World Colonial

On 4/5/2024 at 8:25 PM, cladking said:

Do you realize it's far easier to get excellent samples and make good estimates fore current coin than it is to do so for old coins from obscure or lightly collected countries?  I was right here where the coins were made and distributed from day 1.   

 

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.

On 4/5/2024 at 8:25 PM, cladking said:

Because you erred either in sampling or math then I must be wrong.

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.

On 4/5/2024 at 8:21 PM, cladking said:

Is observation meaningless only when I do it or does this apply to everybody? 

Does one have to be a Peer to make observation?!

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.

On 4/5/2024 at 7:07 PM, cladking said:

I try to read your posts closely and respond to anything new and to anything that is strategically appropriate.  I don't try to correct errors as the reader can do this.  

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.

On 4/5/2024 at 7:07 PM, cladking said:

I ignored your list because items didn't apply, weren't true, were irrelevant, or some combination of these.  

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.

On 4/5/2024 at 7:07 PM, cladking said:

Clad dimes (for instance) have been in circulation more than three times as long as  silver dimes. 

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.

On 4/5/2024 at 7:07 PM, cladking said:

Indeed, they've circulated longer than mercury dimes.  I've told you many times those mint sets are gone.  People bought them from the mint or ran down to their favorite dealer to pay double issue price and then when the market was saturated they took massive losses on them and often by cutting the sets up and spending them.   Even many of the mint set coins in circulation no longer survive and all the rest are degraded.  

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.

On 4/5/2024 at 7:07 PM, cladking said:

The coins have been saved neither in volume nor in high quality as I am continually presenting actual evidence in support. 

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.

On 4/5/2024 at 7:07 PM, cladking said:

In the '60's and '70's very few people even cared about high grades.  High grade morgans had a 5 or 10% premium.  I know because I was buying them.  People didn't save much clad as proven by the fact that one never sees old clad collections come into coin shops. 

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.)

On 4/5/2024 at 7:07 PM, cladking said:

Do you maintain that collecting clads makes people immortal?  

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?

On 4/5/2024 at 6:12 PM, Henri Charriere said:

No explanation necessary. I enjoy reading everything you've written because your "voice" is unique and stands out from all others. My sole regret is, having elected to opt-out of collecting for fifty years, I am not qualified to weigh in on subject matter I have limited knowledge about. 

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.

On 4/5/2024 at 6:01 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I cannot understand how such an upbeat topic descended into such chaos.  As I have the highest regard for both combatants, and for excellent reasons, I should like to leave both as well as the OP and all other interested viewers with a simple thought a gentleman uttered thirty years ago following a traffic stop. At a news conference, he said,

"Can't we all just get along?"

 

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.

On 4/3/2024 at 9:01 AM, cladking said:

If you think you can just find a nice coin of every date in circulation you'll need to rethink this as well.  These coins were designed to last 30 years and we're coming up on 60 years.  Most of the old coins in circulation are in deplorable condition.  Even a nice attractive F can be highly elusive.  

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.  

On 4/2/2024 at 8:43 PM, cladking said:

Did I ever mention I've talked to all the sellers of BU rolls from the '70's and '80's?   Did I ever mention they told me how many rolls they sold?  I round it off to "zero" because that's all it amounts to; a rounding error.  

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.

On 4/3/2024 at 9:03 AM, cladking said:

People collect rarity, quality, history, and importance.  People collect things they expect to increase in value as well.  I'm actually counting on these things to continue as the world continues shifting through massive changes.  

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. 

On 4/3/2024 at 9:01 AM, cladking said:

I've probably seen at last one coin for every die used to make '82-P quarters (for instance).  I drove around the country getting samples of these coins from many sources trying to find Gems.  Of course this was insufficient to see every coin but I've been buying rolls of coins from the bank in the intervening years.  I've had people send me circulated coin from various places (especially Boston). I've seen hundreds of souvenir sets, dozens of Numismatic News sets, and more dozens of Paul and Judy sets not to mention myriad other sets.  I've bought rolls on the market and a bag from a bank.  I've laid eyes on more than 1% of the coins that survive today in BU and seen enough circs (most in XF/ AU) that I've probably seen at least one coin from every die.  I've seen hundreds of coins from some dies.  

I haven't ignored and neglected the coins made in the last 60 years.  This is what the entire market has done.  

I've also sampled many of the coins set aside by the retailers over the years.  They account for the lion's share of existent BU rolls.  

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?

On 4/3/2024 at 9:01 AM, cladking said:

Why would you with no knowledge and no experience doubt everything I've seen.  Why would you pronounce all these coins "uncollectible".  

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.

On 4/2/2024 at 8:43 PM, cladking said:

Yes.  Quite right.  You've told me that.  

But you're wrong I can't make accurate estimates.   There are many ways to do it and I've told you a few of them in the past.  Most of them require experience and ALL of them require knowledge and evidence.  

I love it when you say this.  Who knew I didn't know how to find mint sets, BU rolls, and moderns.  

Did I ever mention I've talked to all the sellers of BU rolls from the '70's and '80's?   Did I ever mention they told me how many rolls they sold?  I round it off to "zero" because that's all it amounts to; a rounding error.  

 

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.)

On 4/2/2024 at 8:46 PM, cladking said:

How many nice pristine 1967 quarters do you think are sitting in someone's change jar.  I'll give you a hint. The very last one was accidently spent or was degraded about 1973.   If they're in a collection where would you find that collection from 1967?   Has it been updated every year since 1967?  If there are billions and billions of these collections why are they not seen?  

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.

On 4/2/2024 at 8:36 PM, cladking said:

What possible evidence do you have that shows modern availability is correlated to mintage?  Might I remind you that all of the key dates are high mintage and some are very high.  

I don't presume to tell collectors how to collect.  I merely BELIEVE collectors will avoid ugly clad coins but I don't presume to tell them which are ugly and which are collectible.  Those who collect clads will make this decision and this evaluation for themselves.  i also don't presume to tell them how rare a coin has to be before it becomes collectible.  To each his own.  

But if people start collecting moderns AND want nice attractive well made coins there are not enough to supply a mass market. Many collectors would be priced out of nice MS-64 (gemmy) and better coins.  

You simply can't sell 1000 of something where only one exists.  The price goes up to squash the demand.  

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.

On 4/2/2024 at 8:36 PM, cladking said:

What possible evidence do you have that shows modern availability is correlated to mintage?  Might I remind you that all of the key dates are high mintage and some are very high.  

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.

On 4/2/2024 at 8:26 PM, cladking said:

[sigh]

Are you really suggesting that just because no one has ever brough aunt Bertha's two rolls of bicentennial quarters to the local coin shop it must mean everyone is instead putting them both on eBay or calling up NGC for guidance?   

NO!  The LCS still absorbs most of the coins, dreck, and minor collections that come in as estates.  There ARE NO BU ROLLS and surprisingly few mint sets.  What does come in usually goes in the cash register.  

So where would you look for all those BU rolls you are so sure exist?   

Most coins are in someone's collection or "change jar", not any local dealer or even the internet.  You can also only be in one place at one time.

Do you understand that?

Did you read vKurt's post above here?  Well, if you didn't, he contradicted you but then, earlier in this thread you called his experience and Zadoks "hearsay" since apparently only yours is representative.

You know what you are actually claiming?

You are claiming that your unrepresentative experience is more accurate than the collective knowledge base on this subject.  That of all collectors in history, you know something no one else can know.

So no, of course I do not believe you.

On 4/2/2024 at 8:21 PM, cladking said:

So because accurate estimates are impossible we're supposed to not do it at all and since they made billions of moderns we're not supposed to do them at all either!  

You'd be amazed how close some of my estimates are.  It comes with experience.  Just because I estimate all coins a little higher than others doesn't make me wrong.  Many of these estimates are simple proportions derived from  a great deal of sampling.  My biggest worry is actually sample bias rather than error.  

No, I'm not amazed, because I know you are just "making it up".  I've already told you cannot possibly know what you claim to know and that's a fact.

Your posts demonstrate you don't understand statistics and that's a fact too.  You start with a false premise (that collectors "hate" this coinage) and then when you don't see it as often as you think you should because you're looking in the wrong place (your local dealer instead of the internet), you claim it's "scarce".  "Scarce" meaning less available versus 1933-1964 US coinage which is the most common coinage on the planet.

Your premises are false.  All estimates are based upon the observer's assumptions.  Therefore, your estimates cannot possibly be accurate other than by coincidence.

On 4/2/2024 at 8:17 PM, cladking said:

No!!!  

Between 1931 and 1965 mintage was the starting point but that was more than half a century ago.  It's no longer 1965.  Nobody set aside coins and this is exactly why you don't see BU rolls of moderns.  

I believe I addressed all your points adequately in other subsequent posts.  If I missed anything I'll look back.  

Total BS.

I haven't responded to your post(s) on the PCGS forum (yet), but your posting pattern is to disregard the evidence I use against your claims where you either rely on your unrepresentative experience or use irrelevant evidence.

I already told you in the other thread that if the world coinage I used as examples has the numbers and apparent survival rates it does, this coinage is almost certainly a lot more common than you claim.

There is absolutely no basis to claim that the survival rates on US moderns is lower or even approaches the examples I gave you.

It's utterly absurd.

On 3/30/2024 at 1:30 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Also:  a case of the expanded supply of Fairmont creating its own demand, much like the 1857-S $20 DEs with the SSCA.

Yes, in this case I'd attribute it to buying for "investment":

I presume the data is somewhere though I cannot find it, but it's my inference that there are some coins that were previously too scarce to be collected by a large enough collector base which became more valuable even as the supply increased.  Outside of "investment coinage" like your example, it appears only the most preferred coins (disproportionately from US coinage) have a deep demand base when "excessively" scarce.

On 3/30/2024 at 8:33 AM, cladking said:

The typical coin shop has gone from having 40 or 50 1968 mint sets to only one or two.  Since the sets still don't sell the wholesalers don't maintain any larger inventories than they ever did and these are not substantial.   Most old time collectors don't have any of these.  If they have a few mint sets they will not be 1968.   So where are you going to look for them?  At flea markets?  Among HSN customers?   

You could start with the internet which is what 21st century coin collecting revolves around instead of your outdated model where you think it is your local dealer.  No one needs to leave their house to buy this coinage, not even once.

On 3/30/2024 at 8:33 AM, cladking said:

How do you supply a mass market?

A collector only needs one coin for their set.  This coinage can be bought on demand, all the time, in practically any quality, only exception being arbitrary criteria or in some specialization mostly invented (as in "made up") by US collecting.

It's a non-problem, except for someone who theorizes in the abstract about how the world might "run out" of this coinage because collectors will find it so interesting they will either never sell it or sell it in such low proportion it won't be available.

Look on the internet, something your posts indicate you virtually never do.  I've looked intermittently or regularly for a wide variety of coinage: US, world, ancient.  Interestingly, I find the coins I'm looking for much, most, or all of the time and it's anywhere from dozens, hundreds, to even thousands of times scarcer than any US modern as a date/MM in all but the highest TPG eligible quality.

If the world hasn't run out of draped bust/small eagle half dollars (I see it every time I look) with something like 275-350 known for both dates in total (not a specific quality), there won't be any "shortage" for any of this coinage either.

On 3/30/2024 at 9:32 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If this is true, wouldn't this massive destruction of supply be accompanied by a big RISE in the price of specific coins in those sets ?

Not necessarily, because the remaining supply is not low, and collectors don't collect in a vacuum where they will ignore the price of competing alternatives at similar prices.

It also depends upon your definition of "big rise".  All circulating coins start at FV and under overmarketed and over-financialized US collecting combined with currency debasement since 1965 increase in value by large percentages routinely.  

On 3/29/2024 at 12:16 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Where or how did you come up with those figures ? 

I don't doubt that many Proof/Mint sets were opened up and sold piece-mail for key dates or for a certain proof....but I agree with Kurt, I see TONS of these things at shows and many of them (most of them ?) are worth face value or original cost -- no appreciation whatsoever.

There are no accurate estimates of survivors or survival rates, even for most actually scarce coins, much less post-1933 US coinage with large to absolutely huge mintages.  Mintage, that's the starting point for determining scarcity on any coin.

If anyone thinks mintages on any post-1933 US circulating coin are "low", try counting to these numbers and they will find out it isn't.  Proof and mint set mintages for the last 60+ plus years aren't, even for a circulating coin.  The 1950-D nickel or a "W quarter"?  It will only take you about one month without eating, sleeping, or doing anything else to count to 2+MM.  No, that's not a small number.

From this starting point, you then need to apply common behavioral factors known to correlate to attrition, which has limited to virtually nothing to do with what anyone sees or doesn't see by personal observation.  I've encountered numerous collectors on coin forums who claim or imply a coin is "scarce", or "rare", or "hard to find" or whatever because they didn't see as many as they think they should or supposedly couldn't find it. 

That's what I attempt to do in applying my claims, including comparing coins with better known estimates to those without it.

The only thing personal observation will confirm for anyone is that a coin is common.  A coin might be scarce if you don't see it (often), but in and of itself isn't the reason.  Some experience is more representative than others, but no one's experience is actually representative of hardly any coin, certainly not common coins.

P.S. Been gone for a long time and still owe you a response on the other thread.

On 1/5/2024 at 11:08 AM, World Colonial said:

Belief in "fundamentals" is a form of EMH.  There is no evidence that stocks or any financial assets are valued from "fundamentals".  Everyone just assumes it.

One other point.  I know that most of these markets are higher now, after 15+ to 20+ years.

That's not the point.

The point is that if "fundamentals" really explained market prices, obviously these indexes should be noticeably higher than now.  I don't have earnings data but given whatever growth has occurred locally and globally where the largest companies operate, I can infer the stocks comprising these indexes are making (a lot) more now vs. previously where this performance doesn't correlate.  The prices then (at any of these points in time) weren't based upon "fundamentals", then or now.

If you don't like these indexes, take a look at the Korea ETF.  It's lower now vs. 16 years ago and yes obviously, I know it's paid some dividends.  Since Korea earnings are higher now versus then, why is this ETF lower?

On 1/5/2024 at 11:14 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Not at all -- it does.  You have to look AT the fundamentals and BEYOND them, too....at times.

Because the expectation was that China would adopt democratic liberalization measures that would aid U.S. and other business interests in China.  This followed the 2000 WTO/GATT acceptance of China.  Without that, China doesn't become the world's manufacturer the next 2 decades.  Chinese stocks SUCKED for about 5 years until 2005 and then soared like 6-fold in 2 years.

I don't need to know fundamentals to know that any market or item that goes up 6x in 2 years is probably overvalued and priced for perfection -- and perfection didn't happen the next 10-15 years for China.  Ergo, market-losing returns except in select stocks.

Pure rationalization.  This doesn't explain anything.  What you described (without admitting or maybe even knowing it) is psychological.

China's Shanghai index hit 1400 in 1992 when GDP (yes, probably not accurate) was about 2% to 3% of today's reported level.  The index is around 2900 now.

The "fundamentals" do not explain this performance.