World Colonial

I'm interested in this too. Also this Yes, and anecdotal is all it will ever be. No money in chasing this information. down, even assuming it is available.

When I no longer work and assuming I am where I plan to be financially, I'll possibly change my perspective somewhat. For new "side collections", I'd be open to it at some point if I had access to buy it in person instead of on-line. I'd need to attend more coin shows which I can't now for personal reasons and wouldn't anyway if it came at the expense of my current coin budget. This is to buy lower priced quality world coinage not in a TPG holder which I can inspect personally.

Never really answered the question of this topic. Here are some reasons why I collect what I do versus something else: One: When I resumed collecting in 1998, I declined to collect US coinage due to the relative price level. The price level was much lower but so was my budget. My financial resources have increased as my work career progressed but not necessarily faster than the price level for potential interests in US coinage. Two: Too many coins are overpriced based upon any sensible evaluation of the collectible merits. US coins are the most overpriced but not the only ones. Three: With the internet, the vast majority of coins are too easy to buy and there is no challenge to it. No, collecting by TPG label, CAC stickers, US invented specializations, or some other narrow criteria doesn't change it for me. Four: My interest in a particular coin or series increases or decreases inversely to the price level, as I don't buy coins for "investment". I dumped most of my South Africa collection for this reason (after prices rose substantially) and wished I sold most of what remains. Five: I'm not interested in collecting "downward" with my primary collecting interest. This is subjective but it's definitely tangible. This varies by collector, but it is evident collectors think in this context generally. Six: I don't actively buy for my "side" collections, much less add a new one. I'll probably never complete my primary interest and regular buying for secondary interests or impulse purchases reduces my budget for my pillar collection. Seven: I'm not interested in losing money on coins I don't like enough. There are coins I used to own (since sold) which aren't very marketable.

Someone else here will know better than I do. I infer none of these coins circulated extensively even for this short period.

I don't know how the coin came to have its current appearance, but I don't see how it could have been though circulation. FDR's executive order happened within three years, making it remote that any coin of this date could have circulated enough. Maybe a pocket piece but it would take a lot of effort to wear it down this much. The price difference between this one and all others is more than a "bit more", but I agree with your point. I know someone has to own every coin, but once it gets past "lunch money" amounts, I've never understood the thinking behind buying any low-quality unattractive coin when for "somewhat more", a (much) better example can be bought. I suppose it's quantity over quality. I don't subscribe to the US collecting obsession with one or slightly more TPG eligible label grade increments, but there is a difference with that versus looking at expensive unappealing coins.

Agree I wouldn't want it at all, but your revised price range would probably find numerous buyers, assuming it doesn't actually sell at the current ask price or somewhere between your prices and the current ask.

PCGS Coin Facts records two sales of an MS-63 in 2022 (both at $200K+) with the prior sale before it @ $120K in 2020, also as a '63". So, it's had a huge price increase. I'd guess the seller is fishing for a whale, under the assumption that this is the only affordable example available for someone who considers it a "must have" for their set, whatever set that is. PCGS Coin Facts estimates 50-75 known. PCGS has graded 52 and NGC 21. Presumably some duplicates. Of these 73 grading events, 70 are MS, two AU-58, and this coin. For the series, this is the only one below "Good" by PCGS while NGC has graded two. As for my opinion on the coin, it's dreck. I don't care that it's a five figure coin or quite scarce. I understand the affordability challenge but don't believe the coin is as hard to buy as the Coin Facts data indicates. It must have sold elsewhere (by dealers) more often. If 50 exist, coins in this price range aren't actually that hard to buy, usually coming up for sale at least twice/year and probably more than that. My opinion on the coin isn't just the quality or the price, though that's part of it. It's that it looks totally out of place in any probable set of the series. I'd never buy other very low quality coins of other series either, but at least these look more "normal" and it's not unusual for collectors to put together date, date variety, or type sets in this type of quality for silver or copper US coinage. I'd also assume this coin would be difficult to sell later, for the price paid.

Yes, my explanation for it at least initially was amusement or to alleviate boredom. With the internet, most series are so easy or so much easier to complete. It was done to create a challenge. Now, these coins are worth more or proportionately noticeably more than "high" quality in some instances. Definitely than slightly higher quality.

But there isn't any substantive difference with thousands of coins already in the population data at both services valued near or below the cost of grading. This includes more than just coins currently available in circulation. There isn't much graded fitting your description. There is a lot of it fitting mine. Same question could be asked. Reminds me of South African collectors. Look at the NGC Census "Details" data. It's the result of their TPG induced coin mania, similar to the US 1989 bubble. 173 1897 "details" shillings. 220 1892 "details" pennies. Yes, most are AU or UNC, but even at the price peak, probably not worth (much) more than the grading fee. Shipping back to SA isn't cheap. Here is a bulk lot sold by Heritage, this one in NCS holders not even included in the NGC Census. South Africa: Republic 82-Piece Lot of Certified Shillings NGC, ... | Lot #34360 | Heritage Auctions

That's what I was thinking. It's the "correct" price. It's a really common coin which due to the metal, is far above the demand for it as a collectible. That's what I think applies to practically all modern US NCLT. Too much "product" with uninteresting themes to more than a minimal proportion of the collector base. I don't even recall hardly any of the mintages but have consistently read of new "key" dates, as the mintage decreases over time with new releases. Most of these are destined to be lost in obscurity decades from now, if it hasn't happened already. It's my assumption that an outsized and in some instances, majority of the demand comes from those who are buying it for financial speculation due to the mintage (e.g., First Spouse series).

I was just using this as an example. We've discussed this before where I think we are in agreement. Most coins aren't visible to any individual or "the market" collectively, as most of the time only a low fraction is visible collectively. It's either in collections, "change jars", or dispersed where no individual is aware of it. That's why you see what you see at your local auction while others don't. (Very) low survival rates do not usually = low number of survivors, at least not the way most collectors think of low. The TPG population data for much older, higher valued, and lower mintage coins make it evident that the actual supply for more recent, lower valued, and higher mintage coins is usually (a lot) higher than what's visibly evident.

32-S quarter is a key date, the mintage is low (by more contemporary standards but not actually) and the price is high enough where the TPG populations are more reflective of the actual supply in higher quality. Obviously, more than a minimal pct haven't been melted, though more might have been in 1979/1980 than most believe when very low grades weren't worth very much. I don't recall prices at the time. Melt was about $9 at the $50 peak price.

No. In the example of the 1964 quarter, I think so, unless it was large scale melted. Not literally all of it, but a much higher pct than is evident to any of us, no matter who that may be. I think most coins are (a lot) more common than most collectors seem to think, whether in a specific quality or generally. The sentiments in this thread are exaggerated, but not unusual. I encountered it on the South African coin forum, all the time. I've encountered it here and the PCGS forum occasionally too. The internet has exposed this as being generally true. I've also provided numerous examples. As another one, one Heritage listing for the 1796-1797 half dollar references Amato's book where he attempted to itemize every known example. The listing also states more (a few) have been identified since. This is usually at least a mid-five figure coin, so if even one more previously not generally known shows up, it should be apparent that the potential supply for somewhere in the vicinity of at least 95% of all circulation coins ever struck is noticeably more too.

I can't prove most 1933-1964 US coins exist in very large supply in one place, but it's not meaningful. Take the 1964 or any slightly older quarter. This coin presumably didn't circulate hardly at all, so unless it was mass melted, most of it should exist in "high" quality. Yes, practically all of it, whether it is visible to the market or not. It has to be somewhere.

Once again, limited collecting isn't caused by a lack of affluence. It's irrelevant whether this person said it as it's factually false. This is so obvious it's hard to believe it even needs to be stated. On one occasion, I estimated the market value of the "better" South African Union and ZAR coinage. These are their "classics". This was five years ago or somewhat earlier, at most. The result? My guess is $30MM to $50MM. At the 2011 peak, maybe $200M. Yes, for all of it, except patterns which are mostly apparently unavailable. That's a rounding error in the context of the financial market, real estate, and liquid "wealth". With the Bolivian Republic decimals I collect, one moderately affluent collector could buy up the entire supply by themself. yes, one person. That's how small these "markets" are. The biggest mystery is why so many believe this logical fallacy.

Yes, I agree. This has been one my primary arguments against the claims in this thread.

You're referring to a specific coin or series, and one that isn't even representative of (US) collecting. Most collectors or non-collectors will never own a (US) gold coin in their entire life. It's above their budget level.

Yes, it's unsustainable because of all your premises which have nothing to do with how virtually anyone collects, right? In some instances, you don't even collect with this imaginary behavior you attribute to imaginary collectors and fictional dealers.

Talking about a double standard. Their claims are hearsay but yours aren't.? What difference does it make whether it's a mint set or not? No one claimed it's one of your "gems" or even stated a specific quality. Not that hardly anyone cares about it aside from you. The two posters I identified aren't ignorant.

Well, what can I tell you. I don't understand how you can possibly come to your conclusions when your belief directly contradicts how collectors behave and the non-collector's perception in so many ways. The US Mint claims it sold millions of these sets in the past and still sells hundreds of thousands now. Since the sales volume has collapsed from prior decades, I assume that most buyers are what we'd consider "casual" collectors, but I don't know that definitively. The fact is, they bought it, so I assume they wanted it. Regardless, given the numbers previously sold, even with abnormally high attrition, the number and quality surviving by any sensible standard cannot be considered low. It's only "low" by comingling it with your inflated future demand. Demand is demand. i disagree with you on future demand too, b ut that's something else entirely.

I never said, not in this thread or in any prior post. I have told you that your experience isn't representative of the probable supply because it almost certainly isn't. If you understood statistics, you'd know why I am telling you this. Why do you disregard independently verifiable evidence?

Same response I received from the South African collectors I know. They also assumed if they didn't see it, it didn't exist. Where were all the other (world) coins in the TPG data now before it was graded? It wasn't in your local coin shop either. Tourists who can afford to travel internationally don't waste their time selling their FX change to their local dealer in any meaningful number. Depending upon the coin, it's most likely in the home country or one which borders it. That's where it was issued and mostly circulated.

No, you don't know with the accuracy you imply. No one can possibly know that. Read up on statistics. I didn't invent it. Like I told you before, "change jar" can be literal, or not. The SDB vault we're discussing in this thread, it's a "change jar". Two posters in this thread told you they see this coinage in rolls regularly. You ask me why I discount personal experience? Why do you do it?

You just made this up. You cannot possibly know it. Look at the TPG populations. Many aren't that low. Given the prices, it's almost certainly a low fraction of the supply, except for the "top pop" and "undergrade" in some instances.

How do you know what comes in outside your local coin shop? You're in one or a few coin shops regularly (at most) and only in one at a particular point in time. What do you not understand about that? Define collector. Are you telling me hardly any of those who bought Mint sets are collectors? How would you know that? I don't discount experience. That's not the real question. The real question, why do you disregard independently verifiable evidence in favor of your unrepresentative personal experience? You do it, all the time. Your personal experience is not more representative or accurate than independently verifiable data, like industry sales records (which refute your "hate" claim) and the TPG data. Why would I believe your experience over independently verifiable evidence? Why would anyone do that? Look at the availability of much older coinage (no, not 1933-1964 US coinage or 20th century world coinage) with much lower mintages with a much lower probability of survival. You have no knowledge of it.