World Colonial

This is the only reason that makes sense, modern US commemoratives and maybe world counterparts if eligible. I provided the same reason earlier in the thread. It's been a long time since I've watched "Coin Country" or similar shows on cable TV (about 15 years). I used to see US modern proof sets offered, not in a TPG holder. I can see Ike dollars since it's not viewed as a circulating coin. Maybe proof Kennedy halves since the public doesn't see it often either. I don't see any marketing of any coin design which the public sees or has any reasonable probability of seeing in circulation because to them, that's what it is, circulating change. Enough of them aren't going to pay a premium for it, regardless of what number is on the TPG label.

Where it belongs, in someone's change jar, 2x2 flip, or coin album.

It's been a long time, but I received coins back from NGC with a note that they thought the coin would benefit from conservation. It was a Post It note attached to the slab. Happened a few times and the coins came back straight graded. My inference from the OP is that they took this suggestion as a(virtual) guarantee. Not sure why anyone would do that. My understanding of the notes I received is that it would improve the coin's appearance, not that it would necessarily result in a higher grade, be worthwhile financially or anything else. I'd only have submitted a 1936 dime if I thought it would grade at least MS-66. Not financially worthwhile otherwise. I'd just buy one in the TPG grade I wanted otherwise. I wouldn't have conserved it either, as at $30 plus the grading fee, it's not worth it either.

Gold is cheaper now than when inflation was lower, recently. It peaked at $2072 and hit a slightly lower secondary peak. The reason? Inflation doesn't buy gold either. Gold is also lower now than it was in late 2011 or in 2012. Noticeably lower adjusted for price changes. If inflation caused gold prices to increase, why did this happen? You don't need to answer. I already know you are going to tell me it was another "fundamental" that doesn't buy gold either. People buy (or sell) gold (or anything else) because they are optimistic or pessimistic, period. The "reason" is a rationalization.

I was being sarcastic. So, how long is the chain of indicators I need to predict to finally get to the price of gold?

I might be able to answer your question if I had cable TV but I'm too cheap to pay for it. It's a complete rip-off. I've thought about a Peacock subscription to get it but don't have it either. I only read CNBC's website but don't watch the videos.

Presume its Non-Sufficient Funds. Even coin collectors ocassionally bounced checks, before banks granted deatbeats overdraft protection.

Most coin collectors don't own even one gold coin. I now own one 1952 South Africa 1/2 pound. I owned a few more in the past, but not many and my collection is certainly worth more than the majority of coins collectors. Concurrently, it isn't valuable enough where it's practical to own gold coinage in any quantity, even if I preferred it which I don't. (Spain never struck colonial gold pillar coinage, only ugly portraits.) Working from home, I keep CNBC.com on my home PC all day long. As I read your post, I thought gold closed around 1800 yesterday. At $1755, it's not meaningfully different, but I doubt most coin show attendees follow it as closely as I do. I doubt any meaningful pct know the price because it isn't relevant to them. They don't have enough money to buy or collect it.

The problem with the conventional approach is that anyone following it is left to predict a seemingly endless chain of supposedly predictive indicators. The initial post mentioned oil, GDP, geopolitics, OPEC, GDP growth...Do I have predict each one to get to an accurate gold forecast? If not, how will I know which ones are predictive and which aren't? Why not add the price of popcorn and peanuts to the mix?

You entirely missed my point. You are so used to thinking in terms of the conventional model that you can't see the obvious. The "fundamentals" aren't the "cause" of anything; not now, not previously, and not later. I'll change my mind when you can demonstrate oil buys gold, as opposed to human beings buying both. Let me know when it happens.

You know I am a huge pessimist. I don't see those kinds of nominal losses in 25 years. Adjusted for price changes is a distinct possibility but I don't believe most buyers of this coin look at it like that. I expect most post 1933 US circulating coinage in grades up to MS-66 to eventually sell for nominal premiums to silver spot and less than the grading fee. Same idea for the proofs. At minimum, it's going to be adversely impacted by changing ethnic demographics and competition from for future NCLT and non-US coinage. I expect otherwise common TPG condition census coins to lose most of the value, especially where the premium is disproportionate to one or lower grades. I expect noticeably less set collecting which should make common US 20th century key dates and semi-key dates huge proportional losers. I expect it to be worst for mid-circulated and lower grades. The price of this coinage is a throwback to the 1960's when it was viewed as "rare" and is completely disproportionate to the collectible attributes. 1916-D dime in G-4 @ $1200 is one example.

So-called “fundamentals” don’t have an independent existence. “They” aren’t alive. No fundamental event ever bought anything. Therefore, it cannot be causal. You can claim there is "meaningful" correlation, but I've never seen anyone ever try to prove it, whether pro or con. Practically everyone just makes assumptions based upon their flawed beliefs. If you have evidence (actual evidence), I'll change my mind.

I agree with this sentiment. Most people aren't very organized and if they treat it as a consumption expense, have no motive to track it. Most collectors also don't buy (mostly) NGC or PCGS coins to make it easier to value. I have intentionally gone out of my way to avoid this outcome. That's why I almost exclusively buy Lima and Potosi pillars. I'm not rich and have no intent to work longer just to fund my collection, which means I probably won't even be able to complete these sets, much less have budget for anything else. I've thought about new "side collections" and already have a few but not adding to it. The main reason I don't add to "side collections" and never make impulse purchases is that I consider these coins inferior to my primary interest. I'm also not interested in accumulating a hoard of unrelated, undistinguished, or less marketable coins.

The point I was making by referring to this thread is that very few US Mint coins are hard to buy, except when you get into TPG labels or specialization. Yes, I know that for some of the rarest, he was able to buy it privately but that doesn't change my description meaningfully. That's why one reason I infer they don't actually view what they buy the way I read it inferred by US collecting generically. See my last reply to zadok. You're describing "strong hands" versus "weak hands". I'm not going down the rabbit hole of our different financial and economic view here. But even ignoring this, it's my inference that there is a substantial difference in different coin segments between those who are actually "strong hands" and those who (most) everyone else might think are but really aren't. I've seen "big ticket" high profile coins (yes, same coin) sell at a loss (versus prior public sale) but it's not often. It presumably happens a lot more than I have seen. Whether it's the reason you give or another one, I don't think it matters. It's the generic belief (regardless of the reason) that provides the buyer confidence to pay the price they do, where they aren't willing to treat it strictly as a consumption expense.

It's an inference. Look at auctions of dealer collections. It appears to be common there if they were a long-time successful one. They are in the best position to acquire coins at favorable prices through their network, especially if it's their specialty. I bought two coins from Stacks last week. Both are AU "details" but he (Pat Johnson) is one of the few who with access to buy it. With non-US coinage, these coins are very cheap compared to US and I infer many US collectors (it's usually not going to be anyone else) don't understand the factors which explain coin pricing. They think it's something like general economic affluence (which is essentially irrelevant), so they have an inflated perception of the future prospects.

True, but I am applying it more broadly. I don't consider very many US Mint issues (all the way back to 1793) scarce or rare, except in grade or as a specialization which isn't a real rarity and isn't compelling enough to most collectors. The coins which were more expensive in the pre-financialization era (prior to the 1970's) are somewhat different. You know which coins I mean. These coins were "always" expensive even in mid or low circulated grades, which makes it evident that collectors like it for what it is as a collectible, as opposed to mostly for the TPG label reflected in the price. But even here, I don't believe that most buyers find it interesting enough to ignore price differences just because of the (often minimal) differences in quality which US collecting considers so important now. As one example, Larry Miller (deceased car chain dealer and Utah Jazz owner) owned a 1794 MS-62 dollar. He could have bought any of the better ones, yet he didn't. This coin isn't common, but it isn't that hard to buy in an MS grade either, even though I recall there are only 8-10 known. It comes up for sale often enough and I presume he also could have bought it privately through the dealer network. So, since he could easily afford to buy a better one but did not, I presume it wasn't important enough to him. Same sentiment has been inferred on the Hansen thread ATS. Just because someone is very wealthy doesn't mean they are indifferent to the financial result. It's a function of someone's attitude toward collecting and this aspect I am describing is a big part of it. I don't believe there are more than a very low proportion of diehard collectors whose psychology differs noticeably from my description.

This isn't what I meant. I do not believe hardly any collectors are buying coins as alternatives to other "investments", buying based upon relative return or adjusting it for relative risk. The way I see it is they are primarily viewing it in terms of recovering their cost, probably in nominal dollars. I didn't mean that most coin buyers are financially motivated. I do not believe this at all. They just do not like the coins they buy enough to lose "noticeable" money or a proportion of their cost. Even as alternative consumption expense, they would rather use the money for something else. Most coin collectors (the vast majority) are actually buying "widgets" and here, I am using the term very broadly. It's "bad form" to state this, especially for coins that aren't considered cheap to most collectors and the marketing hype (primarily from TPG) in US collecting. Most coins are easy to buy, except when artificial and arbitrary criteria are used, and most usually have numerous "comparables" which are viewed interchangeably, not by all buyers but most. If they can buy a "comparable" coin now, tomorrow, next week, next month, or even next year, why would they usually view it any differently, unless the amount is immaterial to them? Because coins are a "dead asset" producing no income stream, collectively there must be some "slippage" to provide a return to those who provide liquidity, usually dealers. The money has to come from somewhere and it's the collector end-user. It's like effectively "renting" the coins we own since no one owns it forever. All I am saying is that this "rent" has to be an acceptable amount to most buyers.

You and I do not buy the coins most collectors buy. Also, I'm not referring to the typical "low" budget collector whose maximum price point and collection value you might or do consider nominal. It's hard for me to be more specific than that. Excluding these collectors, when I look at what most other US collectors are buying, and then look at the prices being paid and how easy it is to buy these coins, and then read the sentiments I have in the numismatic press and coin forums for decades, yes, this combination leads me to believe collectors would overwhelmingly never pay the prices they do (if it's "meaningful") without the expectation of getting most of their money back. It's collector specific (no absolutes) and also a function of the amount being spent. Generically though, collectors did not experience a collective epiphany in the 70's or starting in 1986 where they miraculously discovered that predominantly common coins (especially those with a high number on a TPG label) are so much better than their predecessors thought. Yes, I suspect the number in the US who do this is substantial. I also infer that most of these aren't US. The occasion does arise to buy one really "cheap". Once again, this applies to a very low proportion of US coinage, maybe something like 1% to 2% of US Mint issues, if that. (It's higher for territorial gold, colonials, and patterns.) If you haven't done so, check out the Hansen mega thread on the PCGS forum as proof of what I am telling you. (Yes, I know why he can do this while others can't.) The number and proportion of collectors who 'must" have some specific coin is very low, as overwhelmingly another one (usually many) are available and interchangeable to them.

You're using the same causality model we've discussed before and it's wrong. Instead of predicting the price of gold, which is the supposed purpose of this thread, you're implicitly predicting an alphabet soup of other indicators which have varying correlations to the price, but no causality at all. It's definitely got the potential to run off into a rabbit hole from which there will be no return.

If it's permanently limited to 1982 and later coinage and succeeds, it's predominantly going to increase the number of NCLT buyers. That's really about it. It's irrelevant to anyone who doesn't collect NCLT and nothing to say. It's very unlikely to substantially increase the number (absolutely or proportionately) buying US or world circulating coinage dated after 1982. This is evident from the existing TPG population data and there is no basis to believe a change in grading scale is going to alter it. Why would it? On the other hand, if the longer-term intent (my opinion) is to test acceptance for a new grading scale and this succeeds, it's potentially financially relevant to the vast majority of US based collectors with a "meaningful investment" in their collection. That's why I took this thread off-topic, though it did veer off further afield, again.

No, not just in the higher or highest grades. I'm referring to the coins generically. I'm also aware that a noticeable proportion of US coinage (broadly defined) has never been affordable to most collectors, probably 80% at least. This includes most gold, practically all patterns, maybe 50% of colonials, maybe at least half of 19th century proofs, many early copper up to 1814, and most silver up to 1807. It depends upon someone's criteria of "affordable" which can include the proportion of the collector base and assumptions of minimal acceptable quality. As an arbitrary cut-off, I'd categorize any coin that is potentially bought by 80% of the collector base as "mass affordable". You might have a different one. I'm also aware that with the larger number of affluent buyers (both income and net worth), one within reach of 10,000 might be considered "affordable" even if it costs in the low to high five digits. Comparisons over time depend upon the start and end date with the opportunity to retro fit the outcome. I'm aware of regular collector grade coins like capped bust halves (in the early 70s to more recent times) and early large cents (late 70's to more recently) with substantial decreased affordability. Since I don't know anyone else's financial position in specifics, I tend to use myself as a benchmark. I'm far from rich but have done far better than the median since 1998 (when I resumed collecting) but since I virtually never use savings to buy coins, income wise I can probably buy less from the US coinage I would conceivably buy and far less in world coinage.

That's not going to repeat but the increases in many coins have been "noticeable" in the last two years, per the examples I gave earlier.

Yes, I agree this is best. Concurrently, I still consider the prices of many mostly US coins far too high, for the collectible merits where these should be more affordable to "mainstream collectors".

Apples and oranges from my example in my opinion. It's my inference that the majority of collectors don't expect to ever buy the types of coins in your post. They could never afford to buy these coins and some who are able won't buy it anyway, so it makes no difference to their collecting psychology if the price goes "through the roof". This is different than being priced out of what I'd describe as "collector" coins. This first happened at scale in the mid-70's. You've seen the PCGS 3000 Index. The point I was trying to make is that collectors who are accustomed to one level of collecting won't move endlessly down the food chain to collect something they find noticeably less appealing. This varies by collector but believe it applies to most. It's my inference that many collectors from the 60's quit collecting in the 70's for the reason I am giving you here,

I was attempting to draw an analogy but apparently not successfully. I know that higher demand = higher price. I'm not disputing that. The buyer since the mid to late 70's and especially post TPG is a lot more affluent versus earlier buyers, so I assume more of them are willing to treat higher value purchases as a consumption expense. This is an inference, not fact. As an example, I infer that what I'd describe as common or very common coins with higher numbers on the TPG label are viewed as far more desirable primarily due to the price. It's the most logical reason, since pre-70's collectors obviously didn't think of these coins the same way. If these coins return to more closely reflect earlier relative prices, I expect collectors will change their perception, again. Not all of these coins are bought explicitly as "investments" but the buyer would usually never pay this type of price without expecting to get most of their money back. Registry sets make a difference but no reason to believe it's important enough to more than a very low minority. To most buyers, finishing first (or whatever) in a marketing competition doesn't offset losing much or most of your money.