World Colonial

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Using the metal content as the defining factor is nonsensical.

"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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

You can interpret my reply as you wish, even telling me the coins don’t actually exist if that's what you want to do I’m not interested in getting into another pointless debate with you to experience Ground Hog Day, so don’t even start that. It’s not even entertaining. So, carry on financially promoting this coinage.

There isn't a reliable number. It's also substantially dependent upon definition of "collector". The starting point to me is the number of mint and proof sets sold by the US Mint but it isn't a one-to-one ratio. Same idea for US Mint NCLT sales.

1969 UNCIRCULATED Genuine U.S. MINT SET ISSUED BY U.S. MINT | eBay 572 sold so far by this seller with more than 10 still available. 1969 U.S. MINT SET. ISSUED BY US MINT. Envelope Sealed / Unopened | eBay Another 170 sold by the same seller, also with more than 10 still available. No, I don't know what these sets look like. It's good enough for whoever bought it.

Obviously

No, that would end US coin collecting as we know it.

Collectors don't collect in a vacuum. The idea that collectors will suddenly find a series so interesting to leave all others which compete with it in the dust price wise isn't plausible. We're not talking about crypto or some share of stock. It's a collectible. This isn't just true of US moderns, but practically all coins. It happens with the most expensive highest preferred coinage because the few buyers are more prone to ignore the prices of other coins. Also for specific dates or segments for the same reason. Generally though, if the price increases by a "meaningful" multiple, it will be priced to compete with coinage with a much higher collector preference where it isn't competitive because preferences aren't an accident.

So VKurt's and zadok's observations aren't evidence but yours is, right? Are you going to call their experience "hearsay" again like you did earlier in this thread? What about wondercoin's in the "raw moderns" thread on PCGS? Why is your experience any better than theirs? Am I supposed to believe you over them? Am I supposed to believe it's only them and no one else who has this experience? Out of all the collectors in the world, your experience is uniquely representative? Ever heard of comparative analysis? Read up on it. Throughout this thread, I've been using criteria which accounts for the survival and quality distribution for coinage generally, not using premises like yours which have nothing to do with anything in coin collecting. That's how I conclude this coinage is more common than you infer, since you haven't even given an estimate. I already gave you mine, likely 200,000 minimum for any date in TPG MS-64 or better. Why would I believe this is either scarce or it's less than that? It's possible (key word) the survival rates are lower on US moderns than one or more examples I gave earlier in low or very low proportion. As a general principle, there isn't any reason to believe it's more than that, regardless of what you saw.

Like practically every other hobbyist collector (as opposed to "investor"), I'll buy any metal if I like the other coin attributes. I only own one gold coin, so I must hate gold too. With the Bolivia coinage, silver and copper-nickel were issued simultaneously in the 1890's for the 5C and 10C and then in copper-nickel until 1909. I prefer the copper nickel because it's scarcer. I haven't been able to find all of it in good enough quality.

I buy base metal coins too. I just bought a 1918 Bolivia 10C, first "BU" I've seen since 2006, though I haven't looked hard. I also own these:

What are you talking about? Are you referring to my claims about the supply again? I look at the TPG data, but it isn't just for US moderns. It's across all types of coinage. I've already told you about the supply of other coinage in the TPG data, the TPG data you know nothing about. Collectors outside the US disproportionately don't even like TPG, so I conclude from this that the supply of this coinage too is proportionately or absolutely a lot higher than what's visibly evident. Am I supposed to believe that the examples of the non-US coinage I used exist in this supply and probably higher, but of all the coins in the world, it's only those you collect that are an outlier? Why would I believe anything so absurd as that just because you do? This nonsense is at the root of your error. Do you hate your collection? If you don't, then no one does either. Do you hate coins you don't buy? If you don't, no one does either. You keep on repeating the same ridiculous fallacies which are contrary to how collectors actually collect. No one has to agree with you, on anything. If every collector literally disagrees with you, there is nothing unusual about it. That's all this "hate claim is, collective perception disagreeing with you.

The price level doesn't change the actual merits of any coin as a collectible, though it is somewhat (at least) of a reflection of relative collective perception. Most of the money going into modern coins is NCLT, not circulating coinage (including proofs). I know you know that but just clarifying. If you are referring to US classics, it's got the advantage of collectively being more liquid than all but NCLT but it's also very overpriced relatively for the collectible attributes in the higher TPG labels. Classic US coinage is a broad field, so some are and some aren't and varies too, but it's not competitive vs. non-US coinage. Biggest risks I see are longer term finance and economics (not getting into that again here) and demographic trends. Population composition is changing, native born birth rate among the primary collector demographic is below replacement, and forecasted population increases are by groups who have either no cultural tradition of collecting or a much weaker one. Where they have a propensity to collect, it's going to be in (far) lower proportion for most US coinage, especially post-1933 circulating coinage which has been the primary focus of US collecting over the life of everyone reading this thread. Demographics alone might not have a noticeable impact for the duration of my collecting due to my age, but it's likely to for those who are much younger.

I don't disagree that much with the price claims you made above. It's that your claims don't take into consideration how collectors or even people generally perceive coin collecting. That's what I am always telling you. Since all prices are set by the marginal buyer and we're talking about "inefficient" markets, it doesn't take that much incremental buying to result in disproportionate price increases. I get that. This still doesn't mean that enough collectors are going to completely disregard the existing alternatives in the same price range because that's the only way most of your prior price claims and inferences are going to happen. There won't be a multiple of collectors to US moderns in the quality we're discussing because 1) The coins are almost certainly (a lot) more common than you claim or imply. 2) It's never happened before even once for such common coins, including with 1933-1964 US coinage. 3) Due to the minimal market size, the collector base you are inferring would send the prices into the stratosphere because that's the result of so many buyers in such a limited and illiquid market. I used to tell South African based collectors the same thing repeatedly and that's when it was my primary collecting interest.

Apparently not

No, nothing I write is only from what others have told me. That's more BS. For these topics, I'm looking at prices, the TPG data, auction results, and yes, the behavior of collectors from coin forum posts. So, I'm supposed to believe that "mass market" roll "collecting" is believable because of what you've told me? This even though your assumptions don't have virtually anything in common with how virtually anyone collects? What's next, that some or all of your prior claims on aggregate collecting are feasible too? No, I do not believe any of it, because it's contrary to aggregate collector behavior and public perception. You've never provided a single believable reason for the changes you claim. There are no cycles as you have claimed either. I told you that earlier in this thread and previously. There are numerous examples of coins that have "soared" initially and then "crashed", but no evidence that coins or series regularly go in and out of favor as you infer. There has been movement for individual coins generally or in specific quality but no change in the order of collector preference between US series at least since the beginning of modern collecting (1930s). It's not an accident or a coincidence. It's the cultural view toward the coin attributes. I can compare the coin attributes between any two series where the two compete as alternatives and its usually plainly evident why collectors prefer one over the other.

It mostly depends upon the cost of competing alternatives because virtually no one collects in a vacuum. In the past, you've posted all kinds of prices where it often would make the coin completely uncompetitive with the likely alternatives. 1969-P in MS-66 I consider feasible @$100 because it's considered somewhat of a semi-key date. Or some other coin in isolation. The price forecasts you provided in one prior PCGS thread will never happen because it would make far too many US moderns completely uncompetitive.

No, there aren't. There isn't a single coin outside of bullion NCLT bought at this price by anywhere near this number of collectors and then only ASE. The collector base will never come close to your inference or what you have claimed/inferred in the past because there is no evidence that the public finds collecting that interesting. Collecting in the 60's certainly doesn't fit this profile, as it was overwhelmingly at FV or near it. If the MS-68 doesn't meet your criteria, one doesn't exist.