1969-S DDO and 1972 DDO cent, and 1982 with NMM dime.  It's more than just some narrow rarity, since the last two in my list aren't even scarce.

Other US moderns you have claimed as "rare" or "scarce" which most US collectors consider as having (somewhat) higher prices are almost entirely due to the TPG label.

On 4/13/2024 at 9:41 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I am truly sorry you compromised your integrity to acknowledge the likes of me.  I do not wish to jeopardize your station on this Forum by sacrificing your reputation and credibility for me.

What you say is true. To me, U.S. coinage ceased to exist after 1964.  Gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands over "flaws," visible to the unaided eye, back then, was unheard of. The '43 "copper" penny and '55 DDO "variety" were well known. 

I did not use the term obsolete because the term has lost its utility. Those coins have attained numismatic value. I do not believe any such coin (or currency for that matter) would be refused by a merchant unless proffered as face value. 

Your point is well taken. I shall no longer use the term Modern anymore.  One last thing... how will you refer to "any coin from any country introduced after the withdrawal of silver from circulation."

 

Modern applies to US coinage because it's distinctly part of the collecting culture.

It doesn't apply in anything close to the same context elsewhere.

On 4/12/2024 at 4:47 PM, VKurtB said:

The American Numismatic Association has a definition, to which I subscribe. Their exhibit rules (I am a member of the Exhibiting Committee) for Class 4 - Modern Coins and Medals, the John Esbach Award, endowed by the Red Rose Coin Club of Lancaster, PA (of which I am a past President) states that the line of demarcation is 1960, not any other date. It applies to ALL countries, not just the U.S. 

By the way, Britain went off .925 silver in 1920, and off 50% silver in 1947. 1964 is just soooo Amerocentric thinking 

Using the metal content as the defining factor is nonsensical.

On 4/12/2024 at 9:26 AM, cladking said:

I believe a better definition is "modern coins" are any coin from any country introduced after the withdrawal of silver from circulation.  After WW II one country after another quit producing silver coins.  The US was one of the last to do it in 1964.   

Other than low denominations in no country were the "moderns" saved in significant quantities by collectors.  

"Modern" in the context of non-US collecting is a US centric term. There is no such thing as world "moderns" and it has zero relevance to how most collectors collect.  US collectors don't even make that distinction either, except maybe in the context of "bargain bin" B&M inventory which isn't necessarily tied to the metal content.  I've never heard a single person use this term or make this distinction other than you.

It's not used outside the US that I know and if it is, they got it from here, not locally.  It's meaningless in Europe or Asia with up to thousands of years to collect.  In Europe, "modern" is anything after 1500.  In Latin America, the native population never struck their own coinage and in most of it, there is limited if any organized collecting.  In Africa, same thing but not what US collectors would consider organized collecting except in South Africa, where I know as fact their collector base had never heard of the US definition until I mentioned it.

Maybe a very few countries have coinage that can legitimately be considered to have a distinct separation between series to meet the US definition of "modern" but it's no more than that.  The primary one is Canada, and I can see China PRC as a second.  I can't think of a single other one.

On 4/13/2024 at 7:19 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Even if they are worth 50x FV, what are we talking about ?  We're not talking 3-figure or 4-figure coins even in high-MS grade.

Most of these coins currently sell for somewhat above or below the cost of grading in MS-66.

My prediction remains the same as before.  Decades from now, the majority of post 1933 US coinage should sell for nominal premiums to silver spot or near or below the cost of grading in grades up to MS-66.

On 4/13/2024 at 7:17 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

But WHAT IS the market ?

It's financially immaterial and no reason to believe this will ever change. 

The coin market isn't about to grow exponentially and the collector preference for this coinage isn't about to increase sufficiently to result in another outcome.

On 4/13/2024 at 6:12 PM, Sandon said:

 I can provide a scenario that is just as likely and is based upon my own observations.

I agree with your general theme.

There isn't any basis to claim that this segment consisting of hundreds of coins is going to experience a future leap in collector preference (not popularity).  

The price estimates provided near the top of this thread aren't financially meaningful either and the market will never be large enough where more than a very low number or proportion of the collector base will make it up by volume.

On 4/13/2024 at 6:12 PM, Sandon said:

 Of course, if people who don't know better can be persuaded that they are scarce or rare and to pay high prices for them, as is the case with common date Morgan and Peace dollars, anything is possible. 

Totally different kind of buyer.  Given how common many Morgan and Peace dollars are, my assumption is that most of the (most) common dates are owned for financial reasons.  There are very unlikely enough collectors buying it for sets or as type coins.  eBay has tons of it.  This isn't ever going to happen with a base metal coin in volume because "investors" don't buy this type of coin.