World Colonial

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.

I understand your sentiments and I infer most collectors share it but it's not the one I have in mind. I am aware most collectors don't like losing money. Concurrently, it should be evident that a price level isn't sustainable which prices out most collectors out of most of the coins they want to buy. Going back to posts earlier in this thread, that's almost certainly what happened in mass in the early to mid 70's. Much or most of it was collectors quitting because they refused to pay more than face value or nominal premiums. But a minority would also have been those buying older classics who were outbid by the more affluent "investor" buyer or could not afford higher metal prices. For a variety of reasons which I have previously explained, I believe most of the run-up since 1970 (on the PCGS 3000 index) is destined to be reversed (at minimum adjusted for price changes) but this doesn't automatically mean the hobby is dead or that there will be that many fewer collectors. Someone owned this coinage before the price run-up and someone will later too.

Agree with your general sentiments but commenting on this extract. It depends upon the time horizon and expectations. COVID might have been the trigger for any recent improvement but don't believe it has any longer term relevance. If people are really spending more because of it, first, it's likely to be predominantly existing collectors who temporarily have more discretionary income that they can't spend somewhere else. If it isn't, most of the new buyers (whoever and however many) will likely abandon it as life returns to "normality". As for demographics, the longer term negative for collecting isn't just collectors aging though maybe that might be part of it. It's where the population shift and growth is occurring which isn't the traditional collector demographic. According to US census forecasts, the growth is mostly or exclusively in currently defined minorities who either have a lower propensity or no propensity at all to collect. And where they do, the overwhelming evidence demonstrates they are going to collect something other than US coinage, either mostly or exclusively. My prediction is both. This doesn't mean there will be fewer collectors in the future but whether there are or not, it's going to be a big negative for most US coin prices across the board, though I think those you collect will be impacted the least.

The no premium to melt isn't correct now. Premiums for silver generally are the highest in my entire life. This is a non-issue. No one needs a roll for their collection and this coin isn't hard to find or buy at all, except under your quality criteria which you won't pay any meaningful premium for anyway. This isn't completely true either, as is evident from the TPG population data for some though currently not a large number of moderns. I'd also like to know your definition of "store properly". Sure, storing coins in OGP is often poor storage but this wasn't unique to moderns in mint or proof sets. It happened a lot with prior classics too. Coin storage at room temperature in a (relatively) dry environment is often good enough to avoid degradation. The coins might not be "pristine" but hardly any were when the owner acquired it anyway. It all comes down to price. Of course collectors always prefer a "better" coin (by their criteria) but this is entirely different than your claim. The overwhelming evidence proves they don't care enough to pay meaningful prices hardly ever. You are one of these people, though you imply many others should and will do so when you won't.

Totally false. There is a difference between "uncollectible" and the outlandish price forecasts you have made. This is another amusing post of yours. In the PCGS "Raw Moderns" thread, you were the one telling everyone that collectors are "shunning" or "avoiding" this coinage. I'm the one who had to present evidence from US Mint sales demonstrating it is obvious that this isn't remotely the reality.

I was explicit in describing my scarcity claims. Your baseline for large numbers is 1933-1964 US coinage. None of this coinage is even close to being scarce, just like US moderns. I can literally buy every single one of both groups as a date/MM in multiple at any time in practically any quality measured by the TPG label. I'm not evaluating it by your arbitrary quality criteria as it's exactly that, yours. If the criteria (yours) is arbitrary and narrow enough, practically any coin can be claimed "scarce" or "rare". I told you this coinage is relatively very common and that's a fact. It's more common than over 99% of all circulating coinage ever struck in equivalent quality and you know this is true. On the price prospects, yet another exaggeration. But then, since you previously told me that you think US moderns with 20,000 survivors should be worth hundreds now, it's entirely predictable you made this claim. Even if you were much younger, you wouldn't be a buyer, except at the nominal or cherry picking prices you have paid your entire collecting career by your own admission. As I have told you repeatedly, you think this coinage should be worth a lot more, yet your posting history proves you won't pay an amount which hardly anyone considers a meaningful price. Virtually no one likes this coinage anywhere near as much as you do. Equally, no post you have ever written provides any believeable reason more than a minimal number will later.

I think you might be onto something but just a guess.