World Colonial

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.

Remember what I told you in the Swiss "moderns" thread"? You do not understand statistics. No one who understands it would ever make the claims you do. You can't sample anything which is removed from the population. You assume this hasn't happened or it's not a material factor when you have no basis for it whatsoever. Obviously, there were no "high quality" coins for the older dates in circulation in 1999 after 34 years. You have no idea how many coins are in collections or "change jars". You assume the coinage doesn't exist due to your "hate" claim which is wrong.

Supply is supply. What I am telling you applies to most coins.

If 50,000 exist and the average holding period is 10 years, that's 100 coins sold per week. Adjust for whatever number you like. That's not a huge volume being sold within a few days or even per month. Yes, I know it's more than most coins. Once again assuming to know what no one can possibly know. Once again, ignoring the internet. No one needs to buy this type of coin in a coin shop. It's not out of balance, except to someone who projects an unsubstantiated increase in demand and exaggerates the scarcity. Do some math. A SDB vault of coinage is a large number. I don't know how large or how full this one is, but the 5X10 I have at my bank will hold somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000 coins in rolls. A vault, potentially hundreds of thousands, maybe over 1MM. That's not a small number cumulatively when a noticeable proportion is "high quality" and the market is so limited. This is for one person, even if an outlier.

The listing didn't state whether it came from mint sets or not. You're just assuming it under your assumption that this was the only coinage saved. No, it's not going to be found in circulating change, something you have claimed is supposedly unexpected, even for coins dated up to 58 years old. I agree most Mint sets have been broken up or aren't what it was at issuance. The original supply was also huge. Go look at the US Mint sales records. If 5% to 10% still exist more or less as struck, it's not a small number, except to you. Ultimately like the rest of our disagreements, it's based upon your inaccurate premises, when you aren't exaggerating something which you do all the time. Your "scarcity" claims are based upon three primary inaccurate assumptions. First, you claim to know what no one can possibly know. If someone pulled this coinage from circulation (in large numbers) which coin forum members alone could have done, you are in no position to know it. You act as if what you don't see doesn't exist. Second, you do this because you also assume this coinage is "hated", which is simply your code word that others have to pay the price you think it should be worth to prove you wrong. Third, then when you don't see it as often as you think you should in the quality you expect, you claim it's "scarce" or "rare" under the assumption that your personal experience is representative when it isn't. You claim your experience is representative but then totally disregard @VKurtB and @zadok They told you flat out they see this coinage (US moderns) in rolls regularly. Doesn't mean it's your "gems" or MS-66 quality and they didn't specify the coin, but they aren't ignorant where they would mistakenly identify it when it's actually circulated junk either. No, the coins aren't scarce. The graded populations aren't that high (for a US 20th century coin) but not low either. These coins are easy to buy, any day of the week, on Ebay. It's only "scarce" compared to even more common circulating coinage.

The whole point of citing him as an example is that it only takes a handful or low number of collectors to hoard any coin to noticeably or drastically distort the supply. It's happened regularly with noticeably older coinage. You just assume it doesn't (hardly ever) happen for this coinage when there is no reason to believe it. "Hoard" doesn't have to be a SDB vault, It can and is a much larger number of people saving smaller accumulations, like that 23 roll listing of 69-D "BU" quarters on eBay I linked for you in a prior thread.

He wasn't referring to his "core" collection. It was everything else. He never specifically stated whether it was slabbed or not. He inferred he didn't remember what he had, meaning that it isn't graded and needed to be searched, nor is there a reason to expect it. Even if all the coins he has are MS-66 or better (which he didn't say and I didn't claim), grading large volumes of post 1933 US coinage would be self-defeating. The TPG population data doesn't indicate it either, unless you want to believe he has an abnormal pct. of these coins in a holder. I don't believe this as his post didn't indicate or imply it. I'm sure you think it's miscalculation. At least we can agree on that. Where is the evidence even any US common classic (1916-1964 plus Lincoln cents to 1909) sells in the numbers you imply within a few days, outside of rolls or as "junk silver"? No collector needs a roll for their collection. I know you don't, because you assume your experience is representative when it isn't for the reasons I gave you. For "gems", I have no idea how many exist under your criteria as it's exactly that, yours. I'll stick with my prediction that at least 95% are an R-1 with 1250+ in MS-66. No, my opinion has nothing to do with what you wrote. I'd never assume my observations are representative of the supply, absent corroborating evidence. By corroborating, not the equally unrepresentative observations of the few collectors any of us know. It's due to what I told you in the Swiss "moderns" thread. You don't have any idea of the availability of much older coins (no, not 1933-1964 US or earlier common 20th century world coinage). It's partly evident just in the TPG population data, but you can't be bothered to look it up. I've told you that this alone is much better evidence than what you believe. Coins which have an infinitesimal probability of survival in "high" quality exist in much larger number than most collectors would expect, but you still think this coinage (US moderns and world "moderns") has the availability from your observations.

So, when Wonder Coin said he has a SDB vault "full" of 1933 and later US coinage, he doesn't count either? Go read one of your "Raw Moderns" threads. His post is right below one of yours. He also claimed he knows other dealers and collectors who have a lot of it too. Yes, including a lot of US moderns. He didn't provide specifics but there is no basis to believe someone like Wonder Coin would store a lot of junk. He alone potentially has 10,000s of this coinage across most or all dates. at least. It's not like it takes up that much space.

Find the post where I stated it. You can't because I never said it.

Quite sure quite a bit of NCLT at the shows I attended too. Plenty of low-priced world coinage also. I don't bother stopping at US only coin dealers anymore, so can't speak to US moderns.

Potential is light years away from what you have written. Read your own posts.

"Shooting the messenger" because I contradict your exaggerated claims. I've never either stated or implied that US moderns or world "moderns" are junk. You're reading this into my posts because the facts and reasoning I provide contradict you. If collectors believe anything like your claims, there is no time like the present for anyone to stop believing it. This is the second time in this thread you have repeated this BS. I didn't state it in this thread or in any prior reply to your posts, not even once. What I have stated multiple times is that I expect practically all of this coinage (post 1933 US) in grades up to MS-66 to sell for less than the grading fee or nominal premiums to silver spot. A lot of it sells for less than the grading fee now. So, it's hardly a shocking claim. Notice I didn't limit it to US moderns? No, you didn't, because you dislike that I contradict your exaggerated claims. I don't just base my claims on an arbitrary opinion, I base it on how collectors and non-collectors are known to perceive collecting.

Well, many of these coins still sell for more than my future claim. Aside from a potentially (likely IMO) shrinking collector base for it, I also know it's a loi more common than indicated by the TPG pops. It's just an unknown how much more will end up in a holder but some of this coinage (yes, including US moderns) already has thousands in the populations. I'd estimate at least 95% is actually a Judd R-1 with 1250+ in MS-66, almost always with a noticeable to large multiple. Not exactly a great combination for the future price performance.

This is my opinion too (generally) but not in a position to prove it. Is the ANA or any other organization doing research to confirm it? The result would be of great interest to a lot of collectors and certainly those who make a living in coins.

Yet another reason to expect most US coinage to underperform non-US, with post-1933 US coinage in grades up to MS-66 to potentially sell for less than the grading fee or nominal premiums to silver spot. Unless the collector base through the participation rate increases "noticeably", this age group will be replaced by a lower number of collectors from other ethnic groups who will also collect US coinage (exclusively) in lower proportion.

Yes, hard to believe there is more to collect than post 1933 US coinage and common 20th century world coinage, isn't it?

I can hardly wait to see other potential replies to this comment.

I agree with your general point, to which I will add a slight clarification. If younger collectors aren't attending (large) coin shows or (national) auctions, they have to be buying their coins somewhere else which presumably is almost predominantly online. I see tons of modern (world) NCLT online and eBay lists a lot of US moderns too. Having said this, you are totally correct that to whatever extent younger collectors prefer US moderns (or world "moderns") vs. (somewhat) older collectors, it's not evident in the price level. It's random noise. As a proxy for younger collector, Gen-Z dates to 1997. This also coincides with the beginning of large(r) scale internet collecting, and in the US, the SQ program which should have had the biggest impact on collector preferences for modern US coinage, if CK's theory is correct which it isn't. The program was a huge success, but not in "meaningfully" increasing the preference (not "popularity") of US modern coinage and it's entirely due to the coin attributes. Today, Gen-Z collectors range up to 26 and YN who started collecting in the US during the SQ program range from around 21 to their late 30's. Depending upon definition of "collector", there are at least hundreds of thousands in this age bracket. It's obvious that most of these collectors can afford to collect at least 95% of US moderns in grades up to MS-66 but they aren't buying it in any meaningful number and the prices prove it. So, what are they buying differently (for "material" amounts) vs. prior collectors? My inference is (world) NCLT first and to a much lower extent, world coinage second, with most of their budget in this category to "classics".

What does this post have to do with collecting? No, it's not a real question. The point of the extract you quoted is that your claims have nothing to do with demonstrated collector preferences and that's a fact. Same nonsense where you claim collector preferences are supposedly random. That's why you told me in the Swiss "moderns" thread (and expressed the same sentiments multiple times previously) that the silver preference appeared suddenly and is subject to disappear as suddenly. It's a completely baseless claim, as proved by the relative prices in the commodity markets for thousands of years. That's where collectors get it, from outside of collecting. As long as this relative price difference exists, collectors will never contradict it in the aggregate, where the metal accounts for most of the relative price difference between different coins. You also contradict this random claim with your concurrent claims for "trends" and "cycles" which don't and never did exist and your quality criteria. If preferences are actually random (as opposed to "random" where enough collectors have to agree with you), there can be no cycles, no trends, and quality preference. That's what random actually means. This is obvious, but the differences have essentially nothing to do with your claims. The coins are identical other than the metal content. It's one very common coin vs. another very common coin, the only difference being that US collecting invented pretensions of "scarcity" which you exaggerate to an order of magnitude. The price variances between your example are financially immaterial. Most of the demand for these "older" coins you keep referencing (almost entirely 1933-1964 US coinage) are substantially due to a preference for the metal content, not as a collectible. But since you keep writing as if the metal preference should not exist, that's why you claim it's a "surprise". FDR dimes (silver or clad) have among the lowest collector preference from US coinage. Definitely the lowest from pre-1999. Not much dffferent for 1933-1964 US coinage generically. This is evident from a two-minute review of any 1960's (or earlier) Red Book and it's evident since. There is a generic preference for a narrow subset form any series since the 70's due to the same factors I provided in my reply to @GoldFinger1969 but this doesn't have anything to do with your claims.

Same difference. Current collectors don't "hate" this coinage now and US Mint sales after 1964 prove prior collectors didn't either. The market price (given your astronomically inflated opinion of the merits) is just a lot lower or a fraction of what you think it should be. Which is more believable, the US Mint or what you just "make up"? There have been three generations since the transition to clad in 1965: Gen-X (mine), Millennials, and Gen-Z with a fourth to soon start or already starting. To the extent there is any visible difference, it's due to generic factors in collecting (those I listed in a prior post here in reply to @GoldFinger1969, nothing to do with any of your claims. Collector age (yes, your demographic claim) has essentially zero causality on collector preferences. No one can demonstrate it, as any correlation doesn't demonstrate an actual preference. It's overwhelmingly a budget limitation.