World Colonial

Nothing the upcoming end of the financial asset levitation act won't resolve on the supply side. I have admitted that I have been wrong on the timing on the never ending financial mania many times but it's coming because there is no free lunch in life. I expect enough metal accumulators to turn into forced sellers later. It's not like most metal advocates have much economic staying power. (They are mostly weak hands. Middle class with limited savings and dependent upon their job and artificially cheap credit.) What I do not know is whether there is going to be another 1980 or 2011 spike first. As for much higher inflation, that's what practically everybody expects. To this ;point, the decision to "print" by central banks since 2008 and more recently provide "helicopter money" with "stimulus" has been a painless one. Economic illiterates (most of the public and the brain dead politicians they elect) seem to believe they have found the perpetual "money tree". As for economists, central bankers and the financial community, I'm not sure what most of them believe. Most of them seem to be dumb enough to believe it to but maybe they aren't and act like it out of expediency. My expectation? When the current path doesn't seem free anymore, my prediction remains the same. Those with the most influence will choose to preserve their own wealth and maintain the empire by throwing most of the public "under the bus". They aren't about to "print to infinity" out of misplaced altruism or if the public wants it.

I was being sarcastic. When someone is running a Ponzi scheme, no succession plan required. No segregation of duties either and you don't take vacations so someone else can look at the records.

That was close

No, I do not.

My assumption is the TPG data represents a low to very low fraction of what currently exists in this quality. There is limited "positive selection bias" for the highest TPG grades but decreasing with the price level. I hold the same opinion for the overwhelming majority of low priced coinage. How much will ever be submitted and when is another thing altogether. I don't believe there are massive hoards either. But I do believe that more of these coins are out there than is evident in your posts and more will be in higher quality than you seem to believe. By higher quality, not referring to large numbers of what is currently an MS-67 or MS-68 but 66.

None that I can identify in advance, especially where it is financially meaningful. Back in 2004, I thought South Africa Union and ZAR were and I was correct but could never buy in volume. I made good money but it wasn't material as an "investment". Most US coins are dependent upon the broader market. I don't consider any series meaningfully "undervalued" where it makes any financial difference. No series to my knowledge has overtaken another in 45+ years since I have been a collector, or even prior. Noticeable movement in specific dates though. As for world and ancients, someone can luck out like I did but the demand for most is too shallow to have any predictable pricing.

Look at the TPG data. 4,000+ 1971-D Kennedy's and thousands for many, many other dates. Seriously, do you really believe this is most of the supply in this quality? Who do you think owns most of these coins? Is it really mostly non-collectors buying it from coin TV shows? I understand your point but it's a mistake to conclude that anyone sees is representative. I'm not referring to collections above a certain arbitrary value. Obviously by this metric, there are fewer. There are plenty of active collectors where these sets are a sideline collection. You know some of them from coin forums. Depending upon the criteria, there may be more IHC collectors but not Bust Half. As a series, it's far too expensive for the vast majority of the collector base even in lower grades.

Why would anyone want to buy an AU 1973 quarter when better ones are so easy to buy? What you are implying will only be relevant if your assumptions turn out to be correct. There is a difference between "some price increase" and your prior claims.

I agree with this but in constant prices, the difference isn't nearly as large and the sets have more coins now. I agree with this also, with the caveat that the internet also made it a lot less appealing.

I would have to add it up and it's too much trouble. Almost none are below MS and a minority below MS-65 but I agree with cladking these aren't necessarily "gem". The more important point is that the vast majority of this coinage as a date/MM already has hundreds to several thousand in MS-66 with most in MS-65 and MS-66. My position is that 95%+ of these coins even dated prior to SQ are actually a Judd R-1 in MS-66 with 1250+. He has never disputed this to my recollection, only that it is common. Depends upon your definition but it's more relevant by series than in total. More for Lincoln cents and Ike dollars than most or all others pre-1999. By my definition of "collector", if the US has 2MM, it has to be tens of thousands at least for each series but only a (very) low percentage pay any noticeable premium. If my assumption that the (vast) majority have an annual budget less than $500 is reasonable and my 2MM is somewhat accurate, then most are buying low priced Mint products, low priced US classics, world coinage and this coinage. That's all they can afford, exists in quantity, and it's possibly viewed as an alternate consumption expense.

The point of me citing the population data was to contradict your claim that "few" were saved. Nothing to do with future demand. This coinage is more "widely" collected than both IHC and Bust halves, unless of course, you are now going to use another definition of "collector". What exactly is this supposed to mean? Totally and blatantly false. I buy somewhat more expensive coins now versus the past but nothing to do with your claim. I have bought and own many low priced coins. I just disagree with you that it should be worth a lot more later. Well, it would be one thing if I actually claimed what you said, but I did not. You just made it up, again. Your claim of almost no collectors is also ridiculous. Why do you think I bothered to comment on the TPG data? There you go making things up again. I never claimed or implied what you wrote, ever. Where I disagree is with your verbal gymnastics in this extract where you are implying the same ridiculous premises that will lead to your outlandish price forecasts.

You chose to infer this because you dislike my opinions. In the past, I have repeatedly estimated a US "collector" base of 2MM, you have seen this in our post exchanges, and yet you write this anyway. There isn't a single post where I either stated or implied this claim. There is no absolute significance, just as there isn't for scarcity. I disagree with your inference due to your prior inflated exaggeration. It's also evident you don't read or ignore my posts when it has nothing to do with the coinage you like or it suits you. On numerous occasions, I have discussed any number of coins where I disagree with consensus perception. My posts where I did so are not hard to find, as I have commented on "classics" far more often than US moderns or the world coinage you call "modern". Some of these posts are in this thread.

I don't define collector by amount spent. It's subjective but to me it's "active recurring interest", basically like you said. We don't know who buys the (relatively) large volume of US Mint products every year or who owns the TPG populations. I merely reasonably infer that, aside from where it's apparently evident it isn't, it's usually collectors. With US mint and proof sets, I do assume there is some buying by non-collectors but the collapse in sales volume versus prior decades leads me to believe it's more reflective of actual collector demand.

Go look at the TPG population data. Have you ever even done that? The counts in there for any low priced 20th century US coin are by any sensible assumption a low fraction of the number in existence. You mean the TPG population data is fictional and all those "high" quality coins I see on eBay every time I look are just imaginary?

Once again, you are looking for a reason to argue my posts just because you dislike what I write. I already told you I was not specific. This still doesn't contradict what I told you in my subsequent posts. Next

Yes, I agree that the metals do provide a recurring customer base which stamps and other mass produced collectibles do not. The other factor not discussed at all is future economic conditions. With a far above averaged size collector base and very inflated price level, this matter to US coinage a lot from an industry viewpoint. There is a day of reckoning in store for the typical American's living standards. It's been postponed far longer than I ever thought possible but it's coming. When it arrives, there is no possibility the US price level with remain as inflated as it is now.

Yes, as usual when I exchange posts with him, it goes off on a meaningless tangent. I'm equally at fault for that and will admit it now. Yes mostly, except for the cent which is 1959 and later and to me, Jefferson nickels which to me are all "modern".

One other point. You do realize that NGC has graded 1,342 and PCGS 2,690 71-D half dollars, don't you? I also presume by common you actually mean low priced. This is about 4,000 collectors to which must be added an unspecified (almost certainly large) multiple who won't spend the money on grading fees or won't pay for a graded coin. I would hardly call this "few". It's similar with any number of other US moderns. I looked at the PCGS Population Report yesterday (since they have the higher market share) and there are any number of US moderns with thousands. The 71-D Ike has about 13,000 at both services. In the instances I reference, the counts are close to or higher than a noticeable minority of 1933-1964 US classics. From my limited review, the numbers are lowest for nickels, dimes and quarters but only up to the start of the SQ program. Cents, halves and dollars are not low. There are plenty of collectors for this coinage, just at nominal prices which is a different consideration entirely.

I never disagreed. I never generally disagreed with this either. Where I specifically disagree with you is that your definition of "scarcity" is meaningful to virtually anyone aside from you since it is blatantly obvious that it is not. I am inventing words? All your primary claims I have disputed in our prior post exchanges have no relation to reality whatsoever yet you tell me this? The primary reason currently high priced moderns are expensive is because the "hobby" has been financialized. These aren't usually viewed as "investment" coinage but few will pay a high price without the expectation of getting most of their money back. Financialization gives buyers a reason to believe they will, in the aggregate. This also applies to common classics outside of the key dates which sold for high prices in the 60's. Collectors didn't suddenly wake up when TPG was introduced and experience a collective epiphany. Without financialization, very few if any coins selling for "high" prices now which did not before would be worth anything close to current value. The examples you are using are either condition census coins or specialization which are not the focus of my posts. My posts have nothing to do with condition census coins, you know it doesn't, and yet you use this as a "rebuttal" anyway. For specialization, I'm not referring to the coins which sell for high prices now, like the 1969-S/S cent. There are very few of these but it has nothing to do with what I told you. I'm referring to the tens of thousands of others which are "rare" but sell for irrelevant prices because no one cares about this minutia.

double post

Disagreeing with your exaggerated claims isn't "slamming" anything. If anyone has grossly exaggerated anything. it is you. Nothing you wrote contradicts anything I told you in this or any of my replies. I never claimed this coinage was as available as the preceding coinage (your baseline of comparison) yet you keep on writing as if I did. The supply of choice BU rolls is irrelevant. I told you that and you ignored it, again. No one needs a roll for their collection. What exactly did I forget?

Maybe but I would say a big maybe. I believe we have discussed this before, but I'm not sure how much exposure the non-collector gets to coin buying. In another thread, I mentioned the vastly reduced physical footprint, so I definitely don't believe it's from that. I see internet banner adds all the time, but that's because of my internet activity. Do non-collectors see anything? I have no idea. Print media? No idea either but that's mostly a channel to reach older candidates though they do have the buying power. TV or radio? Have not listened to the radio hardly at all going on 20 years and virtually never watch TV anymore. (There is virtually nothing I want to watch outside of college football.) Years ago when I did, I used to watch one of those TV coin shows (Coin Country) for sport but don't know how effective this reach is anymore. I'd never watch it now. The other problem with relying on this to reach the hobbyist (not "investor") is that these collectors overwhelmingly aren't the type of collector many dealers and auction firms want to bother with, despite pretenses to the contrary. If my estimate is correct, 80% of collectors don't buy coins valued over $300 and probably at least half (if not noticeably more) have annual budgets of $500 or less. That's ok for the typical local coin shop but not the target customer for auction firms and coin shows of any size, maybe local ones. With the bigger budget buyers, a noticeable proportion (at minimum) are concentrated in the same types of coins you buy. There is $$$ there for the business side of the hobby but I don't believe it's remotely enough to grow the hobby the way the financial promoters claim they are trying to do. It doesn't generate enough interest in the vast majority of coinage out there. And besides, there is also direct competition from the US and other world mints.

I have read this and believe you. The point I was trying to make is that, as much as sales of all clad including proof and mint sets have declined, it's still more widely collected than practically any other coinage. I also reasonably infer that those who buy it must like it somewhat, as it makes absolutely no sense that anyone buying it "hates it". Last I checked, clad proof sets had sales of 500K+ and mint sets 200K to 300K. It's a collapse from prior decades but not remotely low. I don't have the data immediately available to me but to my knowledge, sales of these US sets have exceeded those from elsewhere by a lopsided margin even considering any probable difference in the collector base and where it does not, it's almost certainly US based buyers making up the difference.

We are in close agreement, again. Your description is another of my primary reasons why I believe the price level will decline. It has been substantially displaced by other recreational activities. In the US, the collector base since the 70's has consisted of a higher proportion of financially motivated buyers, either partially or fully. Since the internet, I believe (though cannot prove) that this has only increased. This matters because ultimately, collecting is a hobby, not a replacement for other forms of "investment". It was first currency debasement which changed this culture and more recently, the asset mania. Fact is, most coins priced above a nominal level aren't remotely interesting enough to maintain their current "popularity" based upon the collectible merits alone.

I know that inventory for the coins I track most closely and collect is really low to non-existent. There isn't much to buy at all. Previously, Heritage had a good selection of quality Latin America coinage (though still not for my series) but now there is very little of anything. As for eBay, I have not sold anything in years. I have multiple saved searches and still look at others from time to time but I predominantly still see fixed price listings. If the liquidity were really a lot better, I'd expect a higher proportion of actual auctions. However, this only anecdotal and many not be representative. That's what I used to see up to maybe 10 years ago.