World Colonial

How relevant is this to you as a collector of Saints? I just read the Coin Facts entry and it estimates 943 exist, 900 as an MS-60 or better, and 45 as a MS-65 or better. I think any collector of the series is aware the coins might be in Europe in volume and more might show up. Let me give you an example from my primary series. I have two references which conflict on the legitimacy of certain dates. One book claims these are genuine and the other says not. Other books which I do not own purportedly are on both sides, at least silently.. This matters because no one wants to pay four, five or six figures for a fake coin. Aside from the money, I would care if I thought I had a major rarity and then found out it's a fake. It would be a huge disappointment. I don't really care if some anecdotal story is or isn't true, as it has no bearing on my collecting choices or experience..

Yes, I am aware of it and you seem to be taking my statement out of context. In this quote, I was specifically referring to common and widely collected US series. What's going to be incorrect in a source like Coin Facts or an auction description for this coinage which will make any practical difference to hardly anyone who collects it? More generally, the possibility or even likelihood that it's wrong isn't particularly relevant if it's not an area someone doesn't collect. It doesn't mean they will want to spend even one cent for accuracy or make any effort to verify it if it has nothing to do with their collecting interest.

I'd like to know this data too. It's another data point on the state of collecting. I have never looked at any of these books. I infer if it's your area of interest, it's quite useful. Informs you on things like the strike characteristics, availability in different quality, major varieties and maybe the price history for each coin in the series.. If it's not your area of interest, not really. Too much minutia. I have a few of Bowers' books in storage I bought in the 80's. One is for the 2C, 3CN and 3CS. I have not read it in a long time but my recollection is that it's useful for entertainment and beginners, but not much else. I don't recall anything in it that isn't available in Coin Facts, auction descriptions, or probably on the internet.

I agree. I also don't see why anyone thinks it should ever be any different. Why would anyone expect more than a very low proportion to spend money for reference material that has nothing to do with their collecting? A higher proportion will read it for free but just because someone is an avid collector for their area of interest doesn't mean they have much if any interest in another they don't collect. Myself, there are a few books I would like to read but have not seen it for sale. Two examples include Bowers 1822 half eagle and another author for the Getz patterns. I also considered buying Amato's for the 1796-1797 half dollar but did not. Some of these books are also quite expensive. It's either out of print or the print run wasn't sufficient for demand. I bought one of mine (one of 500) for $65 back in 2002 and purportedly it now sells for $400. If I did not own it now, I would consider buying it anyway but never at this price (or near it) for something I don't and never will collect.

Low to very low is my assumption Much lower outside of their areas of interest It also partly depends upon definition of "active collector". If it's like mine, I still say that most (over half) have very limited budgets and don't or won't spend much or any of it on anything but buying coins.

I don't see this as much of a problem for most US collectors but I agree with you. Coin forums indicate that most spending "noticeable" amounts either prefer or insist direction inspection first too. Most everything seems to be available for sale within the US. I recall not receiving a coin from a foreign seller once, Noble numismatics in Australia. They ignored me so I filed a chargeback. The coin arrived about six months later, so I sent it back to them.

Analyzing myself, the internet seems to have accentuated my cynicism. When I first moved back to the US in 1975 at age 10, I was always trying to go to my favorite local coin shop, even though I mostly didn't have any money to buy anything most of the time. Now, I have little to no interest in the coins I used to like or want to buy, which were US 19th century mid circulated type (like bust halves and liberty seated). A few yes but find it too expensive for what it is as a collectible. It isn't interesting to me because I can buy any of it any day of the week, I'd never pay current prices for it as a collectible and with limited exceptions, don't buy coins for "investment". The only exception I ever made was when the South Africa Union series was my primary interest. I'd buy the ZAR series ungraded and "flip it" but that's because I knew I could make multiples of my money off of it right then. It was virtually "guaranteed" money while it lasted. The one thing I dislike most is how the higher price level reduces what I can buy for my budget. My financial resources have increased noticeably since 1998, but I have not and I'm not about to increase my budget equivalently. Reading coin forums, most others who observe the same thing seem to think it's "fantastic". I think it totally "sucks". As a few examples, I own a PCGS MS-64 1894 MO Mexico 8R. It was one of the first coins I bought when I resumed collecting in 1998 for $45 from a World Coin Universe auction. It's quite nice but common and don't believe it should be worth what Stacks will get for the four they have up for auction right now which is going to be $300 to $400+ for MS-63 and MS-64s. Heritage also has an 1870 Boliviano NGC MS-66 selling tonight with a current bid of $2160 with BP. That's totally nuts. It's not common but not rare either, except for the holder label. I have an MS-64 which cost me $120 in 2005. It's untoned and not as nice but maybe it's worth $300 to $500 which I think is too much also. The explanation for these prices? The plastic, plain and simple, even for a Bolivian coin. Both are crowns but what I'd describe as "collector" coins.

Many of the items in the OP are duplicative, not really different. I can think of three major positives since I first started collecting in 1975: One: The internet makes it much easier for any (prospective) collector to find what they want, regardless of their specialty. Two: More information available than ever before, much of it good but not all of it accurate. Three: For coins which are actually scarce which is a low to very low minority, the higher price level provides more incentive for whoever owns it to offer it for sale, making it more available than it otherwise likely would be.

These examples are external factors which impact the hobby. It's an example but I don't think the price of DE really makes much difference to most collectors since the price has always been high for the collectible merits. The internet is a good thing for collecting but I concurrently infer the reduced physical footprint makes it less visible to the non-collector. This is an inference, not "fact". I see an inflated price level (the one we have now) which I don't believe is supported by anywhere near as much interest in actual collecting as the consensus claims or wants everyone to believe. That's where I know many (probably most) disagree with me. The reason they do is because to question this premise is to concurrently bring into question the future viability of current industry business model and with it, the sustainability of the "investment" collectors have in their collection.

I don't believe anyone actually knows one way or the other. I believe it's declining for the coins most US collectors predominantly collected half a century ago. The prices of Lincoln cent key dates are anecdotal evidence of that. Concurrently, I believe interest in previously limited access segments (mostly world, ancient, and exonumia) is greater than ever, in the US. One of the primary points I have made which is very unpopular is that the inflated prices of what are frequently actually common coins aren't representative of increased interest in collecting. Same thing for NCLT. It's predominantly financialization and marketing. When a coin sells for high prices that has always sold for high prices, we can reasonably infer it's mostly about collecting. When a coin which used to sell for relatively nominal prices (opinions will vary on the amount) sells for four figures or more, I call it mostly or entirely financialization and marketing. It's a culture change but collectors didn't collective wake up one day and miraculously experience an epiphany where they suddenly realized the supposed merits while their predecessors in the past operated in ignorance. Collectors outside the US overwhelmingly view collecting more closely to 60's US culture. It isn't that they are less "sophisticated". It's that their collecting has not been financialized. The reduced physical footprint (which includes B&M) is definitely a factor.

I didn't take exception to your reply. Debates are fine. That's the purpose of this forum, as far as I am concerned. It doesn't bother me either than we went off topic. I'm also ok if you disagree with me. No problem.

If I am going to properly respond to your posts, it would help if you would separate your replies into discrete thoughts. I have difficulty reading what you write. What's your definition of collector? You're telling me there are 10MM to 15MM collectors but in your last post told me I am including those completing folders out of pocket change? Where is the evidence there are anywhere near this number ("active") paying any premium? If there were, the prices of most 20th century US coinage would be much higher, proportionately. I have estimated 2MM in my posts. It's a guess but see no basis to believe there are anywhere near 10MM, unless it includes casual collectors who almost exclusively or entirely collect out of pocket change. The US Mint only sells about 1MM proof and mint sets annually now. The last time I checked, eBay didn't even have 1MM coin listings, worldwide. I see no basis to believe 1MM US based coin collectors are buying from them with any frequency, if at all. Heritage's website claims 1MM registered users. It doesn't break out number of coin buyers. Volume isn't clear to me either. 2019 report states $181MM for US auctions, $59MM for world and ancients (not clear if only auctions), and no breakout of direct US coin sales. Market share is claimed at 55%. Those buying at least one coin from an auction firm each year (my proxy for "regular") could be 100K but don't believe anywhere near 500K. Have no idea about club members. I checked a few states in the ANA directory: PA, CA and GA (where I live). Not sure all clubs are listed but if it's close to being comprehensive and accurate, doesn't seem to approach anywhere near 100K either. I live in ATL which has a population of 6MM and the ANA data indicates in the hundreds at most. Sure, some may consider it a numismatic wasteland but not compared to most of the country. Total expenditures of $18B sounds reasonable but much of it is metal substitutes: NCLT, common pre-1933 US gold, common Morgan and Peace dollars, and world gold. Anecdotally, I conclude that those who mostly buy this coinage aren't spending much of their budget on other coins. Lastly, if you have read my posts in the past, my comments on here haven't ever claimed US collecting is "in trouble" or the collector base is shrinking. I have stated it's disproportionately financially motivated because that's the evidence I see, everywhere.

The conclusion from what you are telling me is that the collector base is a lot smaller than I believe which if you are correct, collecting is even less competitive than I believe. I have never asked your definition of "collector". My assumption is that there must be a noticeable number (the majority) between those who (primarily) collect from pocket change and what you imply. Most coins are low priced and the type of collector you seem to be implying isn't buying it as their primary interest. The number of collectors who subscribe to coin publications or belong to a coin club is relatively low. Roughly 25,000 ANA members last I heard which I presume is representative of those who are coin club members. Maybe a small multiple subscribe to coin publications. I've seen Heritage's registered user numbers if that's a data point you use. I have never seen any break out for coins versus other areas. If most registered users are coin collectors, their annual auction volume makes it evident that most are buying very little from them. A small % (the collector you seem to have in mind along with dealers) buy a disproportionate % of the total.

Coin collecting is a lot less competitive as a recreational activity than it used to be (pre-internet or also up to the late 60's) for anyone's time and discretionary income. I seldom hear anyone admit it (literally virtually never by the industry) but it's a fact that isn't going away by pretending it doesn't exist. I don't know if the public is less aware of it now. I'd guess less due to the reduced geographical footprint and visibility. It's easier than ever online but this assumes someone bothers to look for it. That's how I got back into collecting in 1998. It's also very expensive to complete most collections, by the standards of the non-collector, if above "recreational collector" quality. As an example, a contributor on the PCGS forum in reply to my post than an AU-58 Peace dollar set "only" costs about $5,000. Sure, it's "cheap" to many forum members but not the general collector population or non-collector. This is subjective but there is no reason to believe prospective collectors find such a collection (or even many much cheaper) interesting enough to spend the money.

You are correct, the question was rhetorical (intentionally) It's the same attitude toward most current collectors, except to the extent they can convince them to spend more money and even then, usually buying what they sell from them. My collecting (no matter how much I spend) is irrelevant to over 99% of all dealers and most auction firms, as I'll never spend a cent on their inventory. This explains a lot of it. Yes, I know my cynicism is boundless. For anyone waiting with baited breadth, I'll provide my answer. It's a big fat zero.

More flippers? Depends compared to when. I doubt it's much more than 10 or 20 years ago. Most of this complaint I infer is driven by the recent experience with "limited mintage" US Mint releases. I too believe there are more "serious" collectors than previously, versus decades ago. There is more reference research material than ever before on a wider variety of topics, especially non-US. I don't believe industry participants have any real interest in spending their own time and money at any meaningful scale to expand collecting as a hobby. It's overwhelmingly lip service. This isn't surprising since few collectors do either. They rely on the US Mint to do the heavy lifting for them by issuing so much NCLT few collectors want. Or, with the recent changes in circulating coinage design since the SQ program, which most people (collectors or otherwise) don't even recognize. The industry wants the US Mint to promote the hobby at the public's expense, not theirs. I'm not sure how much generic marketing occurs by anyone in the industry now or previously, except to existing collectors. I don't watch TV hardly at all. don't read print (only online), or listen to radio at all. I do see online ads but attribute it to my browsing history. I have heard that the larger coin shows do or did advertise locally but have never encountered it myself. My inference is that there is a reason for current practices. Marketing to the general public doesn't generate any ROI. Same problem with the example you gave of promoting the hobby at schools. It's a long term project where the response can't be measured effectively or if it does, someone else will benefit. How many in the coin business care enough to spend any meaningful amount of their time or money promoting the hobby with the non-collecting public?

I find #10 particularly problematic. I'm not a coin club member and seldom attend coin shows. But I still believe the longer term success of collecting as a hobby relies on social interaction. Otherwise, collecting risks becoming a rote activity (like online shopping) and substantially or predominantly financially motivated. It will or may remain interesting until the collector goes to sell what they bought and finds they are consistently losing money. Consistently losing money may not matter to true hobbyists (recreational collectors) but due to the cost of acquiring many collections, I don't believe this is more than a low minority where the outlay is "material".

Much if not most of the list is really captured in your point #1. It's not just segments but US collecting more broadly though it's creeping into world and ancient coins too. From what I read, the more vocal group seems to think it's a positive (if not fantastic). I presume it's actually a minority but it seems to be a plurality on coin forums. On #22, I conclude it's inevitable given that: At least 95% of all coins can be bought on demand or relatively short notice, maybe a few months. It's mostly the internet where even if a collector can't afford a particular coin, they can view practically anything. There is a limit to how much marketing and exaggeration are successful in maintaining interest in actual collecting.

I have another reason for the decline in demand. It's over priced and buyers (many of whom aren't even real collectors) don't find it sufficiently interesting, sometimes not at all.

Yes, I agree. But by limiting the mintage below demand, they seem to be making it their business. Assuming they care (and don't see why they would), seems to me the Mint could make more money selling to demand.

I think you are missing my point. One of the biggest complaints with US Mint issues is that it almost always loses value in the secondary market. Where it doesn't, it's mostly due to increasing metal prices, not due to the desirability as a collectible. Proof sets are successful if viewed as a collectible but that's not the reason for these complaints. The real root cause is that most buyers just don't like what they are collecting enough (whether it is new US Mint coins or otherwise) to lose money on it, though this sentiment varies with the amount of the loss depending upon the buyer. I have never seen anyone admit this directly. The most likely reason for it is because it brings into question the desirability of the hobby and the viability of the price level which is substantially and sometimes mostly contingent on marketing and financially motivated buying, aka "investment". For anyone who spends "meaningful" amounts, only a (very) low proportion are spending what they do and paying the prices they pay primarily or exclusively as a recreational activity. With this mindset, minting to demand which is the obvious option won't resolve the contradiction I am describing.

I guess Congress could stop authorizing new coins, discontinue all non-circulating coinage except clad proof sets, and go back to the designs in use prior to SQ. Oh wait, that wouldn't make everyone happy either.

I hear it's going to happen but don't know if it is a one time event or not. Either way, there are still going to be some who won't be satisfied. Auctions will price some people out. "Limited" mintage at below market prices means a quick sell out where everyone who wants one (even if only for "flipping") doesn't get one either Minting to order means an almost certain loss for the buyer in the secondary market.

This is the first point I think people miss. My inference is that the US Mint would rather not deal with the retail buyer, at all. My second inference is that US Mint employees would rather not deal with collectible coins either, unless and except to the extent their job depends upon it. I've never heard they get performance bonuses for sales volume or accounting profits, so why would they care unless they are also collectors? The US Mint does not exist primarily to serve collectors and issuing collectible coins is not its primary mission. It's to facilitate commerce with coinage which increasingly ends up in a "change jar" due to its perpetually decreasing purchasing power.

I don't own any gold now but if I do, I won't lose any sleep over it.