What do you think of KP's World catalogues??

[cladking]

And I share them with fellow collectors who I think would enjoy them and who I feel I can talk to in a spirit of friendship, respect and love for this great hobby regardless of our exact pursuits within it. So I think you should keep going with US and World because you clearly still love and enjoy both. As I said before, my take on it is if the money comes, it comes and that's a nice bonus. But if it doesn't and you collect coins you love, you still have a collection of coins that puts a smile on your face every time you look at it and that's the best measure of success in numismatics or any hobby. Chase your loves, Joe, as best you can regardless of prices to the best of your ability.

 

This is the best possible advice. Trying to make money in coins usually backfires anyway but collectors have fun regardless and can profit in the same coins other lose money.

 

I agree about the Mexican coins and find their early proofs very desirable. I also like the cu/ ni five and ten peso coins but they are pretty easy collections with no stoppers.

[Mohawk]

Hey cladking,

Good to hear from you again!! I checked out your previous posts, and I now consider myself more educated about rare modern US coins. I see that there certainly are some once you get into errors and things of that nature and I must say a clad 1964 quarter would be a cool thing to see!! I like off-metal stuff quite a bit. One of my dream coins is a 1932-A Weimar German Oak Tree 5 Reichsmark pattern struck in antimony.......man, I saw one and I was DROOLING....but it was around $5000. Worth every penny, at least to a weirdo like myself, but outside of my current budget for sure. I also agree with you on the 5 and 10 Pesos Mexican coins. They are absolutely lovely, and sometimes a series with no stoppers is a fun thing to go after. My Chilean Libertad Pesos have only one stopper, but that's a problem with finding the coin, not price. My pride and joy Reichskreditkassens though........almost ALL of them are stoppers. And my Ottoman Nickel Paras are in the middle of the road. It's nice to have a set that's easily completed along with the more challenging sets. Speaking for myself, and other collectors I'd imagine as well, I like to have a sense of completion and its nice to be able to get that without too much strain sometimes.

 

I'm also pleased that you agree with my advice to Joe. What I wrote is one of my most dearly held principles regarding numismatics and I believe it with all of my being. It's truly the road to numismatic enjoyment, and thusly success by my definition of it. If you love your coins and your collection, then you've succeeded. If you're having fun, then you're successful in the hobby. And I'd say everyone I've had the pleasure of talking to in this thread is a successful numismatist by my standards for such. Ultimately, we should all collect what we like for ourselves and for our own sense of enjoyment and satisfaction and there's no right or wrong road. That's part of what makes being a part of this hobby and community so great. We all pursue different areas, different parts of the same whole. And I know for myself that I enjoy talking to people who collect all areas of this hobby if they're folks who are kind. I've met good and bad people on both sides of the house. There's jerks everywhere, sadly. But I haven't run into very many in this community, and those that I have are easy enough to avoid. But by and large this is a very good group, and I enjoy it immensely!!

 

Until Next Time

~Tom

[joes2001]

Thanks Tom for the advice. I think you're absolutely right. The profit I make here and there from selling coins is just a bonus. The great joy I get from organizing, studying, and sometimes sharing my coins is what it's all about and continues to be about. And hunting down something beautiful, new, or at a great bargin is addictive! I read that one of your parents is from Turkey, the other from Germany, which is very cool. My dad was born in Iran. His dad was Russian, so i'm an interesting mix: half scandinavian, quarter russian, quarter persian. I think persian coins are nice but haven't really researched them enough, at least not yet. The same goes for Russian coins, Swedish ones, etc. I do indeed get a lot of satisfaction from my US coins, and I appreciate your encouragement. The one area of coins I am hesitant to get involved with are ancients. It seems like a whole other ball game. Like non-numismatists probably feel about coins in general, I wouldn't no where to start with ancients, or perhaps even how. I've read that a lot of fakes abound, too, so that's a little worrying. By the way, if you ever got 5 mins or so, please take a look at this little blog I put up not too long ago. Maybe you could skim read one of the blogs if you find a topic interesting. If you get a chance, thanks in advance! I don't know any other serious collectors so I thought i'd get another's perspective perhaps. (http://joescoincollectinginfo.blogspot.com/)

 

Cladking- I think your comments about state tax tokens (or coins?) during the depression are interesting. I myself have about a dozen or so hiding somewhere. You remarked that they are scarce, and that's probably the case for some of them, but I'm curious as to how they're "desirable." Of course such items can be desirable personally, but if they are so overlooked, how might they be desireable to a larger population of coin collectors? Perhaps in other words, what do you find appealing about them? As far as I know, their designs are pretty simple, and how they were actually used is probably unknown to most collectors today. Thanks

[World Colonial]

Tom,

 

There are a lot of factors which account for personal preferences that show up in the price levels. But some of it is probably due to the fact that most collectors are not aware of the choices they have available, even given their budget.

 

Earlier, I described how I looked at the Krause manuals to choose my series. I believe I am fairly knowledgeable about many coins but not in any depth except for a few. There are just too many of them. Some of the coins I collect and those you mentioned, they are mostly "forgotten". Combine that with the preference (at least among US collectors) of preferring disproportionately very high quality coins and I think it explains why the coins you and describe aren't collected.

[World Colonial]

 

My comments were not clear. I am not talking about interest in clad but in collecting generally. If the number of collectors decreased as I understand and it was substantial, I believe that the price increases also had a lot to do with it.

 

Everything isn't about clad, everything is about coins.

 

The same thing happened all over the world when coins were debased; people quit saving them. There's little doubt this hurt the coin markets all over the world at the same time but this is hard to see because coin markets in most countries are small.

 

It wasn't hard to see when it came to America because the entire coin market simply plummeted. Yes, it was primarily "modern coins" (modern had a different definition then since the market was 1950 to 1965 coins) that took the brunt of the price collapses but nothing fared well. All these new young collectors didn't leave the market and a few drifted into collecting older coins. These prices regained their losses and even resumed their increases before too long. But (and this is the point you're missing) there were no new collectors on an absolute basis. More people drifted back into collecting old coins and their prices rose but the total number of collectors simply began to decrease and mainrtained this decrease untill 1999 and the states coins. Now there is so much hatred not only of the moderns that killed the market (1950 to 1964 coins) that it has spilled over into the debased junk moderns (clad). Old timers belittle the states collectors and their collections because it is debased junk and associated with the collapse of the coin market. We scare away the next generation of collectors because we were once burned and everyone knows base metal isn't worth collecting.

 

 

The simple explanation for everything you just described both now and earlier in this thread is that collectors both today and in the past just do not like the coins you do. The fact there were fewer collectors in the immediate aftermath to the switch over to clad doesn't change this fact. And yes, since it happened world wide, collectors elsewhere thought the same thing.

 

If you are claiming that interest in classics plummeted after the change, it sure isn't what I see in the Red Book prices. The prices of a coin like the Capped Bust half soared in the 1970's and none of these are rare except in a narrow sense such as grade or die variety. This to me indicates that it was the substantial price increases that also contributed to the decline in the number of collectors.

 

Moreover, collectors still mostly do not like circulating moderns now. The best evidence of this is with the ASE and other bullion NCLT coins such as the Britannia and Chinese Pandas. Since the mintage of the 1995-W proof ASE (the "key" date of the entire series) is about 30,000, there must be some unspecified multiple who are active collectors of this series because I doubt anywhere near most of them own this coin. Many are presumably owned by speculators who are not "real" collectors, some by non-collectors who have bought Mint products in the past and still others by collectors who just own this coin but do not collect the series. But even disqualifying this population, its big number.

 

Now compare this to those who are collecting any US circulating modern series and spending the same amounts or near it. It is my proxy for "serious" collector from a financial perspective because those who do so by "cherry picking" at or near face value are not a factor on their market price.

 

In a prior post here, I provided an estimate of 2,000 for all of them combined. I don't think this number is too low (probably actually on the high side) but regardless, it is obvious it shows that collector preferences have not changed anywhere near as much as you seem to think. Because if this isn't true, why aren't ASE collectors buying the circulating coinage instead?

[World Colonial]

 

It is exactly this "knowledge" that base metal (and clad) isn't worth collecting that has created a world where most of the coins minted in the last half century are very hard to find in pristine condition. It was the "knowledge" that the coins are junk that kept us from complaining as the mint cranked out millions upon endless millions of poorly made and unattractive junk. People hardly even looked at the coins. Now everything is different. There are a very few collectors who don't care that the coins were junk and base metal. There are very few collectors but they are running up against virtually no supply.

 

 

I don't believe the primary reason most coins outside the United States cannot be found in pristine condition is for the reason you give. In those countries with established collecting I can see it, but not otherwise. "Classics" were not saved in pristine condition in many (probably) most countries except selectively or entirely by accident, so why exactly should it be a surprise that moderns weren't either?

 

Even today, most collectors outside the US do not care about the criteria you are describing. Its apparent in the low premiums and the lack of interest in TPG. And moreover, they are not going to either, certainly not before they do so for their "classic" equivalents first. This is already evident even now.

 

In the United States, collectors did save at least some moderns dated prior to 1965 in large numbers when they had a reason to do so, a financial one. For example, the 1950-D nickel and the 1960 Lincoln cent.

 

A large number of recent classics were saved during the roll craze. I do not know the specifics but recall it included at least “low” mintage dates such as 1955-D and 1958 quarters and1955 halves. Given the census counts, I presume it also included many better MS Mercury Dimes, Washington quarters, Franklin halves and WLH. Kennedy silver halves are also common even in “high” grade which indicates that a second motive was to save silver coins as a store of value. There would have been zero reason to save rolls of moderns in large numbers in the mid or late 1960’s because the roll speculation was over. And they certainly would not have saved them as an inflation hedge, so why exactly would they do it?

 

In the pre-TPG era, there was also no reason to save moderns as “gems”, “conditional rarities”, “special designation strikes”, die varieties or “monster” toned specimens. It would have been a waste of time economically. If another reason is necessary, it would have been because silver classics were worth more than moderns as they are now. So it only makes sense that collectors would have preserved them more carefully as occurs disproportionately with more expensive coins today.

[World Colonial]

I believe the majority of every coin collector got their start by collecting coins in circulation. For decades even the ANA wrote in their literature that there was nothing in circulation to collect. Thisa was "known" widely and people were steered away from circulating coins. Many responded by not collecting at all. And this same effect occurs when people slam states collectors. Rather than being encouraged they are told the coins are just common junk and if any have high prices it's because there are greater fools out there.

 

I suppose it just depends upon the individual. I never did and still do not care whether anyone else approves of what I collect, and this would be true if I liked moderns as much as you do. Moreover, I do not believe anyone else should either. If anyone wants to collect moderns, I am not trying to talk them out of it, regardless of my opinion of these coins and the same applies to the US classics which I think are relatively overpriced.

 

 

[cladking]

I think your comments about state tax tokens (or coins?) during the depression are interesting. I myself have about a dozen or so hiding somewhere. You remarked that they are scarce, and that's probably the case for some of them, but I'm curious as to how they're "desirable." Of course such items can be desirable personally, but if they are so overlooked, how might they be desireable to a larger population of coin collectors? Perhaps in other words, what do you find appealing about them? As far as I know, their designs are pretty simple, and how they were actually used is probably unknown to most collectors today. Thanks

 

 

Most tax tokens are distressingly common. Worn, corroded, and poorly made MO 1m tax tokens are everywhere and there might still be millions around. Every year more and more of these are discarded in the garbage stream but it might be many decades before this can be considered scarce or even hard to find. Before then there will be collectors so they are in very little danger of ever becoming rare.

 

This same applies to a greater or lesser extent to the other tokens. Most are exceedinfgly common relative the very paltry demand. Most have surviving populations of at least 50,000 or so. There are numerous varieties and there are a few scarce issues.

 

I'm not suggesting everyone (or even anyone) should collect these, but merely observing that if there were any demand there would be a lot of surprises. First and foremost is that finding well struck Gems is extremely tough for almost all of them other than the WA state issues (and these aren't really common per se). As a rule tax tokens are poorly made and in XF to AU condition and have extremely little variability. Only a handfull of collectors (~100) are making any attempt to preserve these for the future and every year that goes by it gets harder to put a set together.

 

These aren't "collectible" by most peoples' definition. But I enjoy such pursuits. I have a few hundred different with a lot of high end AU and Unc "coins" and am always looking for additions. It's a lot of fun to pack up all my duplicates and ship them off to another collector to get his duplicates. Most of the cost of my collection is postage. The second biggest expense is the storage media (it was used by the by). The third largest cost of the collection are the coins themselves. I probably don't have a quarter apiece tied up in them but to me they are priceless because I collect primarily for fun and love rarity. The collection represents a lot of "work" but that just adds to the desirability.

 

This is the same way I've collected world moderns for the main part but I haven't traded off duplicates because I always thought I might live lonmg enough to profit on them. God only knows when collectors will wake up and decide tax tokens are cool; it might be 200 years and it could be sooner. Besides you need tax tokens to trade for tax tokens and no one ever wanted my duplicate cu/ ni world coins.

[World Colonial]

What you are describing would have impacted primarily those who collected out of pocket change. It would not have made any difference to those who were paying any premiums worth mentioning. The price increases that I recall were on the order of five or even 10 times in less than or within a decade, though I do not know if the "Red Book" values were the same as the actual retail prices.

 

No! Today there are almost two different coin markets but in 1965 there was one coin market and it collapsed when it was announced in September 1964 that dates would be frozen and base metal introduced. This was a staged collapse that progressed with each new edict from Philadelphia or Congress. But the collapse was complete even before the first clads began appearing in November, 1965.

 

Then how do you explain the price increases in the Red Book editions I just mentioned? Do I need to provide you with specific examples?

 

This indicates that what you are describing was mostly limited to those who paid nominal or no premiums for their coins and in making these comments, I am not "knocking" these collectors. I can see that the rise of "investing in the 70's with the rise of gold and silver would apply to many mint state coins, real rarities and especially generic Morgan dollar and type gold, but not to a coin such as the capped bust half. Except in isolation, I'm not aware that its ever bene viewed as an "investment" coin at all.

[World Colonial]

What I'm trying to tell you is that everything is perspective. There is no independent reality that says an 8 pillar is better to collect than mardi gras doubloon or matchbooks. We each have a perspective that is largely shared but this perspective always changes over time. I would far rather buy a rare and Gem tax token for 25c than a rare and Gem morgan dollar for half a million. This is independent of market value. The fact is that the tax token can be rarer and equally satisfying to own. The fact that it is seen as junk and not even a real "coin" by most collectors just adds to its allure. The fact that not one coin collector in ten thousands will even know it's rare is a plus. The fact that it can be had cheaply makes collections highly affordable. I know that even the tiniest change in collectors' perspectives can have a tremendous impact on the price of the tax "token". But the reason I seek such items isn't for profit but the satisfaction of owning rare and desirable items that are a part of American history.

 

Someday this era of American history will be studied and judged and it will not only be judged more favorably but it will be remembered more favorably if the surviving coins are Gems instead of the junk that was cranked out. History is largely smoke and mirrors and my Gem clads will provide the mirrors.

 

I am aware of what you describe. Everyone can have their preferences while still acknowledging that some coins are higher and others are lower in the preference scale.

 

In the examples you gave, the lopsided proportion will consider the Pillar dollar "better" than those other examples and you know it. This is an implicit standard which I presume everyone "knows" and what I was using as an assumption when I wrote that last post.

 

I think you know it and that you had to use such an obscure example to support your claim indicates to me that even you know that your argument is a very weak one. Because if this is not true, you could have easily found one which is more persuasive.

[cladking]

 

The simple explanation for everything you just described both now and earlier in this thread is that collectors both today and in the past just do not like the coins you do. The fact there were fewer collectors in the immediate aftermath to the switch over to clad doesn't change this fact. And yes, since it happened world wide, collectors elsewhere thought the same thing.

 

If you are claiming that interest in classics plummeted after the change, it sure isn't what I see in the Red Book prices. The prices of a coin like the Capped Bust half soared in the 1970's and none of these are rare except in a narrow sense such as grade or die variety. This to me indicates that it was the substantial price increases that also contributed to the decline in the number of collectors.

 

Moreover, collectors still mostly do not like circulating moderns now. The best evidence of this is with the ASE and other bullion NCLT coins such as the Britannia and Chinese Pandas. Since the mintage of the 1995-W proof ASE (the "key" date of the entire series) is about 30,000, there must be some unspecified multiple who are active collectors of this series because I doubt anywhere near most of them own this coin. Many are presumably owned by speculators who are not "real" collectors, some by non-collectors who have bought Mint products in the past and still others by collectors who just own this coin but do not collect the series. But even disqualifying this population, its big number.

 

Now compare this to those who are collecting any US circulating modern series and spending the same amounts or near it. It is my proxy for "serious" collector from a financial perspective because those who do so by "cherry picking" at or near face value are not a factor on their market price.

 

In a prior post here, I provided an estimate of 2,000 for all of them combined. I don't think this number is too low (probably actually on the high side) but regardless, it is obvious it shows that collector preferences have not changed anywhere near as much as you seem to think. Because if this isn't true, why aren't ASE collectors buying the circulating coinage instead?

 

We're actually in a lot of agreement and it's primarily our perspectives that vary. We are all pretty passionate collectors here and naturally we tend to be most passionate about what we collect.

 

But there are a couple things I believe your perspective is distorting. The entire coin market was affected in 1964 because there wasn't the division in it that exists now. A dealer sold old and new coins and made no distinction between them. It was mostly younger collectors and speculators buying the newer coins and mostly older collectors (long since passed away) collecting the older coins. But when business was damaged by the collapse in moderns it did affect everything. The older coins weren't as dramatically or directly affected but the collapse took many millions of dollars out of the coin market. It removed almost all the demand for new coins IN PERPETUITY. Even coins that wouldn't be made for decades were assured a place on the hit list because people feared moderns and when the silver was removed, they hated them as well. This has not gone away. This loathing isn't as pronounced as it once was largely because the hobby has more new people in it and many individual's stance has softened over the many decades. The loathing is strongest in the US because collectors were blamed and punished for the coin shortage in 1964. People quit collecting new coins.

 

The same thing happened in other countries but in most instanced everyone just lost interest in the new coins because they were poorly made in vast quantities and had no silver. For all these reasons they weren't saved. For these exact same reasons they aren't widely collected today.

 

Despite not being widely collected their prices are soaring even higher than the silver coins they replaced. This low demand and high price reflects a very very low supply.

[cladking]

 

I don't believe the primary reason most coins outside the United States cannot be found in pristine condition is for the reason you give. In those countries with established collecting I can see it, but not otherwise. "Classics" were not saved in pristine condition in many (probably) most countries except selectively or entirely by accident, so why exactly should it be a surprise that moderns weren't either?

 

Of course many pristine silver coins were saved by accident initially. But they were saved largely because they were silver. This hasn't happened with modern coins because they aren't silver.

 

Even today, most collectors outside the US do not care about the criteria you are describing.

 

What criteria?!? All I'm suggesting is that most modern collectors want Unc.

 

In the US If even a few want choice or Gem Unc then supplies would not be there.

 

In the pre-TPG era, there was also no reason to save moderns as “gems”, “conditional rarities”, “special designation strikes”, die varieties or “monster” toned specimens. It would have been a waste of time economically. If another reason is necessary, it would have been because silver classics were worth more than moderns as they are now. So it only makes sense that collectors would have preserved them more carefully as occurs disproportionately with more expensive coins today.

 

There were plenty of collectors for gorgeous coinsa before the TPG's. This is primarily what gave rise to the TPG's; they filled a demand. In the old days it was very hard to find a Gemmy '55 half dollar. Even though there were thousands of rolls it was very expensive to check them. Gem sets are much cheaper now for the main part than they were in 1980 and it's far easier to sell your coins at a fair price.

[World Colonial]

The primary reason I do not believe this type of collecting is popular at all outside the US is because the coins are so much cheaper and scarcer. Finding many of these coins is hard enough without creating artificial definitions of scarcity as is done here in the US. And since many more coins are available to many more collectors, specialization isn't necessary from a financial aspect either. Its the affordability issue with US coins that I believe increases the appeal of this type of collecting and the fact that it has developed far more extensively since the TPG era seems to support it.

 

I'm not even going to try to respond to the whole post since it's the same thing I've respoded to for a decade on the net.

 

"This type of collecting" as you call it isn't popular in the US either. One of about a dozen known 1972-D type b reverse quarters sold for $50 recently. Can you imagine if this were a rare morgan or bust dollar!

 

Modern collecting is even less common in the US than it is in Russia or India. This is why their moderns are exploding in price and ours aren't. This is the point!

 

There are modern US collectors but few are collecting the older circulating moderns like they are in other countries. This is where Krause has dropped the ball in pricing.

 

You say the prices of US moderns haven't exploded? Then how much exactly do you think these coins should be worth? By "these coins" I am talking about "conditional rarities" and those in the "Top 100" which include numerous die varieties and exclusing bullion..However unpopular it is in the US, I don't see that is is more popular elsewhere. There may be a handful of world moderns, such as the South Africa 2008 Mandela 90th Birthday 5R in MS-69, but nowhere near as many as in the US.

 

None of these coins are remotely "cheap" even if they are priced lower or much lower than comparably scarce classics.

 

On that 1972 quarter, I already provided an explanation to you in a prior post on this thread why a coin like that isn't that popular. Do you have a better explanation? If you don't remember the post, I will point you to it.

 

I don't know how many circulating moderns fit the profile of the 1972 quarter or one like it. But regardless, I can't think of one single reason why a disproportionate number of them (much less all of them) should be worth what you apparently think they should be. If you have one, then what exactly is it?

[cladking]

I believe the majority of every coin collector got their start by collecting coins in circulation. For decades even the ANA wrote in their literature that there was nothing in circulation to collect. Thisa was "known" widely and people were steered away from circulating coins. Many responded by not collecting at all. And this same effect occurs when people slam states collectors. Rather than being encouraged they are told the coins are just common junk and if any have high prices it's because there are greater fools out there.

 

I suppose it just depends upon the individual. I never did and still do not care whether anyone else approves of what I collect, and this would be true if I liked moderns as much as you do. Moreover, I do not believe anyone else should either. If anyone wants to collect moderns, I am not trying to talk them out of it, regardless of my opinion of these coins and the same applies to the US classics which I think are relatively overpriced.

 

 

This is why so few collectors started collecting between 1965 and 1998; people believed there was nothing in circulation to collect. Once the states coins came out the perspective changed and many millions of new collectors have come around. Over time they will branch out to collecting everything.

 

This thread seems anecdotal evidencxe that one of the things they're collecting now is world coins.

[cladking]

What you are describing would have impacted primarily those who collected out of pocket change. It would not have made any difference to those who were paying any premiums worth mentioning. The price increases that I recall were on the order of five or even 10 times in less than or within a decade, though I do not know if the "Red Book" values were the same as the actual retail prices.

 

No! Today there are almost two different coin markets but in 1965 there was one coin market and it collapsed when it was announced in September 1964 that dates would be frozen and base metal introduced. This was a staged collapse that progressed with each new edict from Philadelphia or Congress. But the collapse was complete even before the first clads began appearing in November, 1965.

 

Then how do you explain the price increases in the Red Book editions I just mentioned? Do I need to provide you with specific examples?

 

 

As you said, the increases were in the 1970's. These were caused by the many millions of young new collectors of the baby boomer generation branching into older coins. As this progressed they also branxched into world coins and Krause started publication inm 1975. The coin market was inheriterd by the boomers as the old timers passed away all through the '70's and '80's.

 

Now this is happening again as the boomers retire or pass away over the next quarter century. We're well into it already with the oldest boomers having retired three years ago. Each year over the next ten years will have geometric increases in the boomers retiring. After this it will begin to decrease gradually.

 

When this process is over it will be not only the coin transformed but to a very real extent, the entire world.

[cladking]

I think you know it and that you had to use such an obscure example to support your claim indicates to me that even you know that your argument is a very weak one. Because if this is not true, you could have easily found one which is more persuasive.

 

Nobody knows what the future holds because the future is largely determined by events that haven't happened yet. Many things can be foreseen clearly because they depend on the past. How details play out are necessarily unforesseable though some people can phrase things ambiguously enough that they seem to have a crystal ball.

 

But one of the most impossible things to predict is behavior of crowds or "collector demand". Demand tends to be highly ephemeral and based on unidentifiable triggers. The demand manifests as a tremendous force that can push anything from tulip bulbs to beanie babies to remarkable levels. The people demanding this stuff don't know that it's "just" a beanie baby, they just know that prices are exploding.

 

This isn't just about the extreme cases because ultimately this is how the value of every single thing is set. There's nothing intrinsic to gold that says its value is $1300 per ounce and there's no reason we have to grow just enough sugar to have its price at the current level. Gold and sugar have a more predictable demand and effort is made to keep the supply in tandem with it so price swings are more regular rather than following the beanie baby paradigm.

 

There's nothing in nature that says an eight pillar coin must have some specific demand. The supply is what it is and is decreasing gradually as coins are lost or destroyed. Many collectors historically have considered these important coins and collect them. The supply and demand have balanced out at current prices that are a derivartive of older prices since supply and demand are relatively stable. Tens of thousands of people collect or own one of these coins.

 

We tend to believe the price is predictable because it always has been. Like everything it has more to do with the status quo than the intrinsic value or scarcity of the coins.

 

This same applies to the tax token but rather than large numbers collecting them there are only around 100. What is there about a rare NM token in Gem condition that requires it be worth 4c? Sure, a knowledgeable collector would pay a few dollars but for the main part it's worth 4c because this is what they go for in bulk. How can you see that in the future there aren't ten or twelve collectors willing to compete for this coin? How do you know there won't be tens of thousands of US coin collectors who need any specimen for their collection and are willing to bid as well?

 

Such high prices can't really happen overnight any more than millions and millions of people can start collecting beanie babies overnight. Would it really seem that strange to you to see such things? What do you think of the modern Indian proof sets that have gone from $10 to $1500 in the last couple years?

 

Things change and perspectives can change on a dime.

[World Colonial]

In the US If even a few want choice or Gem Unc then supplies would not be there.

 

You and I must have a different definition of "few". I concur with you that "conditional" rarities (as a proxy for your "gems") are not available in any supply. This is usually or always going to be true by definition except maybe for post 1998 issues.

 

Using the "undergrade" coins such as the PCGS MS-66 1983-P quarter from a prior post as a proxy for "choice", I do not consider either the probable survivors or even current census counts as "few". There were 219 in the PCGS census the last time I checked and I "guestimated" maybe 500 actually exist.

 

This number is not that low except compared to the more common dates in the classic series I term "perennial collector" favorites. I agree that the supply of scarcer circulating moderns is lower than these but don't really see anything particularly significant in this comparison.

[World Colonial]

I think you know it and that you had to use such an obscure example to support your claim indicates to me that even you know that your argument is a very weak one. Because if this is not true, you could have easily found one which is more persuasive.

 

Nobody knows what the future holds because the future is largely determined by events that haven't happened yet. Many things can be foreseen clearly because they depend on the past. How details play out are necessarily unforesseable though some people can phrase things ambiguously enough that they seem to have a crystal ball.

 

But one of the most impossible things to predict is behavior of crowds or "collector demand". Demand tends to be highly ephemeral and based on unidentifiable triggers. The demand manifests as a tremendous force that can push anything from tulip bulbs to beanie babies to remarkable levels. The people demanding this stuff don't know that it's "just" a beanie baby, they just know that prices are exploding.

 

This isn't just about the extreme cases because ultimately this is how the value of every single thing is set. There's nothing intrinsic to gold that says its value is $1300 per ounce and there's no reason we have to grow just enough sugar to have its price at the current level. Gold and sugar have a more predictable demand and effort is made to keep the supply in tandem with it so price swings are more regular rather than following the beanie baby paradigm.

 

There's nothing in nature that says an eight pillar coin must have some specific demand. The supply is what it is and is decreasing gradually as coins are lost or destroyed. Many collectors historically have considered these important coins and collect them. The supply and demand have balanced out at current prices that are a derivartive of older prices since supply and demand are relatively stable. Tens of thousands of people collect or own one of these coins.

 

We tend to believe the price is predictable because it always has been. Like everything it has more to do with the status quo than the intrinsic value or scarcity of the coins.

 

This same applies to the tax token but rather than large numbers collecting them there are only around 100. What is there about a rare NM token in Gem condition that requires it be worth 4c? Sure, a knowledgeable collector would pay a few dollars but for the main part it's worth 4c because this is what they go for in bulk. How can you see that in the future there aren't ten or twelve collectors willing to compete for this coin? How do you know there won't be tens of thousands of US coin collectors who need any specimen for their collection and are willing to bid as well?

 

Such high prices can't really happen overnight any more than millions and millions of people can start collecting beanie babies overnight. Would it really seem that strange to you to see such things? What do you think of the modern Indian proof sets that have gone from $10 to $1500 in the last couple years?

 

Things change and perspectives can change on a dime.

 

I don't believe preferences are as an unpredictable as this post of yours seems to imply. Sure, there is uncertainty on future prices because even a handful of buyers can change them substantially given such lliquid markets but even this does not create the unpredictability you imply.

 

If you look across any number of series, those which people like today were likely preferred in the past and we can see it in the price levels.

 

Taking a few examples, the relative popularity has not changed substantially (if at all) with the series that I know and there is no reason to believe it will. Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that the Spanish portrait will become more popular than the pillar coinage, UK Queen Victoria “Veiled Head” more so than “Young Head” or Commonwealth KGVI versus KGV? The overwhelming evidence and obvious answer is no just as it is between the Mercury and FDR dimes. It isn't an accident that most collectors like the first dime much better than the second one just as it isn't with the others. Collectors collectively find the first series appealing and the others much less so or even not at all.

[cladking]

 

 

You say the prices of US moderns haven't exploded? Then how much exactly do you think these coins should be worth? By "these coins" I am talking about "conditional rarities" and those in the "Top 100" which include numerous die varieties and exclusing bullion.

 

I'm not talking about "conditional rarities"!!! Coins that are high end are collected by a cross section of a few different groups but not each oif these groups is representative of the typical modern collector (of whow few exist). Some typical collectors buy high end coins but for the main part the people I'm talking about just want a nice attractive coin for their collection and are willing to upgrade as they have a chance.

 

A collector collecting this way will have ;lots of so called MS-64 and MS-65 coins with a few higher grades. Their aggregate demand is visible below the highest grades. It's here in this region that thereare so very few collectors. Sure, tens of thousands have bought the already assembled sets from dealers or TV but most of these coins are just typical condition; junk. Some of these collectors started with the pre-assembled sets and upgraded from there. Some started with circs in circulation and upgraded. But the total amount of demand is small and part of the reson is the distortions in the price guides. Collectors see thaty a needed coin lists for 5 or $10 and they try to hold out for this price but each nice one they see is marked at $50 so no transaction takes place. Collections and demand are held back because of inaccuracies in the guides.

 

People have the mistaken notion that only the highest graded moderns are rare but this simply isn't the case. They can be highly elusive even in much lower grades. This can't be seen primarily because there is no demand and secondarily because of the inaccuracies in the guides.

 

I don't believe it's "natural" for there to be twenty buffalo nickel collectors for every clad quarter collector.

 

I predict a regression to the mean.

 

 

 

 

 

[World Colonial]

People have the mistaken notion that only the highest graded moderns are rare but this simply isn't the case. They can be highly elusive even in much lower grades. This can't be seen primarily because there is no demand and secondarily because of the inaccuracies in the guides.

 

I don't believe it's "natural" for there to be twenty buffalo nickel collectors for every clad quarter collector.

 

I predict a regression to the mean.

 

These coins are not rare except as "conditional" rarities, die varieties, special designation strikes, errors and toned coins. All of these are either narrow or arbitrary definitions of "rarity".

 

In my last post, I used the 1983-P quarter in MS-66 as an example. Its a "ballpark" guesstimate" but whether the number is somewhat higher or lower, this implies that there are potentially thousands in a grade like MS-65 and even much larger number in a grade like MS-64. I know that you do not find these grades satisfactory but many others will, especially given your implied price expectations.

 

You and I have discussed "natural" several times in this thread. There is no such thing as "natural" and there never was because there is, was and never will be any requirement that collectors prefer any coin or series in any proportion, whether they used it in circulation or not.

 

Since there is no "natural" in collecting, there can't be any reversion to the mean either. From what I can see, this is where you come up with your demographic claims where supposedly age is a predominant factor in collector preferences. The example of the ASE that I just provided refutes this notion much better than any other evidence you have provided. If a reversion to the mean was actually a valid concept, the lopsided preference between the ASE and all US circulating moderns (and their world counterparts) should be impossible.

 

The parts of your (demographic) claims that I agree with are that the decline in the number of baby boomers will result in a decline in those who collect classics. But I agree with this not because of age, but because either the number of collectors is going to shrink in absolute terms or that a (much) larger proportion of those who replace them will collect world coins for the reasons Mohawk and I explained in our prior posts.

 

As a result of this, yes, I can see the number of Buffalo nickel collectors decreasing and maybe substantially. I can also see that the number of collectors of clad quarters (or other circulating moderns) will increase somewhat and because of the small market at present, maybe it will result in the prices of these coins surpassing more of the later classics price wise but only where they are actually scarcer.

 

But in making these comments, there is no basis that I can see that there will be any future surge of collectors who will be "clamoring" to pay much higher prices for these coins except in isolation.

[cladking]

In the US If even a few want choice or Gem Unc then supplies would not be there.

 

You and I must have a different definition of "few". I concur with you that "conditional" rarities (as a proxy for your "gems") are not available in any supply. This is usually or always going to be true by definition except maybe for post 1998 issues.

 

Using the "undergrade" coins such as the PCGS MS-66 1983-P quarter from a prior post as a proxy for "choice", I do not consider either the probable survivors or even current census counts as "few". There were 219 in the PCGS census the last time I checked and I "guestimated" maybe 500 actually exist.

 

This number is not that low except compared to the more common dates in the classic series I term "perennial collector" favorites. I agree that the supply of scarcer circulating moderns is lower than these but don't really see anything particularly significant in this comparison.

 

In this case by a "few" I mean a reasonable percentage of percentage of a mass market; maybe 10 or 20%. This percentage will be and is much higher for moderns because most moderns are junk and no collectors ever wanted junky specimens.

 

When it comes to well made coins with little marking I don't agree with the grading of moderns. The graders forgive a lot of ugliness on moderns. Chicken scratching often doesn't affect the grade and even weak peripheral lettering has little effect.

 

I seriously doubt a true Gem 1982-P quarter even exists and I'd be surprised if there are more than a few dozens 1983-P and, possibly a lot fewer. I have a virtually Gem '82-P and even though the '83-P was much better made I've not seen many in high grade. Even though the best souvenir set coins are 63 many of the high grades come from these sets per my understanding. I detest chicken scratching and never used to save even the best coins that exhibited it.

[cladking]

 

 

I don't believe preferences are as an unpredictable as this post of yours seems to imply. Sure, there is uncertainty on future prices because even a handful of buyers can change them substantially given such lliquid markets but even this does not create the unpredictability you imply.

 

I couldn't disagree more. I've seen some pretty strange things over the years like art bars that sold for huge prices with large mintages. I wanted to own these as much as many people did but I waited until the price came down. I didn't pay 150 1972 dollars for the 1971 FM Christmas bar, I paid 4 1986 dollars for it.

 

This is just the nature of markets.

 

Markets have been relatively "stable" for the last half century but this is primarily related to the fact that supply and demand has been set by the same group of individuals. This group is beginning to change. About 80% of the collectors active in in 2010 will be gone in 2030 and they will be replaced by different individuals and more than twice as many. Their tastes and their demand will be the result of their perspectives. They will be a far more diverse group with more women and more "minorities". The demand will be more widespread and come from all corners of the earth. No one can predict what they want any more than we can predict what will be hot next week.

 

There are some things that seem obvious though. It's unlikely they'll be as concerned that their coins contain silver or gold. Many of these collectors are in the "bullion" issues now so it's a safe bet silver isn't going out of style. They'll have more diverse interests caused by the availability of information due to the internet. The TPG's will assure quality doesn't go completely out of style. Coins will have lower spreads and some things that once had huge spreads (like tax tokens today) will have much narrower spreads as information and the abilty to buy and sell easily become more widely available.

 

It's a very exciting time to be in the hobby whether your tastes are for eight pillars or clad. Yes, a lot of the "low hanging fruit" has been plucked but the roads to the orchards are now in place as well. Over the next 20 years there will be an opportunity to actually acquire coins that are both rare and known to be rare from collections like mine for a relative pittance compared to their potentials. Where today's old timers worked in the blind future collectors will have x-ray glasses. And there's something for everyone because there are still lots of things that are unstudied, unloved, and going begging. There is the ability to buy most established coins with just a few clicks of the mouse.

 

What's not to love?

[World Colonial]

In the US If even a few want choice or Gem Unc then supplies would not be there.

 

You and I must have a different definition of "few". I concur with you that "conditional" rarities (as a proxy for your "gems") are not available in any supply. This is usually or always going to be true by definition except maybe for post 1998 issues.

 

Using the "undergrade" coins such as the PCGS MS-66 1983-P quarter from a prior post as a proxy for "choice", I do not consider either the probable survivors or even current census counts as "few". There were 219 in the PCGS census the last time I checked and I "guestimated" maybe 500 actually exist.

 

This number is not that low except compared to the more common dates in the classic series I term "perennial collector" favorites. I agree that the supply of scarcer circulating moderns is lower than these but don't really see anything particularly significant in this comparison.

 

In this case by a "few" I mean a reasonable percentage of percentage of a mass market; maybe 10 or 20%. This percentage will be and is much higher for moderns because most moderns are junk and no collectors ever wanted junky specimens.

 

When it comes to well made coins with little marking I don't agree with the grading of moderns. The graders forgive a lot of ugliness on moderns. Chicken scratching often doesn't affect the grade and even weak peripheral lettering has little effect.

 

I seriously doubt a true Gem 1982-P quarter even exists and I'd be surprised if there are more than a few dozens 1983-P and, possibly a lot fewer. I have a virtually Gem '82-P and even though the '83-P was much better made I've not seen many in high grade. Even though the best souvenir set coins are 63 many of the high grades come from these sets per my understanding. I detest chicken scratching and never used to save even the best coins that exhibited it.

 

You are just applying an even more narrow (and in my opinion, completely arbitratry) standard of scarcity. Nobody but a specialist such as yourself cares about what most others consider trivial differences in quality and numismatic minutia.

 

You are attempting to convince others that these coins are actually scarce when it is obvious that the supply is greater in whatever quality you want to use except for a very small number of other coins. These coins are of course, the more recent classics and the Morgan dollar. These coins are disproportionately as common as a grain of sand on the beach and none of them are remotely scarce.

 

Applied to the extreme (which is exactly what you just did), any coin can be considered "rare". No, what I was talking about is the application of these terms as most see them and by this standard, I believe the descriptions I provided are understood by practically anyone.

[World Colonial]

 

 

I don't believe preferences are as an unpredictable as this post of yours seems to imply. Sure, there is uncertainty on future prices because even a handful of buyers can change them substantially given such lliquid markets but even this does not create the unpredictability you imply.

 

I couldn't disagree more. I've seen some pretty strange things over the years like art bars that sold for huge prices with large mintages. I wanted to own these as much as many people did but I waited until the price came down. I didn't pay 150 1972 dollars for the 1971 FM Christmas bar, I paid 4 1986 dollars for it.

 

 

To prevent an inordinately long post, I have only copied this portion of your reply but it is intended to cover all of it. This is my first reply.

 

Nothing you just wrote provided any reason to believe why a change in popularity will occur in any of the examples I used or any other coins like them. The example you gave of the art bars does not remotely reflect the preferences which create the popularity in the series I mentioned and I think you know it also, just as you did in your prior response to this particular idea.

 

I am aware that people have free will and can change their minds. And since I have been making most of the points about culture and cultural differences in this thread, I am aware of that also.

 

The example you used here and previously with the tax tokens, there is no market of any depth for an item like that. Given the handfull of collectors who pursue them, any change in popularity can easily be the result of random chance which is essentially impossible to predict in advance.

 

The series I have mentioned, the popularity has been in place (to my knowledge), either since these coins were first struck or at least since they were initially collected covering either decades or a few centuries. There is no equivalence between your examples and mine whatsoever and to imply that one exists doesn't even make any sense. The next thing you will be trying to tell me is that presidential, SBA and Sacagewea dollars are poised to overtake the ASE in popularity. This is an intentionally exaggerated example but a change in preference for the three I just listed is not plausible without some reason either.

 

Other than these esoteric examples, can you provide even one example where there has been a "meaningful" change in popularity between two or more series? I use the term "meaningful" because I am aware that the relative popularity between US series has changed somewhat since 1975 when I started collecting as I stated before, but none whatsoever in the order. While going on 39 years now since I started collecting is not 'forever", it is certainly more than enough time for anyone reading this thread.

 

If one exists, what is it and when did it happen? What factors drove the change and how do they relate to your entire theme?

 

The most important factors that I know are generic to collecting and are the same ones you know: 1) Coins bought as "investments" 2) TPG 3) internet and 4) Registry sets. If you want to add a fifth one, I would include increased specialization. These have impacted some series more than others. With moderns, I would say that 4) has impacted them more than any other US series while 1) has had almost no impact at all.

[World Colonial]

It's a very exciting time to be in the hobby whether your tastes are for eight pillars or clad. Yes, a lot of the "low hanging fruit" has been plucked but the roads to the orchards are now in place as well. Over the next 20 years there will be an opportunity to actually acquire coins that are both rare and known to be rare from collections like mine for a relative pittance compared to their potentials. Where today's old timers worked in the blind future collectors will have x-ray glasses. And there's something for everyone because there are still lots of things that are unstudied, unloved, and going begging. There is the ability to buy most established coins with just a few clicks of the mouse.

 

This is my second reply.

 

I'm not sure what coins you own and I assume that you acquired them at favorable prices (in many instances years or decades ago). I expect you to do well when you finally sell them.

 

Having said that, I will probably disagree with the opportunity you see first for the many reasons I have included in this thread and second, for what I describe below.

 

For traditional collecting as it has existed in the US and most everywhere else in modern times to continue, a market’s pricing structure must leave enough coins affordable to enough collectors so that they can actually buy what they both want and can reasonably afford, whatever it may be. If this does not exist, then we aren’t talking about actual collecting but disproportionately “widget” trading among "deep pocket" “investors”.

 

Looking at the options in US coinage, there are probably somewhere in the vicinity of 7500 available. This includes patterns, colonials, commemoratives, territorial gold and regular issues for both proofs and business strikes. Expanding this to include specialization, maybe it’s 20,000 or somewhat more. The latter includes die varieties, “special designation strikes”, errors and toned coins.

 

If the potential options are further expanded to consider all “price points”, then maybe it is as many as 100,000 to 200,000 combinations. In this context, an 1881 (date) S (MM) MS-65 (grade) Morgan (design) dollar (denomination) is one price point while the MS-66 is another. A VF 1982 lincoln cent isn’t because no one is going to pay a premium for it, at least today.

 

What I am describing above, this supply along with the other attributes in the United States is what I believe accounts for the US price structure as I have partly explained in these posts. Because of the variety combined with ability and willingness to pay, historically there have been enough coins for most collectors to buy something they both want and can afford.

 

However, everything has its limits. In the US, the series that I typically hear as being cheap are those that have always been less popular than others. This includes the Peace and Trade dollar among large coins. The odd denominations (such as 3CN) and maybe the barber and some Liberty Seated coinage among classics generally. And lastly, circulating moderns across the board except for “conditional rarities” and a few others in specialties.

 

The question I have for those who think that these series are unfairly undervalued is this one. If these prices rise to what you believe they are “worth”, then what exactly is the traditional collector supposed to buy?

 

How does this relate to your theme? It is in the second to last paragraph above. If I/we were to ask the enthusiasts of the other series I listed whether these coins are "undervalued", I suspect many would answer "yes". You think moderns are "too cheap' and someone else thinks the same about those series. All of you cannot be right without the result I am describing which is exactly what would probably happen if your expectations turn out to be correct.

[cladking]

You are attempting to convince others that these coins are actually scarce when it is obvious that the supply is greater in whatever quality you want to use except for a very small number of other coins. These coins are of course, the more recent classics and the Morgan dollar. These coins are disproportionately as common as a grain of sand on the beach and none of them are remotely scarce.

 

Applied to the extreme (which is exactly what you just did), any coin can be considered "rare". No, what I was talking about is the application of these terms as most see them and by this standard, I believe the descriptions I provided are understood by practically anyone.

 

These are US coins!

 

People treat modern US like it was made on the moon or something because they aren't silver. You keep talking about arbitrary standards and differences but the number of Ikes in high grade is a tiny fraction of the number of morgans and these sell for a tiny fraction of the price. They are no less US coins than are bust dollars.

 

Calling them common has no effect on their availability. That they are common in MS-50 is irrelevant. That they are common in AU-55 is irrelevant. If you want a nice Unc there are few and there will never be more. It's the same thing with a '50-E 10p (E Germ). These are tough in Unc because they weren't saved. Nice Ikes are tough in ANY grade because they were made poorly.

 

Moderns aren't only about grade. You only see grade but collectors see coins. Some of these coins aren't high grade because all moderns don't even exist in Unc much less in Gem.

 

This isn't really about Krause or even foreign coin grading.

 

These coins that we're talking about aren't available in Unc but in the US most moderns were saved but only awful examples were saved because the mint made awful coins. This is a simple enough concept but I've used all the words I know to state it.

[cladking]

 

Other than these esoteric examples, can you provide even one example where there has been a "meaningful" change in popularity between two or more series? I use the term "meaningful" because I am aware that the relative popularity between US series has changed somewhat since 1975 when I started collecting as I stated before, but none whatsoever in the order. While going on 39 years now since I started collecting is not 'forever", it is certainly more than enough time for anyone reading this thread.

 

 

We sure are on different pages here!

 

Tax tokens have a very sedate demand. It's entirely possible the few collectors will change their relative valuations. But such changes are primarily indepent of the number of collectors. Mass movements are taken by massive numbers of people. If 30 of 100 change it is equivalent to 300 million of a billion. Getting thirty people to agree to a change is no easier than herding cats but they WILL still change and you can't stop it or predict it.

 

This is the real world where things are always changing.

 

One of these changes is underway right now. Just a few years ago a 1954 Indian proof set was considered junk and might be broken up for the junk box. You couldn't trade 5 of them for a beat up 1920's era one Rupee coin. Now you'd need about 70 nice BU 1920's era Rupee coins to trade for the same set. Maybe wiser people are selling 1954 proof sets and buying the Rupees. But the markjet has most assuredly turned because the rupees, while highly desirable are common, and 1954 proof sets are rare. The demand for Rupees hasn't decreased and still dwarfs the demand for the proof set. You can find dozens of collections of Rupees for each collection of the proof coins or sets.

 

It's not high demand causing high prices in moderns. The demand is low. It's the fact that for the very first time ever there is actually a little demand and there's even less supply. Most world moderns including US moderns have very low demand. In the US "very low" means a few thousand collectors. In Fiji "very low" means virtually no collectors at all.

[cladking]

 

The question I have for those who think that these series are unfairly undervalued is this one. If these prices rise to what you believe they are “worth”, then what exactly is the traditional collector supposed to buy?

 

How does this relate to your theme? It is in the second to last paragraph above. If I/we were to ask the enthusiasts of the other series I listed whether these coins are "undervalued", I suspect many would answer "yes". You think moderns are "too cheap' and someone else thinks the same about those series. All of you cannot be right without the result I am describing which is exactly what would probably happen if your expectations turn out to be correct.

 

I'm not sure of your point in this post. PCGS alone has graded some 30,000,000 classics. There are many tens of millions of slabbable coins already graded and there are probably a lot more with today's pricing structure that haven't been sent in yet. If prices rise many tens of millions more coins can be slabbed. Tens of millions of tokens and medals can be sent in. Hundreds of millions of world coins can become slabbable. Yes, of course slabbing might not become common in many countries. The point is that I can hardly imagine a dearth of collectable coins. About one and a quarter trillion coins have been made in human history and fully 25% survive.

 

What's not to collect?

 

If a Gem 1880-S dollar gets out of your price range there are plenty of XF's. If enough people want XF's the price will go up.

 

I just can't see your arguments here. We're nnot goinfg to run low on coins ever. Some could become out of most peoples' price range but that won't be anything new.

[cladking]

Nobody should collect anything except for their own enjoyment and few people are going to enjoy collecting tax tokens. It's a lot of work and at the end of the day you "just" have tax tokens that are very very inexpensive and very very difficult to get their full value when you sell.

 

I think the real difference in our opinion isn't so much the relative "merits" of ZAR coins over clad so much as that you believe the status quo has some causation that will keep it entrenched forever. As I see it demographics is a far more powerful force in collectibles than the status quo. In collectibles it's largely the demographics which creates the status quo. In the world at large change comes more slowly because you can't just tear down buggy whip factories the same day the automobile is invented. There is no real infrastructure of this sort in collectables market. If every Morgan collector decided to switch to Fijian dollars tomorrow the services wouldn't even need to order new holders for the coins.

 

Tastes change and this is what the status quo in collectibles is; tastes. Yes, collectors will probably care about the same things they do today and some things might never get very popular. Tax tokens are cardboard, aluminum, plastic, zinc and materials that many people will never collect. Fijian coins will never be US coins. Soviet minors will never be silver.

 

The 19th century will forever be one of the most important eras in human history but it's not the only one that can be collected and this is mostly just tastes. People like the histoiry, beauty, romance, and "intrinsic value" of the coins and they will always be collected but this doesn't preclude some people collecting world coins, tokens, and medals of any century.

 

The internet and mass communications will have profound effects on everything and collectibles will be among the most profoundly affected. Collectables are more able to "turn on a dime" than most areas of human interest. The changes are even less predictable going forward than they were in the past but there are two big ones coming; demographic and a growing reliance on the net.

 

I think it's probably a safe bet that things that couldn't even be collected in the past due to lack of information and availability will benefit greatly by both of these changes. The continued existence of the TPG's will allow coins and collectables that weren't even available to be seen and purchased by anyone with a computer.

 

When I bought my first computer internet service was $15/ month and the computer was $600. Now a computer costs $300 and service is $100. Things keep changing. A 1954 Indian proof set wasn't worth the cost of slabbing a few years back. Now that cost is nearly incidental to its value. Even though the status quo itself is nearly inviolate things change within it.

[Mohawk]

very good points world colonial! I think you're dead on there, both with the lack of knowledge of the huge number of choices out there for the numismatist who looks at the entire world and with many US Collectors being stuck on super high grade pieces. See what I wrote about Registry Points for my further thoughts on that issue!!! I know for myself, my collection consists of a variety of grades ranging from VF to MS 67 and PF 69. But as I said before, I buy 90% of my coins raw and grade them myself for the purposes of preservation and sharing them on here in the Registry. Whatever number they score is fine with me as I bought the coin and not a label with a number on it. A nice coin is a nice coin, regardless of grade number. However, I try to avoid going below the grade of Fine with my collection for the sake of eye appeal and remaining detail on a coin. It's not a grade snobbery thing, or anything like that. It's simple eye appeal.

 

~Tom