World Colonial

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.

This is what is evident in collecting generally, though not universally. I have a preference for some Bolivian coinage due to my family background, but it's not predominant. My preference for the pillar coinage has nothing to do with it. There are other coins I'll never collect for this reason, like all of Africa (except South Africa where I lived) and most if not all of Asia. Most of the latter is because I'm not interested in coins without western dates and legends. I can't interpret what's on the coin, not going to waste my time learning it, and don't like most of the designs anyway. Me too, just not in my coin collecting.

I didn't say otherwise. Except that for most US collectors and most US coins above low to minimal prices, this is really marketability and liquidity, not availability. I've looked at the availability of many US coins and series over the years whereas your posts indicate you don't. Hardly any US Mint coins are hard to buy, except under the narrow and arbitrary criteria invented during recent (post-financialized) US collecting. I've given numerous examples just in this thread. As another example, probably every single US half dollar from 1794 onward is available right now, except maybe for a low number of Liberty Seated, if you know where to find it. In "high" quality, only a few others: 1794, maybe 1796 and 1797, and a few more Liberty outside-affiliatelinksnotallowed I don't see 1794 dollars or 1802 half dimes most times when I search, but these are exceptions. It isn't, and that's one of the reasons why I I've been able to buy what I own in my current collection. It's also the same reason my current primary interest will never become "popular". I don't believe very many LH DE are hard to buy. I've looked at the TPG populations and even accounting for potential duplicates, only a few dates should have fewer than the 1796-1797 half dollars (as a type) which aren't hard to buy either. I've never failed to see this coin in at least XF every time I have looked. You're talking about difficulty in the context of a specific TPG label, or with a CAC sticker, or specific "eye appeal". I get that buyers want better looking coins and are discerning in what they will accept considering the cost, but that's mostly the result of money, not an actual scarcity. There is also a difference between sufficient availability for everyone who wants a coin at the same time versus being able to buy it. Many coins lack sufficient supply for everyone who might want it concurrently and can afford it. Price is always the adjusting factor. Very few coins have a high enough collector preference where it's still difficult to buy if the price increases enough. By "enough", I'm not referring to an unlimited price either.

Depends what you mean by "know". There are enough US collectors who know enough other coins exist. They just don't want it badly enough. There is the comfort factor, but I'd attribute it mostly to economics. US coins are a lot more liquid and marketable than most non-US and there is a wide variation in marketability and liquidity within US coinage too. If collectors could "rent" coins where they knew in advance they could get enough of their money back at resale (to them), It's evident pricing would differ noticeably. It's been my claim (for years) that most collectors in the financialized era (last 40 to 50 years) don't actually like what they collect as much as commonly believed, when the price or collective outlay is "material" to them. It varies by individual but there are plenty of anecdotes that people act this way. If not treated as a consumption expense, they won't buy a coin at its current market price, unless they believe they can get enough of their money back.

I attribute your perception with your examples to a cultural preference. Most US collectors prefer US coinage over all others, or at least that's where they spend the most budget. It's also due to marketability but I infer they still prefer US coins anyway. Within US coins, I consider Territorial gold and colonial more "mature" or collecting upward versus the rest. I'd throw the few CSA coins and Texas Jolas in there too. Others might (or probably do) place early US federal at the top and it definitely has a higher preference. Liberty head gold is harder to complete than the earlier series, but I don't know how collectors view it in this context. I think of US 20th century coinage totally differently. Practically all of it can be bought any day of the week. From the standpoint of studying the contemporary society, any coin can be equally collected in this context. For non-US coinage, I'd place ancient or medieval coinage at the top, easily.

This makes sense. But this maturity doesn't lead to increased collecting of most US 20th century or world coinage. I call your increased maturity collecting upwards, subject to budget. It's mostly a one-way street, again subject to budget. There isn't a universal definition of upwards or downwards, but anyone who evaluates the subject impartially knows what it means generically. You're not ever going to see anyone collecting ancients switch to modern NCLT as their primary collecting interest, though they may buy it for "investment" or as a "side collection". No challenge to it, at all.

I'm referring to the coins collectors prefer. There is no evidence that collector preferences have changed between US series my entire life. If it has, it must be where the coins do not directly or virtually never compete. Morgan vs. Peace dollars? WLH vs. Franklin half or Kennedy? SLQ vs. Washington quarters, silver or clad? Buffalo vs any other nickels? IHC vs. Lincoln Wheat or Memorial? All the same, with some movement between individual date/MM. Same thing for others. There have been generic changes I previously listed: buying coins as "investments" starting in the 70's, TPG with PCGS and NGC in the 80's, internet, registry sets, new specializations (new to me anyway), and CAC fro US coinage. None of this is specific to any coin or series. I'd have to look it up, but not for the thousands he was potentially implying it should be worth. Ethnicity is the one that matters most. No, other ethnic groups will (on average) definitely not collect like Anglos in the 60's and Latins or Asians (mostly Orientals) do now. African Americans and any others virtually do not collect at all, and it's not because they can't afford it. This is all self-evident. Gender matters second, but I have yet to hear one reason why this will change noticeably either. I've heard it's changed somewhat in recent decades but not materially. Age is essentially irrelevant. It's a non-factor, with no demonstrated causality on aggregate preferences. Any correlation is actually almost exclusively a budget limitation. Low budget buying does not = preferred. It usually means cannot afford something more expensive. That's demographics. Yes, that's why I am making an exception for "investment" coinage. I think these other ethnic groups will still buy this coinage in noticeably higher proportion, though maybe less than European Americans do now. No, due to the greater variety made available by the internet. If you started in the internet age, why would you default to collecting predominantly or only US 20th century and later sets, in coin albums or otherwise? Mostly monotonously long and boring series for average to mediocre designs. If there is one broad change which is apparently more correlated to age, it's this one. The second would be the preference for NCLT but this can't be compared to the 60's because modern NCLT didn't exist at the time. I think registry sets will still be a factor, but also less than now.

The internet is going to reduce set collecting of common coins even more in the future than it has now, at "meaningful" prices. Yes, that's practically all 20th century to date US series. Excludes gold, Morgan and maybe Peace dollars.

The only change in demographics that is likely to matter is ethnicity. That's what the evidence shows. In the US, that's an increasing proportion of non-Europeans and especially non-Anglos who by any sensible expectation will collect US coinage in (much) lower proportion versus now, even more so versus the 60's with the internet. This is at least equally true for US moderns. Demographic turnover has a minimal to nonexistent impact on collector preferences. There is no evidence of this anywhere. Collectors essentially have the same preferences now which they had in 1965. There is also a big difference between "investor" coins and all others.

There is a difference between caring about a clad series and paying the prices CK thinks it should be worth, as in light years apart. He finally admitted it on the PCGS forum a few years ago, telling me that US moderns with 20,000 should each be worth hundreds though he didn't say when. He also implied that the 70-D Kennedy half (a common coin) in MS-66 should be worth a lot more than the $200-$300 it sold for at the time. It's as if collectors have (virtually) no other choices and the internet doesn't exist.

No, dividing the series arbitrarily at 1964 makes no sense at all. I pointed this out to CK during our first discussion on these topics back in 2013. It's existed for decades, but in 2013 he told me he was looking for a radical change in collector preferences in 20 years. This is one of the best pieces of evidence against his claims.

The sources I provided selling US moderns and world “moderns”, these sales either occurred or didn’t. Are you claiming these sales are inflated or fictional? If so, what evidence do you have for that? If people bought these coins, then they either wanted it or they didn’t. Are you claiming these people didn’t want what they bought or it’s not relevant? If so, based upon what? Are you claiming enough people have to buy these coins at the prices you think it should be worth? If yes, who has to buy it and how much do they have to pay? Do I have to buy these coins at the inflated prices you infer or claim it should be worth to prove I don't "hate" it? Does anyone else? In the Swiss “moderns” thread, you wrote of your international trips, claiming it as evidence for your observations. You have and had the money, so why didn’t and don’t you buy coins you never collected? If others have to buy coins they don’t want to disprove your claim, then so do you. If others “hate” coins they don’t buy, then so do you. If you claim you don’t, then neither does anyone else. Whatever your answer (pro or con), there is nothing unusual about it and therefore, collector behavior since the transition to base metal coinage is entirely “natural”.