World Colonial

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.

It's not that no one could collect from change anymore, it's that whoever no longer did so chose it. I am quibbling with your post but actually agree with your sentiments. Why did it happen? Well, shocking and dismaying as it may seem, people actually disliked having their currency debased. They didn't like it then and they still don't usually like it now. It's no different than having your pocket picked or being victimized by burglar. That's why gold and silver still sell for far more in the commodity markets and why coin collectors still overwhelmingly prefer both over current base metal circulating coinage. It's also why as long as gold and silver continue to priced much higher in the commodity markets, this preference will never change.

What dates do you think are cheap? I'd describe it as a series with a not particularly high collector preference predominantly bought for type sets. If this is true, the comments I previously made for Barber proofs earlier in this thread apply to it also.

Never commented on this but I agree with you. I do believe that coins are "fairly valued" or "under valued" in the aggregate versus other mass produced collectible segments. I don't extend this though to unique or near unique objects as I occasionally read on coin forums, auctions descriptions, or the numismatic press. Claiming some high profile rare coin is "under valued" versus nine figure paintings or another prominent art object is illogical. The most expensive coins aren't remotely "undervalued" but "over valued", as art or as a collectible. That's why I have used Faberge eggs and St Guadens' artwork in recent posts when discussing the 1933 Saint. These coins have better liquidity but will never have the cultural significance to a comparably priced artwork. In making this comparison, most coin collectors seem to ignore that eight and nine figure art is a tiny segment of the art market and not representative at all.

The ASE is an entirely different situation from contemporary US circulating coinage. The series as a whole is at least much bought for "investment" as collecting.

He's referring to the late 60's when most collectors used to collect out of circulation. He is correct that many did, though I was not around to have any idea of the proportion.

I sure missed a lot here. I am replying to this extract but it's to your entire post. There is nothing in your claims I "fail to grasp". I disagree with you, period. Where I have primarily disagreed with you is that this coinage will ever attain the preference and prices you claim. My perception isn't just based on the current size of the collector base and I have never said more won't collect it or it won't be worth somewhat more. Do you remember our last exchange on the PCGS Forum in the thread "Raw Moderns"? Do you remember the one post where you replied to my request for a price forecast? Well, your reply is why I did, do, and will always disagree with you. As an example of your claim, you told me that you think a modern with 20,000 survivors in some unnamed quality should be worth hundreds, either right now or in comparably valued money. Since your opinion reflects a total detachment from reality, obviously I am never going to agree with it. The number of coins with anything close to this number of survivors is very low outside of gold coinage where the price is predominantly from the metal content. How many, I do not know but I do know that every single one have a lopsided collector preference over the coin you described. With high grades, any common condition census coin is already overpriced given the collectible merits. That US moderns are a lot cheaper than even more overpriced common US classics doesn't change this conclusion. Practically every single coin is "rare" in some quality. This "distinction" is the equivalent of a "participation trophy". It isn't one at all when hundreds, thousands or even more "essentially identical" (outside of exaggerated US criteria) also exist which is the reality for any common coin. With die varieties, there is nothing unusual in the scarcity, US modern or otherwise. If there are over 250,000 coins since 600BCE, there are millions and a noticeable proportion are scarce or rare. So what? With US moderns given the usual huge mintages, there are at minimum dozens if not up to thousands of die varieties for each and every date/MM combination and most are so minor, you'd need a magnifier or a microscope to tell the difference. So no, obviously I see no distinction in any scarcity here either.

I have seen the data before and I agree with you. One of the points I was making with this series is that it is an artificial one. It's "hole filling" at its finest. What reason is there to buy so many disparate coins other than because someone else arbitrarily defined this grouping as a "collection"? Just buy the ones you like and forget the rest which is what most collectors already do. I was using the Hawaii as an example. Collectors like it a lot, but I see no basis to claim it is "undervalued" other than because it's so much cheaper than the prior bubble price. It's hard to compare it to most other coins but going by the current price and number of survivors which is all we have, it's still very expensive and not remotely cheap. The Lafayette dollar and Isabella quarter are somewhat different as the only ones for the denomination but the first one isn't even close to being cheap either. Is the Arkansas centennial or any other commemorating an obscure anniversary cheap? Why? Why would anyone really want it for a lot more? The gold dollars are even worse, very common yet still expensive for what it actually is as a collectible. There is a lot more reason to believe that, other than future speculation or a temporary promotion, most of these coins are going nowhere. Like other US coins, all have the benefit of better liquidity but as a collectible, none are competitive versus comparably priced world and ancient coins. As an "investment", it's obvious most collectors prefer modern world NCLT.

Coins are an entirely discretionary purchase. No one needs any coin. In today's environment, dealers still function as a type of "market maker" to a point and provide price support by holding inventory but no one needs to buy from them or sell to them either.

Numerous threads on the PCGS forum sharing this opinion. This coinage is cheap compared to the 1989 bubble peak but then, so are many other US series too. Besides, this occurred pre-internet. This claim is based upon the fallacy that most who will buy this coinage actually want to collect the entire series (when they don't) and that the coins are at least somewhat "scarce" due to the low mintage when it isn't. The coins collectors like most from this series are below the peak but hardly cheap. Hawaii is a four figure coin and it's one of the most common four figure coins on the entire planet. Outside of gold coinage, there are very few other coins with as many survivors worth the same price. The others? Disproportionately uninteresting themes and average to mediocre designs. Most collectors either know nothing of the commemorated events (overwhelmingly obscure) or don't care. Some generate regional interest but no reason to believe for hardly anyone else.

There is no validity to technical analysis in coin prices if that's what this person you refer to thinks. There isn't a fixed outcome other than collector's ability and willingness to pay. Concurrently, coins are still collectibles, not hardly ever "widgets". Most coins are effectively pure consumption alternatives, others are hybrid consumption-"investment", and those tied to bullion are "investment". The types of coins in the PCGS 3000 index are mostly the first two. Considering the reckless and unprecedented speculation in every asset class and a few masquerading as one, nothing is "impossible". Concurrently, any "breakout" from a 40 year "basing period" implies that prices will explode (far) beyond the capacity of the vast majority of current collectors to pay. This happened in the 70's because the price level was a very low fraction of current levels and incomes increased noticeably during this period, nominally. This isn't going to happen now where it will last unless the "hobby" has a large influx of (far) above average affluent collectors or the purchasing unit (USD for US coins) cheapens considerably. After decades of this country living beyond it's means, the standard of living of the typical American isn't about to increase sufficiently where the current typical collector can afford it. Many cheaper and mostly lower quality coins cost less now than the 70's, adjusted for price changes but the higher quality (measured by TPG grade) often don't. The latter is where most of any new money is likely to go, not many collector and collector quality coinage. This coinage is already often too expensive for probably around 80% of the US collector base, under my assumption that they mostly or entirely don't pay more than $300 for a single coin.

As I explained to you, the term "modern" is a US centric term which US collectors (and maybe really you) have applied arbitrarily to non-US base metal coinage covering an arbitrary time period. The only country I can immediately think of where it legitimately applies is Canada because the change over to base metal mirrored the US and presumably collectors in both countries collected both at the time. As I also told you, considering that there are at least 50,000 and possibly over 100,000 coins meeting your definition of "modern", neither you nor anyone else can possibly know what you claim. In the US, moderns may be doing well by your definition, but that's different from how most others are likely to see it. A very low proportion of it may qualify as "under rated" but the overwhelming majority doesn't and isn't going anywhere financially. Hardly of these collectors are trying to buy the coins you imply, except at rock bottom prices like you will.

Some of the coins you listed are available "nice" for $25 to $50, in better circulated to low MS grades. Common Lincoln cents higher. Barbers not the half.

Which ones are you specifically referring to? If the classics in this post, the 1916 SLQ is one of the common 20th century key dates which I claim is one of the most overpriced coins in the world for it's actual numismatic attributes. Mintage is 52,000. I forgot the survival estimate or current TPG counts but neither are low. There is just huge demand. In G-4, last time I checked, it listed for $3500 though the actual current price might be somewhat less. It's another coin (like the 01-S quarter) which would be viewed as "dreck" in this quality if it were practically any other. In MS-64-66, i believe it's a $15K to $40K coin but I would to look it up. To give you an idea how absurd this is, for $3500, you can buy a medieval English gold Noble in AU and an MS for somewhat more. The dimes? Depends which one but none are $25 or $50. Middle date Liberty Seated dimes (1858 and somewhat later) are at least high 3-figures for any decent one but there is a big price spread as the grades increase. A PR-63 isn't that expensive but higher grade CAM and DCAM cost a lot more. Not sure what US coins you have in mind but the only "very nice" slabbed coins I know in the prices you listed are all post-1933. Those amounts don't buy "squat" quality wise in US coinage outside of the most common series and haven't for a long time.

You probably aren't familiar with the past post exchanges I have had with him. You are actually making part of his point. Your view is the consensus which is why pre-1999 clad coinage (before SQ which were saved in huge numbers) was saved in lower numbers than 1933-1964 US silver in better quality. My point is that any "scarcity" based upon the TPG label (the "hobby" marketing angle since the 80's), strike quality (cladking's view) or specialization (also cladking's view) is a pure contrivance. It's an imaginary scarcity predominantly used to exaggerate the significance and inflate the price level, nothing more. Outside of specialization (e.g., a die variety), I can buy any US modern in practically any quality any day of the week, (almost) always in quantity. I'm not trying to single this coinage out either, as this is equally true for most US Mint coins, though the quality and availability differs. As an example, one poster on the PCGS forum recently claimed the 1916 SLQ and 19th century proof dimes as "scarce". Right then, I found seven MS-64-MS-66 1916's just on Collector's Corner. I also found every single 1858 and later proof dime on eBay though I had to go to Collector's Corner for a graded 1862. For the 1858 which supposedly had a mintage of 100, I found four or five. (The mintage is almost certainly wrong.) The point I am making is that these classics aren't really that scarce either, or else it wouldn't be so easy to buy. The higher prices have a lot to do with it (in contrast to much cheaper world coinage of similar scarcity) but no coin which can be bought on demand can sensibly be described as really being scarce.