World Colonial

The vast majority of collectors in the 60's were collecting at FV or insignificant premiums. There weren't that many valuable collections of common US classics in the 60's as you have repeatedly implied. I already gave you some of the similarities and differences between the 60's and now which are facts. You just don't like the outcome. There is no such thing as "equilibrium" or "return to the mean" in coin collecting. It's something else you just "made up." Collectors never did prefer their circulating change, the actual substance of your demographic claim. What rare coins? Those with your strike quality which virtually no one cares about and for which you won't even pay any meaningful premium yourself? Numismatic minutia reflected in US practiced specializations which have essentially zero correlation to actual collector preferences? Common coins you call "scarce"? There is a difference between premiums and your prior inferences. Do you remember your price projections on PCGS in the "Raw Moderns" thread? Is that what you expect? US moderns have the lowest collective aggregate preference among US coinage. I stated it and it's accurate. It's due to the coin attributes, not for any reason you give. US moderns have more demand collectively than the vast majority of world classics from any other country right now. Same when comparing one US modern series to another world coin "classic" series. Nothing unusual now about this either. The prices are lower for obvious reasons, but that's something else entirely.

Disagreeing with you is not hating anything. That's the entire basis of your claims. No one has to buy what you think they should or pay the prices you think it should be worth. If every collector disagrees with you, there is absolutely nothing unusual about it. You can't claim collectors aren't collecting this coinage because it's not true. So, since you can't, your objection is on the price. You have an astronomically inflated opinion of this coinage where you compare it to the most common and overpriced coinage for its availability (1916-1964 US coinage) and then when it's not similarly inflated, claim it's "hated" and not "natural". It's as if no other coinage exists. Even worse, you compare US moderns to 1916-1964 key and semi-key dates. You did it with the 1950-D nickel here and to the 1916-D dime in the Swiss "moderns" thread. The 50-D nickel price was a bubble. There is no reason to expect the same outcome. The 16-D dime primarily sells for its price due to historical misperception of scarcity. No one is going to believe any US modern as a generic coin is scarce except under contrived US standards because they know it isn't. Your entire chain of reasoning is nonsensical.

Agree and it's also more than that. It's evident that collectors do not collect in a vacuum but there are common evident collecting habits: 1) The vast majority of collectors prefer the coins from their home country or country or origin. 2) The vast majority of collectors are ignorant of the existence of most coins, and they cannot buy what they don't know exists. 3) Those who are not strictly recreational collectors will pay prices they otherwise would not, if they believe they can recover enough of their cost at resale. 4) Most collectors will not even attempt to collect a coin or series if they deem it too hard to buy or if it's not available in their minimum quality.

Your "hate" claim has no basis in reality. It's something else you just "made up". Collector preferences also have virtually nothing if anything at all to do with your demographic claim. Collectors have been collecting base metal coinage since the beginning of coin collecting. If collectors "hated" base metal coinage, they would "hate" older base metal coinage. No one can claim that, not even you. Collectors never hated US large cents or other similar coins. What you call “hating” is just others disagreeing with you by not sharing your inflated opinion of the merits for this coinage. You refuse to accept that this coinage has the lowest aggregate preference due to the coin attributes. US moderns and the world coinage you call "modern" collectively have the least preferred attributes. That's why it has the lowest collective aggregate preference. Hundreds of thousands to millions have been buying this coinage each and every year over my entire life since 1965. It's just at prices which do not satisfy your personal preference. You can’t find a single collector who “hates” their collection It’s as believable as you hating yours. No matter how you phrase this claim, it’s not true. If others actually hate their collection or the coins they bought, so do you. No one does that, including you. No one has to buy these coins or pay the prices you think it should be worth to disprove your claim either.

Has nothing to do with what I told you. The silver preference is a generic one which collectors inherit from the external culture due to the relative price in the commodity markets. You don't think it should exist, which is why you've told me for 10 years including in this post that perception isn't "natural". This "natural" claim, you just "made it up". It has absolutely no basis in reality. What you describe as "overlooked" is everyone else refusing to agree with you to collect these coins in the numbers and at the prices you insist they should. That's why I told you that your baseline for "normal" is 1960's US collecting. This coinage has the lowest collective aggregate preference due to the coin attributes. That's a fact. This includes the relative scarcity where you claim these coins are "scarce" or "rare" due to your arbitrary quality standards, unrepresentative personal experience, and application of US practiced specializations which generally have a low to virtually nonexistent correlation to collector preferences. Here are some of the similarities between the 60's and since: One: Collectors now and then collected their circulating change mostly at FV. Most circulating classics at the time sold for FV or immaterial premiums, just as US circulating moderns do now. Two: Collectors overwhelmingly preferred classics circulating in 1965, just as they still do now. Three: In 1965, the public didn’t like having their coinage debased. That’s why they hoarded silver. They didn’t hoard clad, as there was no financial motive to do so. The public and collectors overwhelmingly still prefer silver now, just as they did then. Concurrently, US circulating moderns were and are being saved in “high” quality in large numbers. No US circulating modern is remotely even close to being scarce in “high” quality, except under US criteria which is the most liberal in use. Since at least 1999 with the SQ program, US moderns are being saved in at least equivalent number in equivalent quality to post-1933 classics. Here are some of the differences: One: Perception toward (semi) key dates was due to a communication limitation, not any actual scarcity or rarity. These coins primarily retain unusually high prices due to prior perception and the belief in the ability to recover the purchase price at resale. The internet has removed this limitation and exposed just how common this coinage actually is. No US circulating modern will ever be viewed similarly, except due to specialization. Two: The “hobby” has been substantially financialized, first starting in the 1970’s with the gold and silver price spike and then in the 1980’s as a result of TPG. Despite this financialization, the price variances between most recent US classics and moderns are financially immaterial. Three: There was limited if any specialization then. My primary explanation for this behavioral change is that modern communication has eliminated the challenge of collecting this coinage (both modern and classic) in the traditional format.

At least relative to the population, coin collecting was a larger scale low budget recreational activity in the 60's. There were far fewer recreational activities for the recreational collector's time and money. Your particular account is also anecdotal. They can buy US moderns all day long on eBay. Why would hardly anyone waste their time going to a retail outlet for that? Your expectation is absurd. No one has to buy the coins most collectors buy at a coin shop. How can you not understand that?

The 60's are your implied baseline for "normal" collecting. How else could you possibly come up with your price expectations for US moderns and world "moderns"? Do you remember your posts? Yes, some, as in a very low proportion by any sensible standard. Where world "moderns" are scarcer, 95% to 99% of the time, it's going to be by comparing coins from two different series from two different countries where one is not the alternative or competes with the other. I'm sure some "moderns" from obscure countries with no organized collecting and low mintages due to population and economics are scarcer versus from developed earlier coinage. There is no significance in that, as the lopsided proportion of these "moderns" has a (very) low preference with no basis to expect any future difference. This is self-evident from collector motivation.

I read your earlier post about potentially leaving multiple SDB of this stuff. If I were you, I wouldn't do that. I know you don't agree with me but if you want to maximize the return for you or your heirs, you need to take a far more objective position on the prices and prospects. If you don't, most of what you leave is likely to be eventually dumped in a Coin Star machine or on a local dealer. Selling a huge volume of low value coins is a tedious time-consuming exercise which isn't attractive to most people. For US modern coinage, I'd grade whatever is eligible for the higher TPG numbers (like a 66 or one under the "top pop") if it's worth enough of a premium over the slab fee. I'd get rid of it, but I can see keeping it. Anything you own in volume isn't likely to ever to appreciate substantially because it's too common and the preference is never going to increase as you have told me in your posts. You're not the only one who owns this stuff. You've used 60's coinage as a comparison but most of it wasn't worth much at the time and isn't now either, for the same reason. I'd also get rid of a coin like the 1950 NZ 6P and 1/. Yes, I know you bought it cheap decades ago, but this type of coin isn't likely to appreciate anywhere near as much as it has from here because these are already pricey coins to most collectors. Heritage sold an MS-66 6P for $1200 (I think) and Noble Numismatics sold an ungraded shilling "choice" for $300 AUD but that was awhile ago now. I'd consider converting it to silver or gold bullion if you can find way to trade it. You have more contacts than I do.

No, you can't, any more than I can do it. That's the point. You're making these broad price claims when it's not possible for anyone to know what you claim. How can you know the current and historical prices of in the vicinity of 100,000 coins? Or even those you consider "scarce" or "rare", especially when you yourself admitted you never saw so many even once? That's what you admitted in the Swiss "moderns" thread on the PCGS forum. So, you're telling me you know the prices of coins when you never saw it sell?

I don't need to provide an exception, by your own definition. First, you're calling this arbitrary "coin dump" of approximately 100,000 coins now (maybe 50,000 when you started in the 70's) world "moderns" and I'm telling you that hundreds of thousands to millions collect this coinage worldwide. Second, I never said most of these people were paying premiums to FV, as I don't know how much they pay. In the last few decades, they certainly have, going by the sources I gave you. US collectors weren't in the 60's either, except those who bought proof and mint sets. This era is your implied "baseline" for "normal" collecting. Third, there is widespread collecting of this world coinage in the US and to a lesser extent in Europe. Less in the rest of the world due to lack of access and possibly interest. It's just at prices below what you want. Yes, that's what you keep telling me, even when I keep on telling you that you have no idea what billions of people did or didn't do over decades, and that's a fact. You assume in error that your unrepresentative personal experience and that of the few collectors you know/knew is accurate when there is no basis to believe that. No, people didn't hoard this base metal coinage, for economic reasons. Yes, I know this silver coinage is more common. There is zero significance to any scarcity vs. earlier 20th century world coinage. It's the equivalent of a comparison between US moderns and 1933-1964 US coinage, one very common coin versus another. You'd have others believe these "moderns" are scarcer than any number of actually noticeably older world "classics" without directly stating it. There is no basis to believe it, except in very low proportion.

This is irrelevant to your broader claim and has nothing to do with my post to which you responded. I'm not referring to this type of coinage. Total BS. I never said such a thing. I'm telling you that your standard of "scarcity" is a complete exaggeration. There are only three options for you to claim this coinage is "scarce" or "rare". One: Based upon your irrelevant quality criteria that no one else cares about, except to the extent it correlates to the TPG label. That's the market standard, not what you decide. It's a complete contrivance anyway. Two: Specialization almost entirely practiced only within the US and invented here. Most coins as a date/denomination are "scarce" or "rare" under some US practiced specialization. It's the equivalent of awarding a "participation trophy" just for showing up. There is zero reason to believe that hardly any of this coinage will become substantially more valuable than it is now. Three: What I told you in my last post which you misinterpreted. In "high quality" or the quality most collectors will accept, US circulating moderns are only "scarce" versus 1933-1964 US coinage + Morgan dollars and common pre-1933 gold, both of which were also hoarded. There is no equivalence between the last two groups and US moderns, as there is virtually no cross-over between this coinage for obvious reasons. There is zero significance in any coin (US or otherwise) being scarcer vs. 1933-1964 US coinage, as it's somewhere in the vicinity of the one-percentile for "scarcity". Practically every coin ever made is scarcer, at least those made for circulation. Yes, really. So, now you're just "making up" another definition of "mass market"? That's just what you did. I never said the market scale was what you think it should be. Where did you get that and why would you think it? I'm telling you that the US Mint sales records and even the TPG populations prove you wrong and that's a fact. I never said you liked the result. It's a "mass market' at prices below your preference but still one. Totally irrelevant to what I told you. No, this doesn't happen, because clad wasn't hoarded like silver as I told you in the Swiss "moderns" thread. There was no economic incentive to hoard clad then but instead of recognizing this as obvious, you claim it isn't "natural" by ignoring the silver preference, in contradiction to thousands of years of history. If anyone has "tunnel vision", it is you. Go read your prior posts (including in this thread) where you've used somewhere in the vicinity of a dozen assumptions (premises) which have nothing to do with how (virtually) anyone collects. I've told why your premises are wrong, my explanations and evidence are much better than your belief, and yet you still believe it anyway. One of them is your claim of rarity in this quote. You don't know what you claim, as no one can possibly know it. You've claimed it repeatedly. What do you not understand about that? Let me also repeat what i just told you. "Mass market" doesn't mean sales volume at the prices you insist should exist. Yes, I agree that the economic scale of this collecting is a lot less than US classics, including 1933-1964 alone. Doesn't change that a lot of people/collector bought and buy this coinage. Hardly anyone likes this coinage as much as you think they should but it's still being collected. That's the point and yes, sales of hundreds of thousands to millions annually (regardless of the price) qualifies as a "mass market" in coin collecting.

The "so" is that you consistently do this when trying to support your claims when it's not accurate. You do it with the prices and you do it with the scarcity. I don't believe you know the prices of these coins now or possibly since you started collecting world "moderns" because your posts don't indicate it, and no one can possibly know what you imply to know. There must be in the vicinity of 100,000 now and recently (maybe 50,000 when you started) in this arbitrary "coin dump" you call world "moderns". No one can possibly know the actual prices for more than a very low fraction, especially for coins that you claim were "rare" or "scarce" that you never saw it in your local dealer's inventory, which is what I know is the source for the majority of your personal unrepresentative experience. Prior to the internet, I presume this coinage often sold for the Krause list when offered by dealers because they didn't have another reference point, but I don't actually know this definitively. It was accurate in a backwards way because Krause "made up" the list price, dealers used it, and collectors not having another usual option or knowing any better paid it. This is true outside the US also. The internet has made any annual catalog pricing obsolete. It may be somewhat accurate for some US coinage, but not for anything else, other for the reason I just gave you here. In ignorance, collectors pay it but with eBay and auctions, this still doesn't apply generally.

No, you just "made it up". I know your definition. The real question is, where is the evidence that (virtually) anyone collects as you claim, except at "junk bin" prices as I have repeatedly told you? The answer is that there isn't any, which means your definition has no relevance to your claims. In typical fashion, you don't even collect differently than I am telling you, as proved by your own posting history. So you keep telling me, yet the evidence proves you wrong, again. Hundreds of thousands to millions collect this coinage (world "moderns") in some format, yet you keep repeating this nonsense just because you don't see the coins as often as you think you should in the quality you expect and the prices don't satisfy you. World mint sales collectively, eBay, 000s of B&M dealers, and Franklin Mint "Coin Sets of all Nations" prove you wrong. You have heard of these sources, haven't you? (No, it isn't a real question.) Words have meaning. The term "world moderns" doesn't mean what you claim to anyone else. It's an arbitrary term you just "made up" (like many of your other premises) which doesn't reflect how others collect, except as I told you. There is no basis to use the metal content as an arbitrary cut-off or classification as you do, for the reasons I am giving you here and previously.

Collectively, the only relevant more common "old" US coins are 1933-1964. US coins older than this are not more common, except in some instances by using your same arbitrary criteria which no one else cares about and you won't even pay for it. (No, there is no comparability between hoarded Morgan dollars and pre-1933 gold, as your claims on the metal content equally have no merit.) I don't question your quality criteria because it's exactly that, yours. I'm telling you it's irrelevant to practically everyone else and that's a fact. There is your definition of "appreciated" and reality. It's no different than when you've told me these coins "aren't collected" which is flat out BS. There is a "mass market" for US moderns since 1965. It just isn't at the prices satisfying your personal preference. US Mint sales prove you wrong for the last 58 years, my entire life. No one has to agree with you, on anything. That's all you have been describing. You have no idea how scarce these coins actually are, claiming to know what no one can possibly know predominantly based upon your unrepresentative personal experience. The prices differences between these "moderns" and the preceding "old" coinage (earlier 20th century) are overwhelmingly financially immaterial. You just exaggerate the difference. For actually noticeably older world coinage, the coins are much scarcer and usually have a much higher collector preference. Most of these coins aren't worth that much either, but you don't know these prices. It's slightly pre-COVID last I looked, I observed high-quality Parthian (ancients), Crusader (11th or 12th century), and less preferred European medieval minors (e.g., Hungary) sell for relatively nominal amounts, like roughly $100. You have no idea how much hardly any of these coins are worth. The price increases are also overwhelmingly from FV or near it to mostly still immaterial amounts, with no relevance to the future price whatsoever. There is no "trend" as you claim because collectors don't collect the way you infer, arbitrarily making a distinction between base metal and other coinage.

1933 seems to be a commonly accepted date for the beginning of mass collecting in the US characterized by coin folders or coin albums. I don't know if it is accurate, but it's the date I have seen most. 1964 as the end of this period due to the end of 90% silver circulating coinage. These 1033-1964 US classics are the most comparable to US moderns. I break out US coinage as in the Red Book: Colonial, as in pre-US Mint US Federal coinage, those struck by the US Mint Territorial gold Other (e.g., Confederate States of America) Within US Mint coinage: Circulation strike Proof strikes of circulating coinage Patterns Commemoratives As for different eras, yes, I see some of that but I'm not sure how representative it is of how most US collectors collect, other than between moderns (generically post-1965) and classics (pre-1965). I think of all Jefferson nickels as moderns. Same for Lincoln Memorial cents. European collectors seem to use post 1500 as "modern", as opposed to "ancient" or "medieval". I recall NGC and PCGS use a date like 1955 for US and 1970 for "world", though there is no such thing as world "moderns" or world "classics". Non-US collectors seem to distinguish between US and non-US, but I attribute it almost entirely to the hugely inflated US price level vs. everywhere else. I infer most non-US collectors don't find most US designs particularly appealing, but I still believe more would collect it, if the price variances weren't so astronomically inflated vs. any sensible evaluation of the relative collectible merits.

World "moderns" is either a US centric term or one you just made up. I've never heard or read anyone else using it but regardless, it doesn't reflect how anyone collects, except at "junk bin" prices. It's a financial limitation, not a collector preference. No, the coins were hard to find because you were looking for it prior to the internet when communication limitations made most non-US coinage hard(er) to find. I've told you multiple times that this coinage isn't hard to buy on eBay, if you would look there. The 1970-1972 has higher prices and less availability but I've seen these multiple times too (yes, in "gem") in my limited searches. The other dates are easy or very easy to find, in multiple on the same search. The catalog list price isn't an indication of the actual market value, then or now. It's "made up". Yes, the value has gone up a lot (proportionately) since you first looked for it, because these coins were issued only a few years prior to when you started looking for it. It should also be obvious that coins issued as recently as 15 years prior to your searches (per your prior post) weren't rare at the time, unless the mintage was abnormally low. Certainly not from a major country like the USSR. Any such inference is absurd. The coins also aren't valued as you imply now either. Look at completed eBay sales like I have, a large "discount" to a low fraction of the NGC World Coin Price Guide. It varies by set or coin but among the worst are the 1973 15k/20k and 1976 20K. The 1976 20K lists at $450 or $475 as a MS-65. It's worth $20 to $50 going by actual sales. It also isn't scarce. It's really common. Dozens of Mint sets and Franklin Mint "Coin Sets of all Nations" sets the last time Iooked. Until more recent decades, there was no internet and less travel. In major collecting markets, most of the coins are almost certainly held locally or in the bordering countries. That's where the coins circulate. There is no shortage of Japanese collectors who can afford to pay a lot more for these coins, if they choose. You keep on repeating this fallacy no matter how many times I correct you. No, these coins aren't undervalued as you claim, really. There is no local organized collecting in hardly any African country and virtually no demand for it virtually anywhere else. Why would collectors elsewhere want it at the prices you think it should be worth? The only one I know directly with any meaningful scale is South Africa and these "moderns" are definitely not "undervalued". In Europe, collectors have over 2000 years of coinage to choose from and there is no basis to claim they will pay "high" prices for coinage with such a low preference which is more common than most of the predecessor coinage. (No, earlier 20th century European coinage does not have equivalent preference to comparable period US coinage. It was never the focus of collecting.) Same outcome for South America. Most of these "moderns" aren't scarcer than the predecessor coinage (that's a fact), have a (very) low preference, there is limited to no local organized collecting either, and the prices of earlier coinage aren't that high much of the time anyway. Some earlier base metal New Zealand coinage is actually legitimately at least somewhat scarce in high quality, but these coins aren't moderns. NZ collectors didn't and don't arbitrarily distinguish between silver and base metal as you claim or imply. If they did, they would have had virtually nothing local to collect, since their coinage only dates to 1933.

No, that's what you think. Aside from exaggerating the significance of minor quality differences as US collecting does generically, you either don't know the actual prices or compare it to even more ridiculously overpriced "top pop" 1933-1964 US coinage. It's accurate to state that US moderns are frequently or usually a lot less expensive versus this US coinage as a "top pop". Both are absurdly overpriced for the actual collectible merits, but you don't want to hear that. Many "top pops" in both don't have low counts for condition census coins anyway. Many dates have multiples, as in dozens and sometimes more. This is irrelevant to the price. Yes, almost none of these buyers will actually look for the coin "in the wild" themself, but that's not why they usually pay these prices. It's either almost entirely due to: A) They are buying registry points or (attempting to) buy(ing) their registry ranking. B) They believe they can recover most, all, or more of their money back at resale. Only a tiny minority pay huge price spreads for "top pops" versus one or a few TPG numbers lower because they think the coin with the higher number on the label is so much better. (No, US collecting did not experience a collective epiphany in 1986.) The price difference is completely disproportionate to the merits as a collectible, and they might not even be able to grade to TPG standards independently anyway.

Just because most don't like the outcome doesn't change it. There is a difference in perception of scarcity or rarity, but that doesn't change the number (outcome). 2+2 always = 4, never something else. The coin date is an actual coin attribute. The TPG label isn't. "MS-68" isn't a coin attribute. The label "MS-68" isn't specific to any coin. It's usually rare but the coins in it virtually never are. Absolute number remaining is the traditional standard of rarity. However, since it doesn't necessarily coincide with how most collectors collect the coin or series in more recent years, that's why US derived TPL label rarity has current perception. A far more meaningful standard reflective of how most collectors collect is "acceptable quality" or "high quality". Yes, which is why it's actually usually a contrivance.

My inference is that the internet accounts for much of what I wrote in my earlier posts. This is what makes most coins so much easier to buy versus the past. Collectors mostly don't like to collect coins or series with abnormally low availability, but they also often want something of a challenge which is where specialization and collecting by grade label comes in.

Doesn't make any difference to my prior posts. It still doesn't mean that there aren't far more (as in huge multiples to the current TPG counts) outside of a holder versus in one. The actual number could easily be at least dozens of times the current 2500 graded by NGC and PCGS. There is no financial incentive to submit coins up to at least MS-65.

I don't rely on price guides, at all. I've also told you repeatedly that Krause and presumably other non-US price guides are just "made-up". The South Africa Randburg and Hern editions I own certainly bear no relation to reality. For US coinage, I have no idea how accurate the Red Book, PCGS, NGC, or Greysheet is either, but I know that no coin sells for a fixed price but a price range. I've seen it consistently for US moderns on eBay too. It's somewhat different (as in not exactly identical) coins sold by different sellers to different buyers at different time points. I've also told you that you have no idea how much most if any of this coinage is actually worth because your posts don't demonstrate that you do. In your prior examples for world coinage, you have either quoted inaccurate price guides, used isolated outdated examples, or just made the price up. No, you don't actually know this.

The TPG populations and grading standards matter because that's the coin market's standard. Your quality standards are exactly that, yours. No, I'm not using your standards as a baseline for market quality and then agreeing with your subsequent exaggeration that these coins are scarce or rare.

I don't call quality differences generically minutia. I call quality differences reflected in one or a few point increments in a TPG label minutia. I've never disagreed with this claim. Yes, and for US coinage, in every instance it's due to US specialization practices which are seldom or not at all practiced anywhere else for the reason I gave you. There is nothing unusual in your claim. I also haven't disputed that prominent US moderns aren't significant by collecting standards. I disagree with you that what are actually obscure coins have the significance you claim.

Yes, I think "better" coins should sell for a premium over inferior ones. ("Better" doesn't always coincide with a higher number on a label.) The price is what it is, whatever it is. My comments have nothing to do with any belief that I should be able to buy a coin for less than current value, since I don't even want most of these coins at all. My claim is that the price variances often have essentially nothing to do with and are (completely) disproportionate to the quality difference as a collectible. It's somewhat due to general inflation and a more affluent collector base. But substantially or mostly for coins above nominal price levels, marketing and/or financialization. Yes, your description is the usual distribution, something like it. But see my above comments.

Yes, that's how US collectors in the TPG era view it. I'm not trying to convince anyone not to buy any coin they want to buy. I'm stating that US collecting is the worst at exaggerating the significance of what most collectors can afford or collect and it's accurate. There is no absolute definition of rarity or scarcity. It can only be measured relatively. Concurrently, under US criteria, somewhere in the vicinity of at least 95% of all coins ever made (hundreds of thousands) are "rare" in some TPG eligible grade. Everything but a 70 and a low percentage where a slightly lower grade has "many". For US practiced specializations, probably in the vicinity of 98%, at least.