World Colonial

If you are actually interested in this topic, look at the collecting culture. I've read many times from numerous sources (coin forums, coin articles, and probably books too) that future collector preferences are supposedly a mystery. You know what these claims have in common? Every claim or inference is always abstract. I've never read even one believable explanation supporting anything of the sort. I've never actually read one at all, only that it's "possible". Collector preferences aren't a mystery. It's mostly the coin attributes: origin, design, coin size, scarcity and availability, metal content, quality preference, relative marketability, and how if at all it fits into collections.

The ones I have checked (mid-60's to mid-70's) sell for a (low) fraction of Krause list.

This is feasible, if in future dollars. If in 2024 dollars, maybe in MS-66. It all depends upon your timeframe too. What's the TPG grade equivalent to your MS-65? There are already about 2000 right now in MS-66 graded by NGC and PCGS and the MS-67 count isn't low either. About half are the DDO. The non-DDO recently sold on eBay for at or below the cost of grading ($15). That's not a low price for most coins with this TPG count. If a TPG MS-63 really sells for $10 now, I doubt it. PCGS has graded 3600+ in MS-64 or better, not even close to a low number and there certainly plenty more. If an MS-67 doesn't meet your criteria for "gem", PCGS has graded two MS-68 and NGC has graded one. These three coins are already worth over $1000. There is no such thing as world "moderns" but even if there was, your posts demonstrate you don't know how much the coins you consider "scarce" are actually worth, previously or now.

There is no purpose and yes, I'm equally at fault (again) for going down this rabbit hole from which there is no return. The off-topic direction this thread has taken might be entertaining, but it has nothing to do with actual collecting, at least on this planet.

Still owe you a response to your last PM, I think. Don't bother. I've told him the same thing before, over and over. If he didn't experience it first-hand, apparently it didn't happen and doesn't exist. A well-known dealer of US moderns on the PCGS forum claimed a similar thing for himself to your post and stated he knew of others too. He wasn't specific but the numbers involved aren't low but large, except to someone who insists that "large" must be roughly equivalent to 1933-1964 US coinage.

Silver or also clad? Nickels too? These coins aren't even close to scarce, but cents are common as dirt. If clad, apparently you actually don't actually own it because clad "wasn't collected".

Totally irrelevant, still writing as if your personal experience is representative when it isn't. I've already told you dealers not selling coins in volume they can't make hardly any money on doesn't indicate a thing about the scarcity. So, now we're moving on to box "rarity"? Roll "rarity" isn't enough? So what? If it ever happens at scale, it's only going to be due to temporary speculation. You can't provide any believable scenario where it will happen more than temporarily. No one needs a roll for their collection. Yes, a relatively low number "collect" rolls but it's almost entirely at immaterial prices because virtually no one finds owning dozens to thousands of duplicates as a collectible of any interest. Most roll buying at anything above immaterial prices is for financial reasons. This describes virtually all buying of 1933-1964 US silver coinage + Morgan and Peace dollars too. That's most of it financially. You repeatedly attribute imaginary behavior to collectors who don't exist when going by your posts, you've never paid a meaningful premium for any roll either.

I'm not imagining anything of the sort. You used your dealer experience as supposed evidence that rolls were/'are scarce when it doesn't prove anything. I've never claimed that millions of collectors did what you are attributing to my comments. You can't find a single post where I either stated or implied it. Earlier in this thread, I told you that if only 10% of mint sets remain in the quality we've mostly been discussing (TPG MS-64) which is unreasonably low, that's in the vicinity of 200,000. You didn't even answer and it's probably due to one of two reasons. First, you don't believe this supply exists which makes no sense given the availability of the other coinage I used as examples. Two, you infer or claim 200,000 is "scarce" because 1933-1964 US silver coinage probably exists in comparable TPG (not your) quality in multiples up to 1000. No one cares other than you. If anyone else does, it has no market relevance. This coinage (1965-1998 US moderns) is more common than 99% of all coinage dated prior to 2000 in equivalent market (TPG) quality and that's a fact. US collectors misjudging the relative scarcity vs.1933-1964 US coinage has no market relevance, except in the context of TPG labels and specialization, most of it invented by US collecting.

Yes, I also infer some dates are noticeably more common or "scarce" than others, but the scarcity difference is of no practical difference to anyone but you because none will be difficult to buy in any timeframe meaningful to anyone reading our comments, except in the context of TPG labels or mostly US invented specialization. Counter what? Your perpetual exaggeration? I keep telling you your reference point (1933-1964 US coinage) has no relevance. If it does to anyone other than you, it's still of no relevance to the market price or anyone's ability to collect it, except in the context I told you which only exists in US collecting to market the idea that common coins are scarce. I've never heard anyone but you claim US moderns are scarce, once again other than in the fabricated context of US collecting. I've read from plenty of other collectors claiming common coins are scarce too, but never coins as common as US moderns. I don't base my claims exclusively or even primarily on my personal observation.

Yes, I realize it. I understand statistical methods even if you don't. That's why I don't rely on my personal experience alone. If I had looked where you have your entire collecting career, I'd own virtually none of the coins I've bought since 1998, especially those in my primary collection now. I own 88 pillars (1732-1772) in NGC and PCGS holders mostly from Peru but also from Bolivia, Guatemala and Mexico. 63 from Peru with 25 in an MS holder and 10 more in either AU-55 or AU-58. Almost half of my 88 are in these grades. None of these coins show up at hardly any coin shop ever, in these grades or otherwise. Thanks to the internet, I own coins missing from the few best-known collections of this segment and many of mine are of better quality too. Anyone can easily find one million or more 1965-1998 clad quarters in MS-64ish or whatever denomination you want to use vs. my collection. Similar concept for more series than I care to name, which is which is why I referenced the TPG data. That's why I came up with that list of 12 "factors" in my post. I use these factors from which I concluded that the best point of comparison is equivalent Liberty Seated denominations because the larger collector base and higher price level makes the supply better known and the two share some commonality. I don't know how scarce pillars are, but I reasonably conclude it's usually noticeably scarcer across the quality distribution, subject to the mintage.

Utterly ridiculous. This claim proves yet again you don't understand statistical methods. No one has access to the full or even a representative population, because regardless of the actual supply, the better coins have disproportionately been removed from the observable population and no one has access to it. Like everyone else, you apply your assumptions to your observations, when your premises have essentially nothing to do with how anyone collects starting with your "hate" claim. You can't sample what's in someone's collection or "change jar" but due to your erroneous premises and bias, you conclude your observations are reflective of the scarcity when it almost certainly isn't.

There is a difference between observation having some relevance and what you claim. Do you understand that? Notice I have never claimed my experience is representative, even of the coins I collect? It's certainly at least as representative as yours is for US moderns or the world coinage you call "modern". The reason I disagree with you on this aspect is because you don't recognize the limitations on your experience. That's what I have been trying to explain to you, including in my list of factors which you called "claptrap". If I had a reason to believe you, I would admit it. The reason I have not is because I'm not going to believe you over the collective knowledge base on this subject, especially when your assumptions contradict practically everything evident in collecting.

You mean "errors" where I contradict your outlandish unsubstantiated claims and it's contrary to your personal preference? Here is a partial list of the nonsensical premises from your prior posts which apply to this conversation: One: No one’s personal experience is representative of availability, unless the coin is known to be (very) common. You are not an exception. You don't know more than the collective knowledge base on this subject. Two: It’s nonsense to believe hundreds of thousands to millions buy coins they don’t like. That’s your “hate” claim. If your claim is true, it’s equally valid to claim hundreds of millions (at least) are also spending billions if not far more on goods and services they do not want either. It’s absurd. Three: No society or its collectors have any predisposition to prefer currently circulating change. New collectors do not equal new preferences. That’s your demographic claim. Four: Collector preferences aren’t and never were random or unpredictable. In the aggregate, It’s cultural. This includes metal content. Five: Virtually no one cares about your quality criteria to pay “material” premiums for it. Six: There is no reason to believe people generally or collectors specifically have the financial motivation or exhibit the financial behavior you imply. You ignore time preference. That's the primary reason dealers didn't sell this coinage outside of Mint sets in the 70's and 80's and only limited now. It's economics.

No, you ignored it because what I wrote contradicts you and is contrary to your personal preference. It's the same thing you did in our initial discussion years ago. I made notations of how my list applies to US moderns. Every notation I made is accurate. Now of course, under your exaggeration, using the one you quoted, the volume saved isn't large, but that's because your basis of comparison is 1933-1964 US coinage which is common as dirt. The world coinage examples I gave you with their confirmed supply, you ignored it completely. You can't refute it, so you ignore it. As I told you, there is no basis to claim that US moderns are anything other than dozens, hundreds, thousands and even more common than these examples I gave you. I'm not claiming clad dimes are common vs. silver FDR dimes. This has nothing to do with what I told you since I've specifically told you that this comparison doesn't indicate a thing about an actual scarcity. The US Mint sold millions of sets every year for decades after 1964. If only 10% survive in the quality standard I told you above (TPG MS-64ish) which is hardly unreasonable, that's in the vicinity of 200,000 or more. I think it's higher but let's assume it's no more than that. This isn't a low number or scarce. It's only scarce versus 1933-1964 US coinage as I told you. I also disagree with your assumption that the coins were otherwise not saved "in volume" out of circulation because your assumptions of aggregate behavior are "claptrap", starting with your "hate claim". Not a single assumption of yours where I disagree with you is accurate and if you tell me otherwise again, then this means you "hate" your collection too. If your assumptions apply to anyone else, it applies to you.

You have presented zero evidence other than your unrepresentative experience supported by your baseless premises which have nothing to do with how anyone collects, not even you. In a prior reply, I refuted your ridiculous inference that dealers not selling clad rolls in the 70's or 80's indicated anything about the scarcity. It's a completely absurd claim. As usual, you didn't even try to answer it, presumably because I'm supposed to believe you over common sense. Your definition of "large volume" for "scarcity" is anything scarcer than 1933-1964 US coinage, another absurd standard. This coinage (US moderns) is more common than 99% of all coinage ever struck in equivalent market (not your) quality dated prior to 2000. Claiming it doesn't exist in "large volume" in "high" quality is nonsensical. I'm not referring to your "gems" or the TPG condition census equivalent quality. You know that. I'm referring to MS-64ish, the context of our discussion in the PCGS thread, not the standard you routinely arbitrarily change. What you see or saw in a coin shop doesn't prove much of anything. It's primarily dealer economics, not what you claim. You can't see what's in someone's collection or "change jar". What do you not understand about that? If your claim was true, then there is no possibility the coinage in the TPG data would exist either. This includes practically everything I've collected since 1998. I've already told you that I know your dealer(s) never sold this type of coin either at all, or in the quality recorded in the TPG data. So, how does it exist? (No, this isn't a real question.) What is this supposed to mean? That there aren't collectors still left who could have acquired this coinage directly form circulation or from someone who did? And it doesn't exist because you didn't see it in your local dealer?

You can still learn a lot sitting in front of your computer. No, not as much as inspecting coins in person but still more than previously. Depends on what you are interested in learning and which coins. The subject of this current discussion, I'm interested in it because of the actual difficulty in acquiring the coins I have collected since I resumed in 1998, especially now with my current primary interest. That's why I became interested in attempting to understand the survivability and quality distribution of coins I don't collect, to use as a reference point and basis of comparison to those I do. Yes, my personal observation is an input into my estimates, but I also know from prior experience (from overpaying for coins which turned out to be more common than I initially thought) that what I see isn't reflective of the supply because it isn't representative, and neither is anyone else's with hardly any coin, especially any common coin.

I get along fine with cladking. Nothing personal. Sometimes my comments seem harsh, but I don't post on coin forums to participate in a mutual admiration society or with a group of conformists. I'm also not here to talk about CAC, GTG, how much someone's coin is worth or similar mundane subjects.

This is amusing. Your prior posts indicated that this coinage is hard to find because it cannot be found in circulation in some arbitrary quality since your observation and dealer experience leads you to conclude it's scarce. Considering what I have written on coin forums and the replies you have received from me, this attribution to my posts is absurd. I never make such absurd claims. No, of course, it can't be found in "high " quality in circulation after 30 or 60 years, any more than 60's circulating coinage of the same age could be found then or any older coinage could either. However many remain, it's in someone's collection or "change jar", same place as all other coins. That's why no one (including you) can see it and we have to use other methods other than observation to estimate remaining survivors, which is why I replied with the 12 factors in my prior post.

I never specifically commented on this part of your post. It's an example of your inaccurate assumptions which you do not even recognize. The response you received from these dealers wasn’t due to any scarcity. It was entirely economic. There is no basis to believe this coinage was hard to find within 15 years of issuance. It’s a total absurdity. It makes even less sense than your prior claim that 70’s Soviet 15K were “rare” within 15 years of striking. Why would dealers bother selling it with any frequency when collectors could acquire the one coin needed for their set, either out of circulation or at most a nominal premium to FV, like 50c? How much did these rolls sell for, even in the late seventies? $12? Barely more? How much different was it in the 80’s when you asked? It couldn’t have been much different, considering that I see “BU” rolls on eBay starting from $20+ and this is in 2024, decades later. Your anecdote isn’t a “trump card” supporting your claim as you infer. Contrary to what you imply, the only thing this example demonstrates is that coin dealers cannot be bothered to sell common low-priced coins in volume when they can’t make sufficient profit doing it. It’s not really that different today, regardless of the relative scarcity with 50’s and 60’s silver coinage. There is limited demand for US modern rolls because buyers (not just collectors) do have a silver preference, virtually no one has an interest in buying dozens to thousands of duplicates of any coin as a collectible at virtually any premium, and almost no one hoards base metal coinage as a store of value.

Your response has nothing to do with my post to which you replied. The point I made is that since your assumptions essentially have nothing to do with collective perception toward coin collecting or even US moderns, that's why your claims in this discussion will only be correct by coincidence. You can't find a single collector or even person who views coin collecting as you claim. Your claims don't even apply to your own collecting in some instances, starting with your "hate" claim". The common theme in your posts on these topics is your dislike of collective perception toward US moderns. That’s it and nothing more. This makes a lot more sense than you believing a combination of inaccurate and contradictory assumptions which have virtually nothing to do with virtually anything in coin collecting. This is why I disagree with you on practically everything on these topics.

What do you not understand from what I have told you? Everything you write is based upon your personal experience. What makes you think you know more about this subject than everyone else combined, because that's exactly what you are claiming? Your posts don't demonstrate any knowledge about the availability of coinage generally. Do you understand that? In my last post above, I provided you with 12 factors which have a demonstrated correlation to survivability, much better than what anyone sees including you. You completely disregard it and proceed to tell me exactly the same thing you told me before. That's what you do in all our conversations, ignore independently verifiable evidence in favor of your erroneous assumptions of collective perception and your unrepresentative experience. So, I ask you again, why would I accept your claims over everything collectively known on this subject? You think that because you know the collecting characteristics makes you knowledgeable on the context of this discussion? Read what I just wrote. Your posts demonstrate no knowledge in estimating populations. You're not even familiar with the TPG data which is the starting point. No one who is familiar with the subject will ever make the claims you make, starting with your inaccurate claims on statistical methods. You either don't understand statistics or still believe your erroneous assumptions make your observations accurate. I've never claimed this coinage is "uncollectible". You can't find a single post where I stated or implied it. Disagreeing with your exaggerated claims doesn't mean I don't think it's collectible. It's another example where you just "make things up" in this instance because you dislike what I tell you.

Yes, and I have also explained to you why personal experience is never representative, no matter how many people you know or how many coins you see. In the active PCGS thread, I read one of your responses as indicating you haven't been a CRH. But whether you are or are not, doesn't change anything I told you. It's not a matter of certainties but probabilities. That's why I use the list of factors I mentioned previously, posted below. I don't claim to know what you claim to know because no one can know it. You're almost always comparing US moderns to 1933-1964 US coinage. Yes, it's presumably almost always scarce versus that. I haven't read your last replies on PCGS, but you have no basis for claiming that the supply of pre-1933 US coinage is much higher than consensus, except maybe where there is specific evidence to indicate it, like capped bust halves where I would agree that Coin Facts estimates are far too low. Look at the list below. Now compare how it applies to actually older world coinage or ancients with supply most presumably consider "high" for this type of coin. It should be evident that if this coinage exists in the confirmed number and quality, there is no basis to claim US moderns should hardly ever have anywhere near the survival rates you imply, except in the TPG condition census grade and occasionally one below it. *Mintage (Not low, not even for mint or proof sets.) *Extent of organized local collecting. (By far the largest collector base in the world.) *Coin age combined with length of circulation. (The coins are not old and have been – not maybe - saved in volume in “high” quality from “day one” within the lifetime of just those reading this thread. We know this from mint sets alone.) *FV affordability (This wasn’t a constraint, proportionately or absolutely.) *Melting, where it happened. (No relevance for the quality we’re discussing.) *Market value which if “low”, reduces the number for sale and probability potential buyers will be aware of it. (Nominal value; limited motivation to sell, except to someone like you.) *Random preservation; yes, it’s possible for some centuries old coin to sit in a “change jar”, just like ancient and medieval hoards. (Applies even more to US moderns.) *Comparison to known scarcer coins in the context of the TPG populations. (Since these coins survive in current number, it’s a virtual certainty US moderns exist in multiples of dozens, hundreds, thousands, and sometimes more. Compare just to China PRC.) *Hoards (Yes, some exist of varying size. If hoards exist for much older, much scarcer coins, it certainly exists for US moderns. That’s what rolls represent.) *Geographic access, extent of travel, and ease of communication. (Not a limitation, not since the internet, and not since 1965. The coins circulated widely throughout the US.) *Local circulation, as opposed to other geographic locations with more collecting. (Not relevant, it’s intended to explain trade coinage availability.) *Quality when included in prominent collections of the series. If a coin is missing from a prominent collection or is of low quality, it’s usually at least somewhat scarce. (Not applicable; we know this from registry sets alone.)

I've never disagreed with you with this type of claim. You're now shifting from "gems" or some narrow quality from the prior criteria.

Look, not trying to be difficult but your claims have no merit. I'm going to tell you the same thing on the PCGS forum later. There are only two possibilities for you to be correct and only two. The first is a drastic cultural change which completely alters collective perception toward coin collecting, going back centuries. The second is temporary speculation which will “flame out”, just like the 1950-D nickel bubble. Absent that, there is no possibility any of these claims you have bene making for years will ever happen because practically everything you claim or infer is contrary to aggregate collector behavior. Collectors and the public do not have the motives you believe.

By definition, remaining survivors has some correlation to the mintage. Not just for US moderns, for all coins. I've explained to you that there is no basis to claim the survival rates on US moderns are lower than the world coin examples I gave you. In the PCGS thread, I used the example of the 1864 Bolivia centavo. Yes, this one is likely a random event unlike US moderns or if you want to claim both are, a vastly lower probability random event. No one can rationally dispute it. Since I haven't read your replies to the PCGS thread (yet), I'll add that if you tell me US moderns are "scarce" or "supply constrained" again, virtually no one cares about the relative scarcity between US moderns and 1933-1964 US classics. It's completely irrelevant, because both can be bought at any time except as I told you. It doesn't matter if some silver quarter (like the 1964) is 1000X more common than any clad quarter, or more. No one cares, except for you.