World Colonial

Yes, for US coinage but not necessarily for non-US.

No, what I am saying is that I don't consider AU-50 to be AU. I consider an AU-50 to be an XF-50. AU-50 isn't actually "almost uncirculated" because it isn't almost uncirculated. It's more of a choice XF and maybe not even that under more recent grading. Similar idea for AU-53, much or at least some of the time.

Agree I'll refer to mine as well if a coin I want to buy is for sale and I need a reminder on its survey data and relative scarcity rank. Otherwise, I'll look at it periodically (no set interval) as a refresher. Agree here too. For most collectors, sources like the TPG data and Coin Facts provide basic information and coin forums are in many instances better and real time information on less collected areas. Yes, but value is relative. I'd get some value out of a lot of books in the sense I'd learn something I didn't know before. I'm still not interested in spending a cent to buy something unrelated to my core interest over actually buying a single coin in my core interest. That's not going to happen. It's also one thing to spend a few dollars or a nominal price (like the $10+ I spent on Bower's books in the 80's) versus hundreds.

This is an inference, but I presume one purpose of the OP is for future subject matter. I buy fewer books generally (almost none now) but I never had an interest or intent to build a numismatic library on coins I'll never collect. At today's prices, building one of any size (assuming enough actually exist) I'd actually want to read would probably cost four or a low five figures. I also can't find the ones I want most and I'd likely never pay the price it would take to buy it. Earlier, I mentioned Gilboy's cost something like $400 now (used) and it's probably not much less (if any at all) for the one covering the Getz patterns.

I agree, at least once it moves past something like the Red Book. Maybe it's different with e-books somewhat (which should be a lot cheaper) but most are either going to be too specialized, too expensive, or not relevant to the collector for what they collect. The types of coins I collect, the coins do not exist in sufficient supply to accommodate a noticeably larger collector base who will want to buy any reference on the topic. It makes no sense to expect collectors to want to buy books that have nothing to do with their interest. Most collectors are coin buyers, not aspiring scholars or numismatists. Most collector budgets are for coins, not to pay for expenditures unrelated to directly buying coins. The last book I bought was Yonaka's covering Mexican colonial portrait coinage and the lion and castle quarter real. I own two of the latter but no portraits. It's hard cover and cost $125 or $150. It doesn't have much to do with my collecting, but I bought it anyway. About the only directly useful info to me is the survey data for comparison with the same surveys for the pillar coinage in Yonaka's other books.

Yes, something like it. This is coin collecting (not physics), so there are no absolutes. But keep in mind that, at minimum to my knowledge, no series has passed another one since 1975 when I first became a collector. If it happened, it must have been between two that aren't actually competing directly. In your example, the preference between these two series remains as lopsided as ever. The reason this hasn't happened isn't because it "can't" happen, but because collectors essentially prefer the same coin characteristics, over time. And the reason this happens is because collectors over time bring in the same cultural preferences external to collecting, from the broader culture. In the example of the two series you used, the only realistic way the relative preference is going to change "noticeably" is if the public prefers presidential portraits over classical style art. Changes such as preferences for TPG, CAC, "eye appeal" (toning or lack of it), and full strike designations such as FS are all internal to coin collecting. (TPG somewhat more broadly to collecting generally.) That's why it's a lot easier for these changes to occur (and impact prices) than something that's brought into collecting from the "outside". Preferences from outside collecting include metal content (gold, silver, base metals), designs, coin size, and relative scarcity. Another one that is definitely evident in coin collecting is the overwhelming tendency of coin collectors to prefer their own coinage for cultural reasons. Your preference is typical of US based collectors (US vs. everything else) but still somewhat dependent upon relative prices. Has the preference for a series increased relative to another without overtaking it? I'd say yes but I can't identify how much without access to the data. If I had an extract of the Heritage archives, I could run an analysis. Anecdotally looking at limited auction data, it's been a low to minimal closure of the gap and probably mostly due to generic changes in collecting. As an example, with the introduction of TPG in the 80's (which was a one- time occurrence), coins now in a holder with the highest TPG grades have increased more than some lower grade coins in another series. The other important factor (a very big one) is relative financial liquidity. Higher preference and more "popular" coins are usually more liquid, but collectors may (and IMO do) buy coins they like less than others because the financial part is more important than collecting as a recreational activity. Think of it this way, if collectors knew (or had a high probability to believe) they could get most or all of their money back irrespective of what they bought, I think it should be evident relative prices would be quite different.

Good point on Red Books. I forgot about those. Last one I have is dated 1998, I think. That's the last time I returned to collecting, one of multiple "sabbaticals".

I know you disagree with me. I disagree with your economic philosophy as you do with mine.

No Chicken Little here. I only use logic in my claims, whether it turns out to be accurate or not.

I know there is a clear connection between culture and collector preferences. It's not absolute but it's obviously evident. The US Census Bureau forecasts won't prove to be 100% accurate but there is more reason to believe it's "directionally" correct than not. I could believe that demographic groups who have shown virtually no propensity to collect will somehow find coin collecting compelling but there is no basis for it. I could also believe that any future collectors from these other demographics will have a similar preference for US coinage to current US collectors but that would contradict common sense. It's absurd. So, from the combination of what I just told you, yes, it's evident that demographics is a negative for US collecting and the price level. I didn't say it was popular but there you have it. A basic understanding of physics principles provides the answer, at least to most people who will see the parallel and view the data impartially. That's all I am going to say about that. No, not yet, thanks to artificial prosperity. I don't know when one or more will either but I know it's going to happen. It's going to happen either due to: 1) Lack of future purchasing power due to inflation. 2) Replacement by electronic money. I can see world mints continue to strike NCLT afterwards but that's another factor. I presume one of the reasons you hold this view is because you are new to collecting. I've been collecting since 1975, off and on. Decades ago (especially pre-internet), most or at least a much larger proportion of collectors got into collecting from circulating coinage. Back then too, the hobby's footprint was a lot more visible. More coin shops, coin magazines in bookstores, and ads in print media. Without circulating change, it will almost entirely have to come from world mint advertising and buying gold and silver "as investments". I infer this is a big factor now but mostly because of financialization and marketing.

There is a recent thread on the PCGS Forum where I argued against "noticeably" higher prices for world coins too. Nobody there liked it either, as it was also contrary to their personal preference. One poster even claimed I was trying to decrease my competition by being so "negative".

Coins are "interesting" to collectors at one price but not necessarily a (much) higher one, especially when we're talking about one with such a low general preference. That's my primary claim behind this concept. With Jefferson nickels or any other US series like it, you can see the difference in "interest" between the current financialized era (either the mid-70's to now or TPG era, depending upon the coin) and previously. The US price level was always higher than elsewhere (at least since most or all of the 20th century). Concurrently, since few coins were bought as "investments" until the 70's, it should be evident that any coin with a "high" price prior to it was primarily based upon buyer interest as a collectible. As examples, all the actual 20th century US common key dates, like the 09-S VDB cent and 16-D Mercury dime. Concurrently, what is now a "top pop" selling for high three figures and sometimes in the six figures was worth a nominal price, like a few dollars to or $20, usually. The coin didn't change and unlike the preferred inference, I know collectors didn't miraculously experience a collective epiphany where they suddenly discovered these coins are supposedly so much more desirable than their predecessors thought. That's how I know it's financialization and marketing.

Nope, not from me.

I didn't claim it for US coinage generally, only post 1933. You can infer my conclusion from my prior replies. This coinage is extremely common, except as a specialization or some arbitrary number on the TPG label. In the overwhelming majority of instances, there are likely (far) more currently not in a holder than in one meaning the potential TPG counts are usually a (very large) multiple of the current counts except for the very highest grades. (Current "top pop" and maybe one grade below it.) The only reason the actual counts will almost certainly not approach the potential is because: 1) It's not economical to submit it. Any large proportional increase in the counts will collapse the market price. 2) Most collectors (especially low budget) prefer to spend their money on coins than grading fees. However, collectors reasonably still infer the potential supply is much larger than the TPG counts. Hardly anyone accepts the five premises I included above (#5 excepted), but using these premises, it's easy enough to concurrently conclude that over time, grading fees will increase a lot faster than the prices on this coinage, eventually exceeding the market value on an increasing percentage. It's not like grading fees are low for most of this coinage now.

My position doesn't have anything to do with your inference, and unlike practically everyone else I have ever debated on this subject, I never base my claims upon any preference I have. I'm not claiming any coins I own or like will become a lot more valuable in the future and never have. Since you brought it up, here is the basis of my claim: One: For more expensive coins, the end of the global asset mania. This isn't specific to US coins and won't happen "tomorrow", but with the most inflated price level, should impact US coins the most, eventually. (This claim is very unpopular.) Two: A (noticeably) poorer population. This isn't specific to the US, but the US is one of the few countries with a "mass market" and outsized "investment", so collecting is more closely correlated to broader economic and financial conditions. (This claim is particularly disliked any time I bring it up.) Three: Negative demographics, not age but the ethnic composition of the US population. Look at the US Census Bureau forecasts. Most US collectors are overwhelmingly "non-Hispanic white" with most of the remainder (presumably including me due to my surname but not anything else) presumably mostly classified as "Hispanic white". One or both are projected to grow minimally or decrease. Whatever shift occurs doesn't bode well for the size of the US collector base and whatever that number is, a noticeably lower proportion collecting US coins due to cultural reasons. Four: Continuing decreasing competitiveness as a recreational activity. This peaked in the 60's or 70's predominantly as a recreational expense. Five: Discontinuance of one or more circulating denominations. I consider this a lot more uncertain (than the other four) but when (not if) it happens, will particularly be a negative for post-1933 US coinage and world coinage like it. The biggest positive I see is the next upward cycle in gold and silver spot. However, it didn't make much difference to most coins up to 2011 and don't believe next time either. Primarily to "investment" coinage. The US price level is predominantly driven by artificial affluence where since at least the early 1990's, above a nominal price level (maybe $300), most US collectors would never pay the price they do/did as a collectible as it's (totally) disproportionate to the merits. Unless of course, they expect to get most of their money back at resale. The price level is predominantly due to financialization and marketing, not actual interest in collecting.

Where from my post did you get that my comments are based upon a comparison to world coins? I used it as an isolated example, not the basis of my claims. I hardly mentioned it at all. My position isn't just based upon relative rarity, since most coins can be bought practically any time. Rarity in and of itself isn't a primary factor in how coins are priced, especially since in US collecting most "rarity" is a pure contrivance based upon the TPG grade or some specialization. In this thread, it's that the coins subject to discussion aren't actually that interesting to most collectors, above a nominal price level. This is evident even from your posts. You're asking about this series as a "sideline" collection, not your primary interest. Look at the prices in the Heritage archives for higher grade or die varieties and then look at how the sales records compare to other series. The price is predominantly due to the TPG label. Concurrently, this series is also near the bottom of the US preference scale, measured by how collectors spend their money. The coins are available in volume any day of the week (unlike coins which are actually scarce), so obviously, the relative prices are due to collectors preferring to buy something else.

For my primary series, the print run for Gilboy's "The Milled Columnarios of Central and South America" was 500. I bought mine in 2002 for $65 off eBay. Recently, I understand it sells for about $400. Not sure if the 500 copies are all available now though. Yonaka's books (others for my series), probably in the hundreds. Quite confident it's not over 1000 or less than 100. These are more recent (versus 1999 for Gilboy's). Type collectors and many if not most "investors" have no use for reference books. So even if the actual collector base for Saints is 25,000, I doubt many more will buy it than buy mine. I'd have to see what's actually in it to form a better opinion. Most US series should have a potential market for several thousand, but I still doubt more than a few (if any) actually sell that many.

My primary interest has a reasonably high preference but cannot be "popular". It's the polar opposite of most US coinage. The coins are too scarce where there is almost nothing to buy worth buying. No one who prioritizes getting most of their money back will buy it.

It depends upon what you mean by "want". The "Sac" IMO is one of the better US modern designs but it's extremely common except as a "top pop", error, or die variety. These coins are far from cheap for what is actually being bought. The other series, aside from being really common, mostly have designs collectors don't really like very much. I wouldn't call the price level "low", since I don't think any should sell for more than the grading fee. For those collecting the entire series, we're talking dozens to over 100 coins (presidential dollars including proofs) where even "low" prices may add up to thousands for the set. It's not competitive versus the alternatives as a collectible and isn't bought for "investment". It's not competitive now and no basis to believe it will improve later either. Assuming the US Mint continues to strike circulating coinage indefinitely, demand should be less later versus now, as it will be competing with new circulating designs from a potential shrinking collector base.

In my limited review of the Heritage archives, appears to have peaked around 2006. I think it was predictable too in the sense that the prices would have declined, whether Congress did or didn't authorize a continuation of these seemingly never ending mostly mediocre design changes. The reason? The coins aren't interesting enough to enough collectors, not versus what the same money can buy in other coinage above a relatively nominal price point. Almost no coins (if any) are priced in a vacuum where collectors will ignore all comparably (or lower) priced alternatives. The same concept applies with this series. It's a US series and most US collectors prefer US coins. It's affordable to modest budget collectors or of interest as a "sideline" collection similar to the OP. But as their primary interest, only to a minimal number of bigger budget collectors and even fewer "investors". As a US series, it's more liquid than the vast majority of non-US coins which is important to most collectors. That's the primary advantage it has over a coin like the 1759 AU-MS Peru 1/2R I bought recently for about $300. Per the Heritage archives, the "earlier" date business strikes (1938-1964 as a dividing line using the old Whitman folders) have a lopsided collector preference over 1965 and later. Concurrently, the number of collectors spending "noticeable" amounts must be really low.

It's not what I personally find more interesting. It's what other collectors do or will. Any number of non-US coins across any price range. Some or many US too, depending upon the price. You didn't identify any specific dates or grades, but this is a strike designation and a label on a holder. It's of interest to those building top registry sets and a low number who collect the series somewhat below top grades, but not otherwise at "full freight". It's one thing to "cherry pick" this coinage at FV or a "nominal" price. It's another entirely for a noticeably larger number to pay a (much) "high(er)" price for one already in a holder ("full freight"). It's also one thing to pay "nominal" prices for what are actually very common coins. Again, it's another entirely to pay "high" prices for a coin in a series that actually has a very low collector preference. The series is "popular" because the US has a very large collector base and it's affordable to modest budget collectors. It's not actually preferred over hardly any US series, prior to SQ. This is readily apparent by looking at the Heritage archives which provides confirmation for what is presumably common knowledge. I see no catalyst to "meaningfully" increase the price level longer term. Look at SQ which doesn't appear to have done much of anything for Washington quarters, silver or clad. It created a temporary bump (in a rising market) which to my knowledge ended before the program even concluded. This series is priced higher versus before the program (like the US market generally), but to my knowledge well below the peak. Every US collector is aware of it. It's not "undiscovered", just like any other US series. The strike designation alone almost certainly isn't interesting enough either to motivate many to pay noticeably higher prices than now, unless the entire US market is moving up with it. Yes, my inference of future demand. But I don't want to take this thread in an entirely different direction, again. I've written about this topic elsewhere on this forum and some on PCGS too. Yes, it's a very unpopular view.

Not me. There are far more interesting coins available for the same money. Also depends upon your time frame. Longer term, I expect most post 1933 US coinage to sell for no more than the grading fee or nominal premiums to silver spot, even in grades up to MS-66. As for your original question, I agree with War Nickels. Not because it's silver but because it looks somewhat different and is actually a short set.

It all depends upon your interests. The only coin books I bought recently were purchased directly from the author. But then, he collects the some of the same coins I do. If you are interested in generic information to collecting, many books out there with most of it seeming to be about US coins written by US based authors. If you are interested in learning a specific US series, everyone except maybe SQ and later has one. If you are interested in non-US coins, it depends. Most non-US series don't have reference books. Most of these "reference" books are inaccurate price guides useful for attribution but not much else. Many aren't written in English and some are quite dated too.

If I really want a coin, I'll watch and place my bid a few seconds before auction end. Usually, 15 seconds to reduce the likelihood of a slow response. I don't buy much anymore and nothing common. I've bought four coins this year, two on eBay. 1768 Bolivia 1/2R XF (lightly corroded on one side I think) and a 1772 Peru 2R (pillar not portrait) roughly fine with a small but noticeable scratch. No, I can't find any better examples. Total cost for both about $100. If I were still buying common coins, I'd place my max bid earlier and just forget about it until I am notified if I won or lost.

There were warning signs for well over a year, an example being the big declines in bank stocks well before Lehman.. It was a mania, the same mania we are in now. The COVID economic response was an entirely voluntary event economically, with the politics mostly if not entirely driven by psychology. There was no economic requirement to do it. It was unprecedented and no one did it before. Concurrently, many other countries shut down less (and maybe not at all) based upon their perception of the medical risks and affordability of the response. The best explanation for the response in the US and many other countries is the belief that it was economically affordable, even though it required massive amounts of additional debt and "printing".