World Colonial

Agree, to a point. Unfortunately, I don't believe it has the same weight it did in the past. The 1804 dollar and 1913 LHN are IMO still the most prominent coins from anywhere, but not like before when collecting was a lot more pervasive in the general culture. Most others no matter how supposedly "famous" to US collectors. almost no one who isn't a collector is likely to even know it exists. Or if they do, know or remember nothing about it. I'd be curious to hear how the ANA tries to attract the non-collecting public to coin shows. I see coin internet banner and pop-up ads, but that's because Google sees my searches. I still don't recall seeing even one for a coin show though maybe I did. Someone who doesn't go to coin related websites isn't likely to see any, doesn't read the numismatic press or coin forums, and reaching them through local media is a cr*apshoot. It's the equivalent of a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it. Agree it likely has a more immediate and definitely tangible financial impact.

Yes, at minimum. Most likely more Same could be said of any or at least many coins It comes down to the design being highly preferred and it's a large gold coin which attracts a lot of big budget buyers, many of whom are potentially buying it also for financial reasons. Might be bought as a sub-type too but this is an assumption.

The reason I don't believe it holds any interest for longer term or "advanced" collectors is because there isn't much actual collecting to it. Anyone with the money can buy the entire series in one day except for a low number of PCGS 70 if they want that holder which takes somewhat but not much longer. With more recent US circulating coinage, it's all common as well but collectors have adopted multiple forms of specialization to make it more interesting to them. It's very limited with the ASE.

Yes, but that's because you are active in a way which is only representative of a low fraction of the collector base. I don't collect US anymore which is probably why I don't recognize many names. I didn't perform a count but it's probably somewhere around half I never heard their name.

Agree, decades from now, many on this list will be completely forgotten.

My prior questions had nothing to do with my preference, pro or con. The example you are using is different in that it's targeted predominantly to existing collectors which I think is a better or at least more realistic use of the collection. Those who aren't collectors aren't going out of their way to Colorado Springs in any meaningful numbers to see the collection. I have no idea what the proportion of non-collector attendance is at major coin shows but I would describe total attendance as "modest" which means they aren't exactly going out of their way to see these coins either.

@GoldFinger1969 I'll giver you my answer to your question. For the Saints, it can't be a lack of supply, as anyone with the money could probably buy at least 100 decent ones right now. For the supply, it's the most expensive coin in the world bar none in the sense that no other coin has this many survivors selling for an equivalent price, that I know. For the other two "key dates", I attribute it to a "reputational premium" from when collecting was predominantly out of circulating change, up to maybe the late 60's. However, take a look at the price trends since 1965 and you will see that the relative preference for the 09-S VDB has collapsed. It isn't cheap for the supply but it's far more affordable to a much more affluent collector base now versus 1965. The 16-D seems about stable from my review.

No if by this question you are asking if it should be worth substantially more. Most of the supply isn't even owned by collectors or at least for collecting purposes. It's predominantly owned by "silver stackers" in bulk and by collectors as a collectible form of silver at immaterial premiums. There are nowhere near 5MM+ collectors who will ever want to pay any noticeable premium for it and of those who will, only as exists now as an MS-70. The ASE is one of the most "popular" series measured by the size of the collector base, but this doesn't mean they like it that much at much higher prices. It's competitive for the low budget collector because it's relatively cheap and extremely common which means anyone with the money can complete the series if they choose. For collectors of more substantive means, it's almost certainly mostly a sideline (casual or secondary) collection, unless they are also mostly buying other NCLT. For everyone else, the series isn't interesting enough as a collectible. 5MM+ isn't a low mintage. It only appears low relative to circulating change. It's the same error made by those who think mintages on modern US commemoratives are or seem low. Given the sentiments I read on coin forums, it's probable that a noticeable proportion of the demand for these "low" mintage coins is by those who expect to sell it for more later, not because they really want it.

How much is the estimated value of the collection? For coins on loan, who is paying for insurance and any other costs? The ANA or the owner? How much of the collection is even on display? How many visitors does it receive and how does this contribute to the ANA's mission, other than just exposing the public to collecting? (I doubt the museum does much to either increase the collector base or membership.)

Unlikely unless the ANA would relocate with it. My guess is that most if not all of the ANA staff wouldn't be in favor of moving so it will never happen.

None of these coins are rare or even scarce. It all depends upon how badly you want one in this box, as that's what you are paying extra to obtain. As to whether the premium will hold, I don't follow it. I recall seeing data from the hoard at some point and some of the dates are low ("box rare") if it's what you want. As time marches on, I wouldn't count on those who don't remember when it was released caring either way. I remember seeing these soon after I started collecting (late 70's) and thought it was kind of neat at the time. Now, I just see it as another form of marketing.

Seems to be a US centric survey. I don't recognize any name from anywhere else. Apparently, no one from anywhere else is worthy to make the list. Second observation, a few seem to be included simply because they have a large wallet. I'd be interested to know the criteria and how the people on this list meet it. As an example, John Albanese founded both NGC and CAC. TPG and CAC are more connected to the financial side of "collecting" but undoubtedly, he has had an impact on how coins are bought and sold.

I agree with you. All I was saying is that I interpreted the OP to be in the context of eliminating all coinage entirely. It's possible I misunderstood.

There was no NCLT. Take that out and both probably still do more but the difference will be less.

Outside of the "regular" proof ASE, with the bullion type coins, the target market is almost certainly predominantly financially motivated buyers. Not something I can prove but anecdotally, there seems to be a pattern where those who buy it as their primary interest don't buy much else. As far as pricing, if compared to collector coin mint products from elsewhere, I agree. There are far more collectors in the US but there is no reason to believe US collectors really like it that much. The US Mint can get away with it though because: 1) Most US collectors almost certainly don't even know how much mint products elsewhere cost or the mintage 2) They don't care anyway because they only collect US coins 3) They believe "low" or lower mintages (which are still actually not low) will enable them to sell it for more later. This last item has come up numerous times in this thread. Financially, obviously lower mintages are better but only at a competitive price. Proof and mint set mintages have crashed by something like 80% from the peak decades ago but still aren't remotely low and there is no reason to believe that anywhere near enough collectors want these products as a collectible even at the current issue price, never mind more. No difference for practically any "low" mintage commemorative where it ranges up to around 50,000 for the clad and silver and a few thousands for the gold. Since almost no one would buy this coinage and it doesn't exist in lower quality, the relevant comparison isn't the mintage, but survivors in comparable quality. By this standard, all of it remains common.

The success of a grading service isn't just determined by "accuracy" of grading, since it's only an opinion. The most important factor is how much the coins in a particular TPG holder are valued by the market. If someone with sufficient stature is prominently associated with this prospective future service (as in JA with CAC), what you describe is realistic. Otherwise, the most valuable coins will just get cracked out or crossed to another holder, if it's submitted at all.

Too late for that, even assuming the board wanted to do it. That ship sailed long ago. The only way NGC or PCGS are going to be dislodged from their market leading incumbent position is through their own ineptitude. Otherwise, no one has any motive to change the status quo.

How does this charter provide this potential? I haven't read it and don't have familiarity with federal charters generally.. The reason I ask is because I don't believe the more recent generations of collectors (Gen-Y and Gen-Z) generally are impressed with a federal charter (even if aware of it and know what it is) or give it any credence. Maybe those around my age (I'm 55) and older think it means something (I don't) but can't answer that either.

I hope not. I still carry more cash around with me than most but not a single coin. I don't pay with coins and try to avoid receiving it back in change. It has no purchasing power but even with higher denominations, not interested in the additional weight.

More competing recreational alternatives for their time and money versus the 1960's. Even if it were possible to reintroduce silver coinage into circulation, I don't see any reason to believe that folder and album collecting would regain it's prior appeal. Collecting as a recreational activity just isn't as competitive as it used to be. The internet has reduced the ANA's relevance to collectors. I haven't ever seen much if any comment on it, but I assume that membership and it's relevance is also at least somewhat correlated to active participation in (local) coin clubs. If this true, how does club membership now compare to the past? I infer some clubs (EAC, Bust Half Nut, Liberty Seated Collectors Society, CONECA) which focus on a targeted segment are doing well. Generalist clubs not as much though it varies by location and leadership. I thought about attending a meeting at the Metropolitan Coin Club of Atlanta but never made it a priority. Obviously, it isn't important enough or I would do it. I don't see that Congressional action makes any difference. I also don't see that the ANA will have significantly more influence even if changes its' priorities. With the internet and modern communication, anyone can have a totally satisfactory collecting experience their entire life while still ignoring it. It also has less relevance to the increasing number of US collectors who do not focus on US coinage. For me, I could benefit from the course on counterfeit detection but doubt much else, including the grading course. The library might have some reference material of interest to me, but much or most of it might end up in the NNP later anyway.

My interpretation of the OP was discontinuing coinage altogether. I don't see that happening, except in a cashless society. It's other posts such as yours bringing up removing one or more denominations. If coinage is going to remain, it's more likely the lowest denominations would be removed while new ones are introduced to replace the lowest value currency notes. That's what has happened elsewhere to this point.

The main obstacle to a cashless society in the US is first, the dollar's reserve currency status. By value, most FRN are held outside the US and the US Treasury and FRB at least will think very carefully before making this radical change. Concurrently though, there are political proponents to do it to combat "money laundering" by tracking all financial transactions and making it easier to implement NIRP if "necessary". Second, the unbanked which will presumably be "solved" by the use of smartphones as occurs or is in process in the developing world. All other considerations impacting future coinage production are either irrelevant or immaterial.

You raise a good point but it takes some serious money to lobby effectively. There is that Minnesota law but haven't heard of anything else that will impact enough US collectors. Heard of some stupid proposals with the potential to negatively impact ancient and other "heritage" coins but doubt US collectors are sufficiently motivated to join the ANA in sufficient numbers at much higher dues to pay for it.

My guess is many or most would choose to give coin donations elsewhere, like the ANS which I infer is a better run organization. My assumption is that these bequest restrictions can be ignored anyway in emergencies, actual or not. I'm not familiar with the specifics.

I'm not disagreeing with you that some overhead is necessary. In the past, 20% was the number I heard as efficient. More recently, I have heard it is 30%. If both are accurate, I'd attribute it to inflation especially for employee benefits. I'm just not willing to pay for it, ANA or any other one.