World Colonial

On 7/22/2023 at 11:03 PM, VKurtB said:

Yes, my collecting preferences draw DIRECTLY from my cultural heritage. So do my preferences of what NOT to collect. 

This is what is evident in collecting generally, though not universally.

On 7/22/2023 at 11:03 PM, VKurtB said:

 I am no fan of Latin America generally. 

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.

On 7/22/2023 at 11:03 PM, VKurtB said:

I am a strict Anglophile, despite their predilection to unspeakable cruelty and violence in the 18th century.

Me too, just not in my coin collecting.

On 7/23/2023 at 1:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think being able to buy stuff most of the time is a PLUS.   

I didn't say otherwise.

On 7/23/2023 at 1:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Let price and condition/grade be the discriminating factor, not type availability.  

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.  

On 7/23/2023 at 1:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

How fun would this hobby be if most of the coins were unavailable in any grade ?

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".

On 7/23/2023 at 1:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Look at the availability of Saints vs. Liberty Double Eagles, the latter being much harder to collect in their totality or even in lower grades for a given dollar spend.

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.

On 7/23/2023 at 1:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It's what we/they know.  You buy what you are comfortable with.

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.

On 7/22/2023 at 9:55 PM, VKurtB said:

Doesn't it? It does in my experience. I'm talking about MATURITY, not chronological age. There's "wheat" and "chaff" among the 20th century material. Less wheat than chaff, of course. But even the chaff can and does build skills important for the wheat. 20th century material tells the story of war and political changes and upheavals. Speaking strictly for myself, that is even more interesting than 15th and 16th century European expansion into the Americas. YMMV. Probably does.

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.  

On 7/22/2023 at 8:10 PM, VKurtB said:

I believe one thing drives changes in collecting behavior - maturity of the collector. “Kids”, (and I mean that in the most pejorative way possible) are too unsophisticated to understand the incredible breadth of material and collecting options out there. Ditto for those who are Internet-dependent. The Internet is a “pull” medium. You pull up what you think you want to know. That’s far less than what you NEED TO KNOW. Only by exposing oneself to a “push” medium, where the stuff you never knew existed comes roaring right into your stupid face, can you get even a tiny picture of what’s out there. The Internet has NOTHING compared with wandering the aisles of a major “hundreds of dealers plus talks” coin show. 
 

You can pretend and fool yourself all you like. You’re just WRONG if you think Internet collecting is a viable alternative. 

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.

On 7/22/2023 at 7:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Not my claim, but I do think we've seen SOME changes to an extent.  There's greater INTEREST in collecting, spurred on by stay-at-homes during Covid-19.  And I think that the bear market in Small U.S. Coins from 2013-20 validated some of his thesis.  But no great interest in the coins he talks about or collects, though it's only been since 2020.

The coin hobby today is DEFINITELY different than 2013.  Back then, I was eBay 100% of the time for online stuff.  Now it's down to about 5% with HA, GC, and SB the bulk.  The number of online bidders at HA, SB, and newly-created GC has skyrocketed in 10 years, WC.

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.

On 7/22/2023 at 7:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

What's it sell for now ?

I'd have to look it up, but not for the thousands he was potentially implying it should be worth.

On 7/22/2023 at 7:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Wait...are you saying demographics/ethnicity DOESN'T matter or it does ?  Or are you saying if new ethnic groups collect, they'll collect just like Anglos 50-60 years prior ?

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.  

On 7/22/2023 at 7:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I mention investor coins because for some coins -- gold and silver, notably -- you can collect AND invest in precious metals at the same time.  The "Eliasberg Exception" for the masses !! 

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.

On 7/22/2023 at 7:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Why do you say that ?  Are you predicting better information transmission about pricing and availability....new hoards....what ?  How would the internet reduce set collecting and also depress prices ? 

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.

On 7/21/2023 at 9:03 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Another important indicator of coin collector interest or at least general Type Collecing.......the admittedly high (said here numerous times ) price of an MCMVII High Relief Saint....there's 8,000 of these coins available but as I've been told repeatedly here, they sell at a relatively high price for one that is readily available.

But that demand is almost all certainly from coin collectors, if not strictly Saint or DE collectors.  I doubt artistic non-coin collectors are tracking the price and supply availability of High Reliefs.  As with special modern new Mint offerings, if you create something worth buying, they will come.  Whether modern ASEs or classic High Reliefs.

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.

On 7/20/2023 at 10:58 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think there are lots more than "a few thousand" advanced collectors -- I think the Baby Boomers and the generation before them is why prices were in  the toilet for 2010-2020.  Too many sellers...not enough buyers.  How many people wanted to unload Liberty Seated or Walking sets or Franklin Halfs -- and how many were starting to collect them ?  Total imbalance, IMO.

I hope you are right on demographics (again, hate to sound like a broken record, but the trade groups and professional associations should have the data on this) and no doubt Covid and the Internet have spiked interest in our little niche.  We'll see if it has staying power.

If it has...then a rising tide should lift ALL boats and we should see some substantial new collectors for both Saints and Morgans and rising prices there for more common coins let alone scarce and rare ones, too.  Heck, the country has 1/3rd more population today than in 1980 so there's that alone. 

We'll have to let the market tell us.  Dealers should be able to give us indications of interest and traffic to their websites and B&M stores, too. 

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.

On 7/19/2023 at 4:43 PM, VKurtB said:

I recognize MOST collectors don't care about clad series, but I do. I keep all current series up to date with superior coins cut from Uncirculated Sets and Proof Sets. Some pieces are tougher, such as P and D Innovation dollars; finding truly prime examples of those takes some digging. Only available in rolls. 

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.

On 7/19/2023 at 11:08 AM, VKurtB said:

I kinda understand why someone MIGHT want to "draw a line under" 1964. Some people don't want ANYTHING not a precious metal. Hey, it's not MY trick, but I at least understand it. What I will NEVER understand is why collectors "end" their nickel collections at 1964. I've known quite a few who have. Hey,.. guys,.. the nickel's composition DID NOT CHANGE! What's with the 1964 line, anyway? Maybe it'll change to Stainless Steel some year soon. But it hasn't yet.

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.  

On 7/19/2023 at 10:44 AM, cladking said:

So people call clad debased garbage that are like Chuck-ee-Cheeze tokens and that are more common than grains of sands on the beach in every grade because they just like the coins and don't want competition collecting them all!!!  \

You can't imagine the level of hatred for these coins in 1965 and they killed coin collecting and replaced every coin in circulation with coins that each looked alike.  It was so bad that by 1995 after decades of gaining new collectors the hobby nearly died almost altogether.  It nearly came to look like you believe it should with a few gentleman collectors in their study looking at financially significant coins.  

 

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”.

On 7/19/2023 at 10:44 AM, cladking said:

This is irrelevant.  It matter only how much demand there is for some specific coin and this tends to be proportional to the number of collectors.  

There are exploding numbers of collectors today but they are not behaving like  established collectors in 1964.  They are more like the kids who were collecting from circulation (clads) and new coins (states quarters etc). 

The vast majority of collectors in the 60's were collecting at FV or insignificant premiums.  There weren't that many valuable collections of common US classics in the 60's as you have repeatedly implied.

I already gave you some of the similarities and differences between the 60's and now which are facts.  You just don't like the outcome.

On 7/19/2023 at 10:44 AM, cladking said:

I don't expect anything except all trends to eventually return to equilibrium; to normal.  Obviously like swinging pendulums I do not expect them to stay there.  

There is no such thing as "equilibrium" or "return to the mean" in coin collecting.  It's something else you just "made up."

Collectors never did prefer their circulating change, the actual substance of your demographic claim.

On 7/19/2023 at 10:44 AM, cladking said:

I expect most rare coins to eventually have premiums.  

What rare coins?  

Those with your strike quality which virtually no one cares about and for which you won't even pay any meaningful premium yourself?

Numismatic minutia reflected in US practiced specializations which have essentially zero correlation to actual collector preferences?

Common coins you call "scarce"?

There is a difference between premiums and your prior inferences.  Do you remember your price projections on PCGS in the "Raw Moderns" thread?  Is that what you expect?

On 7/19/2023 at 10:44 AM, cladking said:

I'm referring to US coins. 

Historically US coins have always had the highest demand in the world. 

US moderns have the lowest collective aggregate preference among US coinage.  I stated it and it's accurate.  It's due to the coin attributes, not for any reason you give.

US moderns have more demand collectively than the vast majority of world classics from any other country right now.  Same when comparing one US modern series to another world coin "classic" series.  Nothing unusual now about this either.  The prices are lower for obvious reasons, but that's something else entirely.

On 7/19/2023 at 10:21 AM, cladking said:

No.  The '60's were not normal.  There were far too many collectors collecting far to many recent dates in too high condition and in too large of numbers. This is why there are so many "fallen stars" of the era.

I do think the number of older established collectors and what most of them were collecting was "normal" and I might be wrong here but Mehl popularized coins decades earlier. They were mostly collecting old US coins by date and mint.  

Today old coins from the '60'ds and '70's is hated.  This is not normal.

 

Disagreeing with you is not hating anything.  That's the entire basis of your claims.  No one has to buy what you think they should or pay the prices you think it should be worth.  If every collector disagrees with you, there is absolutely nothing unusual about it.

You can't claim collectors aren't collecting this coinage because it's not true.  So, since you can't, your objection is on the price.

You have an astronomically inflated opinion of this coinage where you compare it to the most common and overpriced coinage for its availability (1916-1964 US coinage) and then when it's not similarly inflated, claim it's "hated" and not "natural".  It's as if no other coinage exists.  

Even worse, you compare US moderns to 1916-1964 key and semi-key dates.  You did it with the 1950-D nickel here and to the 1916-D dime in the Swiss "moderns" thread.  The 50-D nickel price was a bubble.  There is no reason to expect the same outcome.  The 16-D dime primarily sells for its price due to historical misperception of scarcity.  No one is going to believe any US modern as a generic coin is scarce except under contrived US standards because they know it isn't.

Your entire chain of reasoning is nonsensical.

On 7/17/2023 at 11:08 AM, VKurtB said:

There is no coin MARKET (singular). There are quite a few various coin marketS. And they intersect extremely little. The live in-person market, driven by shows, is one. The live auction market is another. The online auction market is another. The online dealer market is yet another. There are others. None of them acts like any of the others. 

Agree and it's also more than that.

It's evident that collectors do not collect in a vacuum but there are common evident collecting habits:

1) The vast majority of collectors prefer the coins from their home country or country or origin.

2) The vast majority of collectors are ignorant of the existence of most coins, and they cannot buy what they don't know exists.

3) Those who are not strictly recreational collectors will pay prices they otherwise would not, if they believe they can recover enough of their cost at resale.

4) Most collectors will not even attempt to collect a coin or series if they deem it too hard to buy or if it's not available in their minimum quality.

On 7/17/2023 at 2:37 PM, cladking said:

But the bottom line is what I've told World Colonial for many years now: Older collectors have a very unnatural hatred for modern coins and, on average, younger collectors will not shun coins simply because they are clad ore base metal to the degree we do.   Younger collectors will be far more likely to collect any metallic composition.  

Your "hate" claim has no basis in reality.  It's something else you just "made up".  Collector preferences also have virtually nothing if anything at all to do with your demographic claim.  Collectors have been collecting base metal coinage since the beginning of coin collecting.  If collectors "hated" base metal coinage, they would "hate" older base metal coinage.  No one can claim that, not even you.  Collectors never hated US large cents or other similar coins.  

What you call “hating” is just others disagreeing with you by not sharing your inflated opinion of the merits for this coinage.  You refuse to accept that this coinage has the lowest aggregate preference due to the coin attributes. US moderns and the world coinage you call "modern" collectively have the least preferred attributes.  That's why it has the lowest collective aggregate preference.

Hundreds of thousands to millions have been buying this coinage each and every year over my entire life since 1965.  It's just at prices which do not satisfy your personal preference. 

You can’t find a single collector who “hates” their collection   It’s as believable as you hating yours.  No matter how you phrase this claim, it’s not true.  If others actually hate their collection or the coins they bought, so do you.  No one does that, including you.  No one has to buy these coins or pay the prices you think it should be worth to disprove your claim either.

On 7/17/2023 at 9:42 AM, cladking said:

Lol.

There's a silver preference!!!  

There's also a indian cent preference, a wheat cent preference, and a 3c nickel preference.  

Has nothing to do with what I told you.

The silver preference is a generic one which collectors inherit from the external culture due to the relative price in the commodity markets.  You don't think it should exist, which is why you've told me for 10 years including in this post that perception isn't "natural".

On 7/17/2023 at 9:42 AM, cladking said:

It is not natural for the coins of the realm to be overlooked and this happened all over the world for moderns. 

This "natural" claim, you just "made it up".  It has absolutely no basis in reality.  What you describe as "overlooked" is everyone else refusing to agree with you to collect these coins in the numbers and at the prices you insist they should.  That's why I told you that your baseline for "normal" is 1960's US collecting.

This coinage has the lowest collective aggregate preference due to the coin attributes.  That's a fact.  This includes the relative scarcity where you claim these coins are "scarce" or "rare" due to your arbitrary quality standards, unrepresentative personal experience, and application of US practiced specializations which generally have a low to virtually nonexistent correlation to collector preferences.

Here are some of the similarities between the 60's and since:

One:  Collectors now and then collected their circulating change mostly at FV.  Most circulating classics at the time sold for FV or immaterial premiums, just as US circulating moderns do now. 

Two:  Collectors overwhelmingly preferred classics circulating in 1965, just as they still do now.

Three: In 1965, the public didn’t like having their coinage debased.  That’s why they hoarded silver.  They didn’t hoard clad, as there was no financial motive to do so.  The public and collectors overwhelmingly still prefer silver now, just as they did then. 

Concurrently, US circulating moderns were and are being saved in “high” quality in large numbers.  No US circulating modern is remotely even close to being scarce in “high” quality, except under US criteria which is the most liberal in use.  Since at least 1999 with the SQ program, US moderns are being saved in at least equivalent number in equivalent quality to post-1933 classics.

Here are some of the differences:

One:  Perception toward (semi) key dates was due to a communication limitation, not any actual scarcity or rarity.  These coins primarily retain unusually high prices due to prior perception and the belief in the ability to recover the purchase price at resale.  The internet has removed this limitation and exposed just how common this coinage actually is.  No US circulating modern will ever be viewed similarly, except due to specialization.

Two: The “hobby” has been substantially financialized, first starting in the 1970’s with the gold and silver price spike and then in the 1980’s as a result of TPG.  Despite this financialization, the price variances between most recent US classics and moderns are financially immaterial. 

Three: There was limited if any specialization then.  My primary explanation for this behavioral change is that modern communication has eliminated the challenge of collecting this coinage (both modern and classic) in the traditional format. 

On 7/17/2023 at 9:39 AM, cladking said:

In 1964 every corner coin shop had a '50-D nickels for sale.  Kids sat on school busses talking about '50-D nickels and their wheat cent collections. 

At least relative to the population, coin collecting was a larger scale low budget recreational activity in the 60's.  There were far fewer recreational activities for the recreational collector's time and money.  Your particular account is also anecdotal.

On 7/17/2023 at 9:39 AM, cladking said:

Today kids may talk about their states quarters collections but they can't go down to the coin shop and buy other clad quarters because this is a "niche market" not a "mass market".  

They can buy US moderns all day long on eBay.  Why would hardly anyone waste their time going to a retail outlet for that?  Your expectation is absurd.

On 7/17/2023 at 9:39 AM, cladking said:

'50-D nickels are still part of a mass market, a much smaller mass market than in 1964 and you can tell because coin shops stock such coins.  They only stock coins that will probably sell and they don't try to stock all the rare Chuck e Cheese tokens or Swiss shooting Thalers.  

No one has to buy the coins most collectors buy at a coin shop. How can you not understand that?

On 7/17/2023 at 9:57 AM, cladking said:

The '60's were in no way "normal" for coin collecting.  It was the perfect storm that had created the largest possible number of coin collectors but the pendulum swung and by 1995 there was the smallest possible number.  

The 60's are your implied baseline for "normal" collecting.  How else could you possibly come up with your price expectations for US moderns and world "moderns"?  Do you remember your posts?

On 7/17/2023 at 9:57 AM, cladking said:

Some of these classics are quite common so obviously some moderns are much scarcer.  

Yes, some, as in a very low proportion by any sensible standard.  Where world "moderns" are scarcer, 95% to 99% of the time, it's going to be by comparing coins from two different series from two different countries where one is not the alternative or competes with the other.  I'm sure some "moderns" from obscure countries with no organized collecting and low mintages due to population and economics are scarcer versus from developed earlier coinage.  There is no significance in that, as the lopsided proportion of these "moderns" has a (very) low preference with no basis to expect any future difference.  This is self-evident from collector motivation.

On 7/15/2023 at 11:00 AM, cladking said:

Right now I am selling so pricing is more important than ever before but it still takes a back seat to the coins and their scarcity.  I know I leave a lot of money on the table but selling in this hobby has always been harder than buying. I knew this going in so I always sold a coin once in a while so I'd know their true value which is often much less than catalog and sometimes more.  

I read your earlier post about potentially leaving multiple SDB of this stuff.

If I were you, I wouldn't do that.  I know you don't agree with me but if you want to maximize the return for you or your heirs, you need to take a far more objective position on the prices and prospects.  If you don't, most of what you leave is likely to be eventually dumped in a Coin Star machine or on a local dealer.  Selling a huge volume of low value coins is a tedious time-consuming exercise which isn't attractive to most people.

For US modern coinage, I'd grade whatever is eligible for the higher TPG numbers (like a 66 or one under the "top pop") if it's worth enough of a premium over the slab fee.  I'd get rid of it, but I can see keeping it.  Anything you own in volume isn't likely to ever to appreciate substantially because it's too common and the preference is never going to increase as you have told me in your posts.   You're not the only one who owns this stuff.  You've used 60's coinage as a comparison but most of it wasn't worth much at the time and isn't now either, for the same reason.

I'd also get rid of a coin like the 1950 NZ 6P and 1/.  Yes, I know you bought it cheap decades ago, but this type of coin isn't likely to appreciate anywhere near as much as it has from here because these are already pricey coins to most collectors.  Heritage sold an MS-66 6P for $1200 (I think) and Noble Numismatics sold an ungraded shilling "choice" for $300 AUD but that was awhile ago now.

I'd consider converting it to silver or gold bullion if you can find way to trade it.  You have more contacts than I do.

On 7/15/2023 at 11:00 AM, cladking said:

I'm sure I can learn prices if I cared about prices.  I am first and foremost a collectors.  Secondarily I am trying to be a steward for modern coins.  Tertiarily I am an investor. 

No, you can't, any more than I can do it.  That's the point.

You're making these broad price claims when it's not possible for anyone to know what you claim. 

How can you know the current and historical prices of in the vicinity of 100,000 coins?  Or even those you consider "scarce" or "rare", especially when you yourself admitted you never saw so many even once?  That's what you admitted in the Swiss "moderns" thread on the PCGS forum.

So, you're telling me you know the prices of coins when you never saw it sell?

On 7/15/2023 at 10:54 AM, cladking said:

As an exercise then why don't you tell me which countries are an exception to the rule.  There are a couple so this should be easy.  

The very nature of language and definitions always leaves exceptions.  

I don't need to provide an exception, by your own definition.

First, you're calling this arbitrary "coin dump" of approximately 100,000 coins now (maybe 50,000 when you started in the 70's) world "moderns" and I'm telling you that hundreds of thousands to millions collect this coinage worldwide.

Second, I never said most of these people were paying premiums to FV, as I don't know how much they pay.  In the last few decades, they certainly have, going by the sources I gave you.  US collectors weren't in the 60's either, except those who bought proof and mint sets.  This era is your implied "baseline" for "normal" collecting.  

Third, there is widespread collecting of this world coinage in the US and to a lesser extent in Europe.  Less in the rest of the world due to lack of access and possibly interest.  It's just at prices below what you want.

On 7/15/2023 at 10:54 AM, cladking said:

People simply didn't save the debased coinage which is why you can find plenty of old silver coins in nice chBU but you can't always find the later, high mintage, poorly made coins.  

Yes, that's what you keep telling me, even when I keep on telling you that you have no idea what billions of people did or didn't do over decades, and that's a fact.

You assume in error that your unrepresentative personal experience and that of the few collectors you know/knew is accurate when there is no basis to believe that.

No, people didn't hoard this base metal coinage, for economic reasons.  Yes, I know this silver coinage is more common.  There is zero significance to any scarcity vs. earlier 20th century world coinage.  It's the equivalent of a comparison between US moderns and 1933-1964 US coinage, one very common coin versus another. 

You'd have others believe these "moderns" are scarcer than any number of actually noticeably older world "classics" without directly stating it.  There is no basis to believe it, except in very low proportion.

On 7/15/2023 at 10:37 AM, cladking said:

Again.  The 1975 PR dime is far scarcer than the 1894-S dime.  The '76 PR Ike is even scarcer than this.  

There are many very rare and scarce moderns.  

This is irrelevant to your broader claim and has nothing to do with my post to which you responded.  I'm not referring to this type of coinage.

On 7/15/2023 at 10:37 AM, cladking said:

Comparisons of the collectability of one era to another is practically meaningless but then you take it a step further and declare moderns to be lesser and less worthy.  

Total BS.  I never said such a thing.

I'm telling you that your standard of "scarcity" is a complete exaggeration.  There are only three options for you to claim this coinage is "scarce" or "rare".

One: Based upon your irrelevant quality criteria that no one else cares about, except to the extent it correlates to the TPG label.  That's the market standard, not what you decide.  It's a complete contrivance anyway.

Two: Specialization almost entirely practiced only within the US and invented here.  Most coins as a date/denomination are "scarce" or "rare" under some US practiced specialization.  It's the equivalent of awarding a "participation trophy" just for showing up.  There is zero reason to believe that hardly any of this coinage will become substantially more valuable than it is now.

Three: What I told you in my last post which you misinterpreted.  In "high quality" or the quality most collectors will accept, US circulating moderns are only "scarce" versus 1933-1964 US coinage + Morgan dollars and common pre-1933 gold, both of which were also hoarded.  There is no equivalence between the last two groups and US moderns, as there is virtually no cross-over between this coinage for obvious reasons.  There is zero significance in any coin (US or otherwise) being scarcer vs. 1933-1964 US coinage, as it's somewhere in the vicinity of the one-percentile for "scarcity".  Practically every coin ever made is scarcer, at least those made for circulation.

On 7/15/2023 at 10:37 AM, cladking said:

Really! 

Yes, really.

On 7/15/2023 at 10:37 AM, cladking said:

You say there is a "mass market" but the '50-D nickel with nearly two million examples achieved a valuation of several hundred dollars in today's money while the '82-P quarter with fewer than 3% the survivorship can't achieve much more than $7 on the wholesale market!!!   Where do you see this mass market?  

So, now you're just "making up" another definition of "mass market"?  That's just what you did.

I never said the market scale was what you think it should be.  Where did you get that and why would you think it?

I'm telling you that the US Mint sales records and even the TPG populations prove you wrong and that's a fact.  I never said you liked the result.  It's a "mass market' at prices below your preference but still one.

On 7/15/2023 at 10:37 AM, cladking said:

 When was the last time you saw a collection of nice BU clad dimes walk into a coin shop?  Even after 60 years there are still rolls, bags, and collections of '50-D nickels and '60-D sm dt cents walking into coin shops but there are no clads coming in because these collections don't even exist much less do they constitute a "mass market".  

Totally irrelevant to what I told you.

No, this doesn't happen, because clad wasn't hoarded like silver as I told you in the Swiss "moderns" thread.  There was no economic incentive to hoard clad then but instead of recognizing this as obvious, you claim it isn't "natural" by ignoring the silver preference, in contradiction to thousands of years of history.

On 7/15/2023 at 10:37 AM, cladking said:

People have tunnel vision and they see what they expect/.  you expect a "mass market" so when you see HSN selling states coins you see a mass market for all moderns.  It simply doesn't exist.  Circulating moderns are appreciated only in Russia and China at this time but there are stirrings all over the world and there are isolated coins all over the world already discovered to be rare despite high mintages. 

If anyone has "tunnel vision", it is you.  Go read your prior posts (including in this thread) where you've used somewhere in the vicinity of a dozen assumptions (premises) which have nothing to do with how (virtually) anyone collects.  I've told why your premises are wrong, my explanations and evidence are much better than your belief, and yet you still believe it anyway.

One of them is your claim of rarity in this quote.  You don't know what you claim, as no one can possibly know it.  You've claimed it repeatedly.  What do you not understand about that?

Let me also repeat what i just told you.  "Mass market" doesn't mean sales volume at the prices you insist should exist.  Yes, I agree that the economic scale of this collecting is a lot less than US classics, including 1933-1964 alone.  Doesn't change that a lot of people/collector bought and buy this coinage.  Hardly anyone likes this coinage as much as you think they should but it's still being collected.  That's the point and yes, sales of hundreds of thousands to millions annually (regardless of the price) qualifies as a "mass market" in coin collecting.

On 7/14/2023 at 5:41 PM, cladking said:

I appreciate the info.  eBay prices of 10 and 15k Soviet coins are lower since I last looked a couple years ago.   So?

The "so" is that you consistently do this when trying to support your claims when it's not accurate.  You do it with the prices and you do it with the scarcity.

I don't believe you know the prices of these coins now or possibly since you started collecting world "moderns" because your posts don't indicate it, and no one can possibly know what you imply to know.  There must be in the vicinity of 100,000 now and recently (maybe 50,000 when you started) in this arbitrary "coin dump" you call world "moderns". No one can possibly know the actual prices for more than a very low fraction, especially for coins that you claim were "rare" or "scarce" that you never saw it in your local dealer's inventory, which is what I know is the source for the majority of your personal unrepresentative experience.

Prior to the internet, I presume this coinage often sold for the Krause list when offered by dealers because they didn't have another reference point, but I don't actually know this definitively. It was accurate in a backwards way because Krause "made up" the list price, dealers used it, and collectors not having another usual option or knowing any better paid it.  This is true outside the US also.

The internet has made any annual catalog pricing obsolete.  It may be somewhat accurate for some US coinage, but not for anything else, other for the reason I just gave you here.  In ignorance, collectors pay it but with eBay and auctions, this still doesn't apply generally.

On 7/14/2023 at 5:29 PM, cladking said:

I defined it.  

No, you just "made it up".

I know your definition.  The real question is, where is the evidence that (virtually) anyone collects as you claim, except at "junk bin" prices as I have repeatedly told you?

The answer is that there isn't any, which means your definition has no relevance to your claims.  In typical fashion, you don't even collect differently than I am telling you, as proved by your own posting history.

On 7/14/2023 at 5:29 PM, cladking said:

All over the world silver was removed from circulating coinage at a given time.  In almost every case the old silver coins were withdrawn by the people and the government.  In almost every case the new coins were made in far larger numbers and of poor quality.  Even those made in good quality were ignored.  In almost every case collectors continued seeking the old coins and did not collect the new coins.  While modserns began in 1965 in this country they were phased in starting in 1920 in Great Britain and firmly established in 1947 leading to the silver disappearing.  In Canada it was 1968.  

So you keep telling me, yet the evidence proves you wrong, again.  Hundreds of thousands to millions collect this coinage (world "moderns") in some format, yet you keep repeating this nonsense just because you don't see the coins as often as you think you should in the quality you expect and the prices don't satisfy you.

World mint sales collectively, eBay, 000s of B&M dealers, and Franklin Mint "Coin Sets of all Nations" prove you wrong.  You have heard of these sources, haven't you?  (No, it isn't a real question.)

On 7/14/2023 at 5:29 PM, cladking said:

Almost every single country on earth had circulating silver before 1947. Now they do not and that changed over many years.  It's just a facts and "moderns" is just a word to denote this fact.  

Words have meaning.  The term "world moderns" doesn't mean what you claim to anyone else.  It's an arbitrary term you just "made up" (like many of your other premises) which doesn't reflect how others collect, except as I told you.  There is no basis to use the metal content as an arbitrary cut-off or classification as you do, for the reasons I am giving you here and previously.

On 7/14/2023 at 5:21 PM, cladking said:

No!  That is my opinion based on the relative scarcity of moderns compared to more common old coins.  

Collectively, the only relevant more common "old" US coins are 1933-1964.  US coins older than this are not more common, except in some instances by using your same arbitrary criteria which no one else cares about and you won't even pay for it.  (No, there is no comparability between hoarded Morgan dollars and pre-1933 gold, as your claims on the metal content equally have no merit.)

On 7/14/2023 at 5:21 PM, cladking said:

You are simply mistaken. 

I don't question your quality criteria because it's exactly that, yours.

I'm telling you it's irrelevant to practically everyone else and that's a fact.

On 7/14/2023 at 5:21 PM, cladking said:

Perhaps collectors will seek old beat up culls in circulation for all I know and Gems will never be appreciated but I seriously doubt it because there will be plenty of culls in circulation to satisfy demand.  There are not enough Gems to satisfy more than the token demand that exists.  Even chBU is not common enough to satisfy a mass market. 

There is your definition of "appreciated" and reality.  It's no different than when you've told me these coins "aren't collected" which is flat out BS.

There is a "mass market" for US moderns since 1965.  It just isn't at the prices satisfying your personal preference.  US Mint sales prove you wrong for the last 58 years, my entire life.

No one has to agree with you, on anything.  That's all you have been describing.

On 7/14/2023 at 5:21 PM, cladking said:

In virtually every single case in every single country a rare modern sells for a tiny fraction of the price of an exactly equivalent older coin.  

You have no idea how scarce these coins actually are, claiming to know what no one can possibly know predominantly based upon your unrepresentative personal experience.

The prices differences between these "moderns" and the preceding "old" coinage (earlier 20th century) are overwhelmingly financially immaterial.  You just exaggerate the difference.

For actually noticeably older world coinage, the coins are much scarcer and usually have a much higher collector preference.  Most of these coins aren't worth that much either, but you don't know these prices.  It's slightly pre-COVID last I looked, I observed high-quality Parthian (ancients), Crusader (11th or 12th century), and less preferred European medieval minors (e.g., Hungary) sell for relatively nominal amounts, like roughly $100.

On 7/14/2023 at 5:21 PM, cladking said:

Attitudes are changing all over the world and many moderns are soaring in price.  I know no reason this can't continue.  It might even come to US moderns.  

You have no idea how much hardly any of these coins are worth.  The price increases are also  overwhelmingly from FV or near it to mostly still immaterial amounts, with no relevance to the future price whatsoever.  There is no "trend" as you claim because collectors don't collect the way you infer, arbitrarily making a distinction between base metal and other coinage.