World Colonial

I understand your point. Concurrently, the example I gave (Bust Half) is a "collector" coin that is relatively common even in high grades and isn't even close to being rare except as a die variety or due to the TPG label. It's only in US collecting that such a common coin sells for such inflated prices since the mid to late 1970's. From any other developed country, a comparable coin (if one was issued) even with a much lower survival would sell for a fraction of the price. The key in the last 50 years was mostly paying "reasonable" prices for quality. The US price level has stagnated in the last 10-15 years (depending on the coin) but before that, you should have either made money or at least not lost it. Most people didn't buy quality coins at "reasonable" prices. They bought proof sets or silver commemoratives from the US Mint or common mass collected US coinage from their local dealer or on eBay. Many "made money" but actually lost it adjusted for price changes. See the 09-VDB cent example above. If you bought world coinage, you still had to mostly buy quality. But you also had to avoid overpaying for a coin you thought was "rare" that turned out to be a lot more common. There is limited "price discovery" for most of it and I have both overpaid for coins myself on occasion and seen it in prior auction results. Going forward, the primary problem is that many coins (especially US) are too expensive for the collector base that is almost certainly going to be (a lot) poorer to have any realistic prospect of appreciating substantially. Most also lack the appeal, no matter what their proponents think. In the 1970's, their was an influx of far more affluent buyers versus the 60's. To repeat that now, it would take a noticeable number of highly affluent buyers and considering there are already a lot of affluent US collectors now, I'd rate the chances as virtually nil. To the extent it happens, they are unlikely to buy the more expensive "collector" coins and certainly not what most forum members collect.

No, I wasn't clear. But once again, I wasn't specifically referring to the coinage you claim and no, none of it are even close to being scarce, except in some arbitrary quality and as a specialization..

1) Beginning of coins being widely bought as "investments". Maybe coins were actually bought as an inflation hedge at the time? Someone else here can probably answer this better than me. 2) If #1 is correct, the coins were very affordable (initially) to a larger more affluent collector base, more resembling the one we have now versus the 60's. I will also have to correct my earlier estimate on Barber halves, as my cost to complete the series was too high. In VF, it's probably more like $10K to $20K, XF $20K to $30K, and MS $50K+. It's a lot cheaper than I previously wrote but don't believe it changes my prior conclusion at all. It's still too expensive to be competitive. This also means that the price performance hasn't exactly been that great over time either, as most dates listed @ $40 VF $$85 XF and $300+ MS in 1977.

No disagreement here. I presume you have looked at it but look again at the PCGS 3000. It took off starting around 50 years ago. I started collecting in 1975 at age 10 but by 1977, many US coins had already appreciated substantially and these weren't "investment" coins either. As an example, I know the common Capped Bust halves (I believe 1823 onward) listed for $450 in UNC in the '77 edition but were something like $75 in 1970. I might be off a little on the date for the second price because I don't have my old editions with me but not that far off. I know many of the '77 prices by memory because as a YN, I looked at it very regularly. This coin wasn't an aberration either and it's not even close to being rare. Problem now is, too many US classic coins are too expensive for the mainstream but more affluent "mass market" US collector. This I believe (along with the internet) has a lot to do with why the US price level stagnated after 2008 even as metal prices initially surged and gold remained high.

Two different markets in my opinion, at minimum. The generic market is mostly correlated to bullion but I expect the premiums to decline, especially for Morgan dollars. I don't know what these actually cost now but given how common the common dates actually are, don't see why any which have .72oz should sell for more than the spot price for an ounce at most. That's already almost a 40% premium which I still think is too high. The other segment of (somewhat) scarcer or rarer dates (for Saints) is more dependent upon the asset mania. If the mania ends, there is no way this coinage can retain current inflated prices, except temporarily if gold spot moves contra cyclical as money tries to find safety while other asset classes crash. I can see this happening (temporarily) as I see a big bull market in the metals but I don't think it will really help this segment that much.

https://www.us-coin-values-advisor.com/ I took a brief look at this link and wanted to follow-up on it. The prior post introduced it in the context of key dates. I didn't read read all the commentary but I believe enough to comment on it. I disagree with their conclusions because: 1) It seems to linearly extrapolate prior trends by ignoring the internet. 2) It ignores demographic trends where the future proportion who predominantly or exclusively collect US coinage is almost certainly going to be lower than now. 3) Like literally every other source (and coin forum post) I have ever read, it ignores the 800 pound gorilla in the room which is the unprecedented asset, credit and debt mania which makes current inflated prices possible. 4) For the most US common key dates at least, these coins are already among the worst numismatic values. These may perform better than the non-key coins in the same series but most likely only relatively. 5) It's also interesting how I can use their site (which I did) to arrive at my prior conclusion on Lincoln cent key and semi-key dates which contradicts theirs. Performance varies with the time frame but going back to 1965, the 09-S VDB, 14-D, 26-S and 31-S lost noticeable value adjusted for price changes and only the 55 DDO gained it. I see no reason to believe any common series as a whole will mostly stagnate, lose value, or gain nominal value while the key dates do much better. That's what is most likely to happen with the most common widely collected US series, in the aggregate. My suspicion is that, given the estimated or likely supply, there is already noticeable speculative buying in this key date coinage. As an example, PCGS Coin Facts estimates 50,000 for the 09-S VDB cent which I think is more of a floor than a ceiling. It's presumably owned by many who don't collect the series now but who share the higher prior perception. I highly doubt there are anywhere near 50,000 Lincoln cent collectors who can or could afford to buy it.

Interesting articles. I read the second one at some point but not the first. Most of it is off topic (for another thread) but I will comment on one aspect. I don't believe the typical collector age in the US is in the 60's. I definitely believe that the coins predominantly collected by this generation are going to continue to lose relative preference. Coins typically collected out of circulation in the 50'S and 60'S are presumably mostly a one way market. It's also my expectation that decades from now, the vast majority of date/MM combinations from post-1933 US regular issue coinage will sell for less than the grading fee or nominal premiums to silver spot, even in MS-66.

Thanks, my views are presumably unpopular. I don't claim to be infallible, I just know that my reasoning is better than those who disagree with me. If someone believes that the public finds coin collecting a lot more interesting than is evident and collectors like what they collect a lot more than is actually evident from the evidence, then it's easy to come to a different conclusion. If the collector doesn't care about the future price of what they buy, then nothing I write on this topic is of any relevance to them. At any "material" outlay, the evidence proves they usually do care.

I am not aware of many hoards, of any size anyway but someone else might know. I heard many or most 1931-S cents were bought either directly from the mint or shortly after but don't know if true. Have heard of a specific hoard of the 1972 DDO cent, on this forum years ago. Otherwise though, tons of this coinage dated 1933 and later was saved by the roll in (better) UNC grades; many cents, presumably the 1938D Buffalo nickel (TPG count is over 60,000 MS), and all silver denominations. There was also one or a few reported BU rolls of the 1912-S or 1912-D LHN within the last 10 years. Except for the last coin, there is far more likely supply than any conceivable demand to support it at current prices. Usually, only a small proportion of the supply is offered for sale at once for a variety of reasons. It's another topic entirely but if this ever changes due to economic conditions where the public has to conduct a "fire sale" to raise cash, this coinage will crash and never recover. Collectors will pay current prices since they assume they can get most of their money back but if prices are ever much lower, there is no reason to believe they are going to pay a lot more (in any number) to increase the future market price noticeably because of any supposed bargains. Common 20th century US key dates would hardly be bargains even at "discounts" up to 90% of current value.

When I have read this type of "article", it's almost invariably marketing hype and nonsense. Someone is promoting "the hobby", a coin or series with tunnel vision and rose colored glasses. When I have time, I will read your links (I may have done so previously) and also look at the link from the initial post on Barber halves.

There seems to be a totally different mentality between buyers of metal substitutes (Morgan dollars, maybe Peace dollars, pre-1933 US gold and US NCLT) versus all other US coinage. Due to what you buy, you fall into this group. If financial considerations are most important, the buyer should buy this coinage or not collect at all. If I were concerned about losing much or most of my outlay for the coins I collect, I wouldn't buy it. The census counts for the other series you listed are much lower than the most common Morgan dollars and Saints but still high and in most cases (at minimum) the (vast) majority have almost certainly not been submitted. Financially, it isn't economical to submit all of it most of the time. The 1909-S and 1909-S VDB are two different coins but the mintage of either is far less than what you wrote. 09-0S VDB is 486,000 but don't remember 09-S without looking it up. So yes, since the 09-S VDB was (and is) included in album folders and the Red Book, "necessary" for a "complete set", this mintage is "low" and when predominantly collecting out of circulation as in the 60's, "rare". In the internet age though, it's practically as common as dirt. The current price is a leftover from prior perception from a communication limitation which has eroded substantially since 1965. Just look at old Red Books. It listed at $335 as "UNC" in the 1965 edition and has lost noticeable ground measured by both price changes and relatively versus other coins which have either gained ground or left it in the dust. Given what it actually is as a collectible (as opposed to 1960's and even current current perception), there is every reason to believe this will continue, probably slowly but maybe not as it has up to this point. However many want or buy it now, for every hundred or thousand who leave the hobby, they will almost certainly be replaced by a lower proportion who will want it later. What I just described applies to one degree or another with all of the most widely collected US coinage. Almost certainly going to be fewer series set collectors going forward who will also collect US coinage in lower proportion or not exclusively. This is even ignoring future economic considerations.

Since I wrote the earlier posts in this thread (including this one), my thinking has evolved somewhat in the sense that I believe I understand the collector behavior underlying the price structure a lot better. Not picking on Barber halves though it may seem like it, as i only used it as an example since someone mentioned it first. What I invariably see though is that someone likes or collects a series, they think others should or will also, and therefore, it will become wroth more or a lot more. This isn't how reality actually works because it does not align with collector motivation. Most US series (including the Barber half) are both too common and lack the collector appeal where enough collectors will "materially" bid up the price over other currently comparably priced coinage. Almost no collectors collect in a vacuum where they will blindly ignore the price of competing alternatives where this will happen. It has happened with the highest quality coinage (generally represented by the TPG label) and limited supply specialization) but that's generic to (mostly) US collecting and made possible by as few as one or two buyers who do ignore the alternatives. The evidence better demonstrates that it's never going to happen with a more common coin or series unless something (anything) changes the underlying collector preference to increase it's appeal. In well over a decade posting on coin forums and prior to that also reading many coin articles, I have yet to read even one believable reason supporting why it's going to happen for any common coin or series, not even one. To my knowledge, it also hasn't happened even once with any US series. It may have happened elsewhere but I doubt it where there is any scale, for the same reason.

Sounds about right. But if you look longer term back to the 1960's at the peak of collecting out of circulation, I think you'll see that the relative preference has declined noticeably or collapsed. That's what I saw with Key date Lincoln cents, other then the 1955 DDO.

My inference is it's more of a cultural thing. Not exactly the same but a similar reason why people prefer music or their own cuisine. This is when the coin is bought primarily for non-financial reasons. To a very limited extent, I believe there is some "arbitrage" (for lack of a better term) but coins aren't commodities. There are more affluent collectors with a Latin Heritage now versus before and I believe this accounts for the noticeable increase in this coinage now. Concurrently I also believe that more than a few have unrealistic and misplaced financial expectations. The more desirable coinage is too scarce but concurrently not desirable enough where a sufficiently critical scale of collectors will be able to collect it to replicate anything close to the US price level, no matter how long they wait. A very low number of the highest profile coinage maybe, but otherwise no. This is something which I believe most overlook. They compare the relative scarcity, see that the coins are so much cheaper, and then think that the sky is the limit. Reality is not that simple, as there is usually at least some logic for relative price differences. With practically any US series, if you have the money, you have a realistic chance of completing it because the coins aren't really scarce, only "grade rare" or as a variety or similar specialization. With many world sets especially the most preferred from Latin America, the coins don't exist at all in any supply, maybe not at all in "acceptable" quality but even if so, not where many can buy it. The much lower price level makes finding a coin of equivalent scarcity a lot harder to find and buy because the lower price level doesn't give the owner much of a motivation to sell it and it's not worth a dealers effort to go out and find it, not unless you are willing to pay noticeable multiples of "market value" which almost certainly makes it a financially losing proposition. What this means from a practical standpoint is that a handful or very low number buy the good stuff and everyone else is "locked out" or relegated to buying the "left overs". It isn't appealing to hardly anyone which is why few will likely attempt it.

Basically every single one from Lincoln cents to Indian Head half eagles in the 20th century. Specific examples? 09-S VDB cent 1918-D overdate (it's a die variety), 1916-D dime, 1916 SLQ,. The Barber key dates (excluding the 1913 LHN and 1894-S dime which I presume almost no collector considers necessary for a "complete" series) are also very expensive. 1885 and 1886 nickels, 1895-O dime, 1896-S and 1901-S quarters. The latter coin is ridiculously overpriced in the lowest grades. If it were practically any other, it would be considered "dreck". 1907 High Relief Saint is overpriced as a collectible but it's my inference as we discussed before that it's bought by many bigger budget buyers for financial reasons as well. It's an "investor" coin. Same goes for the 1893-S Morgan dollar. I presume first from the countries of their national origin which would have been mostly Europe at the time. The primary benefit a series like the Barber half and most other US have is that most collectors have a demonstrated preference for coins of their home country. That's why US collectors overwhelmingly prefer US coins and others prefer theirs, even in the internet age when it's much easier to buy coins from anywhere. With a US series, it also has a financial advantage because it's a lot more liquid with far more predictable demand. But I still believe that at the margin, collectors are going to choose to buy something else (world and ancients) they would or could not have bought before. Strictly as a collectible, there are far more interesting coins for the same or even (a lot) less money. This is even more true of the common US key dates which are hopelessly uncompetitive as a collectible.

Personally, I don't consider any of the Barber halves as a key date because the difference in scarcity is much narrower than other series from this point forward. The other denominations,. yes. It's also a series that seems to be (or is) harder to complete in mid to higher circulated grades than MS which is what most collectors normally buy for a series of this scarcity. I know I can buy the entire series in nice enough UNC now (yes, literally in one day) but doing so in "original" VF or XF almost certainly not. It would take some looking to do that. The series is too scarce and expensive for a large collector base of moderate means and but not scarce or interesting enough to more than a very low number of larger budget more affluent buyers, those who buy higher quality more expensive coins. It's in "no man's" land. The problem financially for this series is that with around 70 coins, a VF set is around $20K to $30K, an XF around $30K to $40k, and then approaching or exceeding six figures for MS depending upon the quality. This is a "collector" coin, not bought hardly at all for "investment". This is a really steep price to collect as a series when frankly, far more interesting coins can be bought for a lot less, whether as singles or a shorter series. There just aren't many who find it interesting enough now to do it and if anyone has even one reason why it's noticeably going to change later. I would really like to hear it. I started collecting in 1975 and to my knowledge, the series relative preference is essentially or exactly the same now as it was then. I'd rank it behind Liberty Seated and ahead of Franklin halves for this denomination and doubt it's passed any series in another denomination since then either. To my knowledge, it's lost noticeable ground versus Capped Bust halves due to die variety collecting. As for the proofs, there may be up to 100 collecting the series but I doubt more. If so, this probably leaves somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000 to 20,000 for the type collector and impulse buyer. An individual date may be somewhat scarcer, but it's not really relevant to most buyers because they don't care which one they buy. They are looking for a nice one, probably CAM or DCAM in a grade or 64 or better. The same pattern is evident in Liberty Seated proofs. It isn't like the 1936 WLH (a far more common coin) where a relatively large base is actively looking for this specific date.

I doubt many (proportionately) have been melted for scrap. Mostly, I infer it's collectors buying it as a bullion substitute, including by those who don't otherwise buy coins in this price range. I don't buy any US but have considered and may eventually buy this coinage for the same reason. I don't own it now. The exception to my above comments are the dates with huge populations such as the 1904DE and a few Saints. With hundreds of thousands already graded and no reason to believe many duplicates, I don't believe there are anywhere near enough collectors buying it for any reason.

Sounds similar to the British "proofs of record" from about the same time period. At least, that's the term Heritage has used in auction descriptions.

I don't believe it has anything to do with collector turnover. The better explanation for why it was "popular" with the post-WWII generation is because there wasn't much else available to easily buy at the time. If the internet had been around at the time, it would almost certainly have been a lot less "popular" which is why I believe it will lose some or much of its current preference later. I don't pay attention to this series particularly but suspect it will lose "share of wallet" (somewhat) to world and ancient coinage which is enough at the margin to at minimum keep it from increasing noticeably unless the US price level increases noticeably too. Unlike the more common 20th century US coinage, it's too expensive to directly compete against most (world) NCLT so don't think this will be much of a factor.

Generically, the most widely collected US key dates are way overpriced for the scarcity. 20th century key dates are disproportionately common and not even close to being rare. It's also my inference that the coins you consider to be tougher dates I would consider common or very common. Why do you believe the Barber half has good price potential? The Barber half is not common but it isn't even close to really being scarce. It's in the middle where nicer examples are somewhat harder to find while concurrently the series doesn't really have that high of a collector preference. It's a series that is too expensive for the vast majority of collectors. I'd consider it a better collectible value in higher (but not the highest) grades but concurrently, there are a lot of coins in a similar price range with better collectible credentials. Barber half proofs aren't really scarce for the demand either, not unless someone assumes it's going to increase noticeably. The mintages are "low" but then, there is nothing unusual about it for a US proof of this era. Most are bought as type coins or as an impulse purchase since there aren't many who try to collect it as a series. Most also aren't really that nice while the nicer ones are already quite expensive. Assessing financial potential is a guess, especially when trying to narrow it down to a single series like this one. It's not like common Morgan dollars or pre-1933 US gold where any noticeable increase in spot price has a direct impact on the price. I'd rate it as "fairly valued" currently but see no reason why it will appreciate noticeably, unless much or most of the US coin price level rises too. It's not like collectors really like it that much.

Correct, all the way up to at least MS-62. I have not seen the article. I have looked at the NGC and PCGS population data occasionally directly. Once the count gets beyond 10,000 for any gold coin, I'm dubious most of it is owned as a collectible. If it is, it is probably "impulse" buying where it occurs. However, "impulse" buying doesn't explain the ability to absorb 300,000 1904 DE or any number close to it. There aren't anywhere near that many collectors who can both afford and want the coin as a collectible.

Could be as many as several hundred thousand buying generic pre-1933 gold predominantly for financial reasons but I suspect there are also a noticeable number who own this coinage in larger number. Last I checked, the 1904 DE had a TPG count of about 300,000, the price spreads indicate a very low proportion of duplicates, and there are possibly many more. The most common Saints have a similar number. Your collector population estimate seems a reasonable one., as I presume most of the scarcer dates (like 1932) are owned by those collect the series, though a noticeable minority might also be collected by big budget collectors who don't. Regardless of the actual number, it's evident that there are only a very low proportion buying the 1904 DE predominantly as a collectible. Most collectors will never own a coin of similar value their entire life and it's not competitive as a collectible versus the alternatives in the same price range. Morgans are much cheaper but a similar concept applies. A common date like the 1881-S potentially has a million UNC and the counts are also hundreds of thousands. However "popular" the series may be, it's very unlikely more than a very low proportion of the collector base owns it. There just aren't enough of them. Similar idea for a coin like the 95-W ASE, higher mintage modern commemoratives and even proof sets. The latter have declining mintages but collectors either often own it in multiple or it's likely there are still a noticeable proportion of non-collectors/casual collectors buying it. More recent silver proof sets have mintages of about 300,000+ which isn't remotely low.

Yes, I have read it too. The question I always ask is cheap compared to what? If it's in the context of high priced art, it's totally BS. Like years ago in the Coin Week article comparing the Brasher doubloon to "Scream". Supposedly it was "cheap" due to the "history" of this coin, as if anyone would ever buy an expensive painting for this reason.

It's my inference that most of these coins are losing "share of wallet" due to the internet and NCLT. It was one to collect this coinage when it was mostly done at FV and there wasn't much else readily available. It's another thing entirely when presumably somewhere in the vicinity of 95% of all coins ever struck can be bought on demand or short notice, except in some arbitrary quality. Previously, I have commented on key and semi-key date Lincoln cents whose relative preference has mostly collapsed from 1965. It hasn't happened for the 16-D dime - YET - and probably a few others but it's likely to somewhat, with the lowest grades faring worst. As an example, an AG-3, G-4, etc 16D @ $400, $700 or more isn't remotely competitive with the alternatives as a collectible in the same price range. Generic Morgan dollars and pre-1933 US gold at least must be predominantly owned in quantity by both collectors and "investors" as "investments". I'd say the answer is a resounding "no", as this type of collecting isn't competitive as a mass recreational activity anymore. I don't check often (very intermittently) but I'm fairly confident that much of this coinage is actually worth about the same (outside the metal content) as it was in the late 70's, if offered in a true auction. A common IHC in G and VG listed for 75c and 95c in my 1977 Red Book. A dealer can presumably get this price or somewhat more. I see this type of coin on eBay (in volume) but either predominantly with no bids or much of the price is actually "free shipping". Back in the late 70's, local dealers claimed to pay 60% of "retail" (one much less) in my area. For the coins most collect, I doubt the terms are any better and possibly worse now. That's fine if the buyer is willing to treat it as a consumption expense but most likely won't when the numbers start adding up.