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

[Mohawk]

Hey there Joe!!

First off, I got a chance to check out your blog and it's very cool!! You have a lot of great information there that someone getting into the hobby could really use, and I like the way you present it as well. I had a World Coin blog myself once upon a time and it was a lot of fun....and then Grad School entered and took over my life as it has a way of doing. If my posting on here gets sporadic after April 7th, well......that means Grad School strikes again!!!

 

You also have a very interesting national background!! We have something in common in that we both have European and Middle Eastern ancestry. If you ever are so inclined, you should look into the coins of your background.....it can be some of the most rewarding collecting you'll ever do. As you, that's mainly what I do and I enjoy it so very much......it really is a labor of love!! My girlfriend does the same thing with her World collecting. She's mainly German and Dutch ( her father is 100% Dutch), but since her maternal family has been in America far longer than either of my families or her paternal family, she has a little of the " Heinz 57" going on, with some Native American, English and Scottish or Irish ancestry in addition to German on that side. And her World collecting shows that. I like to say I'm a Heinz 2 I love diversity, and I love meeting people from all different cultures. Every single culture I've had the privilege to experience or learn about has had something unique and cool about it, and something to teach me. I look forward to that journey continuing as I move through my life.

 

I'm also glad to see that you're not giving up on US coins. You clearly love them, and life is way too short not to pursue something you love. I can't imagine not pursuing any of the coins I'm pursuing right now. It would absolutely break my heart to turn my back on my Reichskreditkassens of Ottoman Nickel coins. You may have to save more and buy less, but you'll definitely build a great collection that way and buy something you love when you do make purchases. I know that my Reichskreditkassens and Ottoman nickels, which are my pride and joy sets, are both slow going. But when I have a nice chunk saved and I can pick up that next Reichskreditkassen ( which I actually did recently, a 1940-B 5 Reichspfennig) it's such a great feeling and I know I have a coin that will be with me for the long haul. If more collectors in our age group like yourself and my girlfriend found a love and passion for US coins, the big crash I predict will never come. And I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that one. I like to think that all coins have someone out there who loves them.

 

I also forgot to respond to your thoughts on the popularity of the Lincoln Cent enduring beyond the demise of the circulating cent. You made some great points, and I may have to rethink my thoughts on it. My thoughts on the decline in popularity for the Lincoln revolve around the Indian Cent mostly. When both cent sets become something that a collector has to buy in their entirety instead of getting a decent chunk of them out of circulation, I see more collectors going for the Indian Cent over the Lincoln. It's older and, in my opinion, far more attractive. But you made a great case for the Lincoln, no doubt about it.

 

Well, that's all I've got for now. Until next time......

Best Regards

~Tom

[joes2001]

Tom, nice to hear from you. Thanks for checking out the blog. Hopefully someone out there will find one or two of those write-ups useful. I don't know how they would find the blog though. In any case, I hope you can some day write again on a blog. I'd like to learn more about the areas you collect, especially those German occupation coins and their rarity.

 

I was looking back at a redbook from 1959 and noticed similar disparities among common and not so common coins. The price difference was similar in many cases to price disparities today. But of course as new information has come in, some coins shot up since then. For example, I've read in the past few years about the scarcity of the 1869 Indian Head cent. But in the 1950s and maybe 60s, I don't think they actually knew just how scarce the coin was, even in lower grades. Looking back several decades makes you think that American collectors will at least keep steady or gradually increase. But you have made a compelling case that there may be a steep decline as the elders leave the hobby. If I had to bet, I'd think it's more likely world coins in general will increase in popularity over time. Hopefully, these collectors will have some interest in our country's coins!

 

I also think about the idea that much more people, if exposed, would find the hobby fascinating. Over 4 years ago I wasn't interested at all in coins even though I inherited some. It was from my early experiences on selling some of those off on ebay (I regret some of the coins i lost this way!) that I became interested in numismatics. I guess all i can say is that I'm very happy to be a part of the numismatic community now.

 

I enjoyed reading cladking and world colonial's comments. I hope this will continue! However, I was wondering what "chicken scratching" was that someone mentioned. Is this just hairlines scratches or light abrasion? Thanks

I wish you luck Tom when April 7th comes around. You'll do fine! You're a great student of history.

[World Colonial]

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.

 

I understand exactly what you mean. You and I just disagree and in this instance, we're 180 degrees apart.

 

Since you are familiar with these coins far more than I am, I will grant you that some of these coins are as you state, but not actually compared to any coins that are actually scarce. To most collectors even of this series, a 1983-P PCGS MS-66 is going to be "good enough" whether it is or not to you and other modern specialists. And if you do not like this example, you can pick another because I do not see that it is really going to make much of a difference.

 

As for these "other coins" you are talking about which I presume are die varieties again, there is nothing particularly significant about their scarcity either. Practically every single circulation issue (at least) has die varieties and many of them are almost certainly as scarce as those you like. They are as scarce for exactly the same reason; no one collected them in the past. That is the first pont I was trying to make.

 

The second point I was trying to make is the same one I have made more times than I can even remember on this forum. Under the current usage in US numismatics today, the terms "scarce" and "rare" have been completely diluted and they don't really mean much of anything except in isolation. This usage I am describing is exactly the one you have been using in this entire thread. It is one of grade or any of these specialties I have listed.

 

Under the broadest usage of this concept, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of "rare" US coins. Limiting it to just condition and excluding specialties, still thousands because every single one of the 7500 or so individual issues is "rare" in some grade. Even in its narrowest form, there are probably well over a thousand "rare" issues because that is how many different coins (circulating, proofs, commemoratives and bullion) exist in grades of MS-66 or above as a "conditional" rarity which are actively collected. Even many early classics are listed in the census in these grades.

 

Apparently to most collectors of US coinage, each and every one of these coins are a big deal, especially if they collect it. Personally, I believe this usage has turned the concept on its head, doesn't mean anything and is a complete farce.

[World Colonial]

 

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!

 

 

That is certainly an understatement since your reply did not even address my question or anything in my last post.

 

I don't disagree with the examples you just gave but they are independent of the points I just raised and don't contradict anything I wrote. The example of the Indian proof set you just used, you have used it before. Are you trying to tell me that this indicates that modern Indian coins or some segment of it have overtaken or about to overtake their classics in popularity? I don't follow this market at all and have no idea. And if the mintage of this set is very low, I also don't see that it is representative of Indian moderns either.

 

Given the number of markets and the number of series available, I am sure that somewhere in the world, there is going to be a modern series that either has or will overtake its classic predecessor in popularity. The same applies within classics. Even if true, I still don't see that it contradicts (much less refutes) the examples I used and the primary point I made which was directed to US moderns versus classics and the most widely collected world coins.

 

[cladking]

 

 

I understand exactly what you mean. You and I just disagree and in this instance, we're 180 degrees apart.

 

Since you are familiar with these coins far more than I am, I will grant you that some of these coins are as you state, but not actually compared to any coins that are actually scarce. To most collectors even of this series, a 1983-P PCGS MS-66 is going to be "good enough" whether it is or not to you and other modern specialists. And if you do not like this example, you can pick another because I do not see that it is really going to make much of a difference.

 

As for these "other coins" you are talking about which I presume are die varieties again, there is nothing particularly significant about their scarcity either. Practically every single circulation issue (at least) has die varieties and many of them are almost certainly as scarce as those you like. They are as scarce for exactly the same reason; no one collected them in the past. That is the first pont I was trying to make.

 

The second point I was trying to make is the same one I have made more times than I can even remember on this forum. Under the current usage in US numismatics today, the terms "scarce" and "rare" have been completely diluted and they don't really mean much of anything except in isolation. This usage I am describing is exactly the one you have been using in this entire thread. It is one of grade or any of these specialties I have listed.

 

Under the broadest usage of this concept, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of "rare" US coins. Limiting it to just condition and excluding specialties, still thousands because every single one of the 7500 or so individual issues is "rare" in some grade. Even in its narrowest form, there are probably well over a thousand "rare" issues because that is how many different coins (circulating, proofs, commemoratives and bullion) exist in grades of MS-66 or above as a "conditional" rarity which are actively collected. Even many early classics are listed in the census in these grades.

 

Apparently to most collectors of US coinage, each and every one of these coins are a big deal, especially if they collect it. Personally, I believe this usage has turned the concept on its head, doesn't mean anything and is a complete farce.

 

I wouldn't have said anything the way you just said it but from your perspective you are essentially correct. It was never my contention that an '82-P quarter was "rare" anyway so there's no need to get you to see my perspective on these.

 

But let's look at some facts here. Most 1938-D buffalo nickels were pretty well made. For most collectors it doesn't really matter if he owns an MS-63 or an MS-66 because generally they were made in a narrow range of quality and this range is quite high for this specific coin. Indeed, for most classics this is generally true. Of course thereare issues like '26-S buffalos that have a little wider range but these are the exceptions rather than the rule and few people seek these scracer coins in Unc anyway. They don't care if their VF was well made so long as it has a nice horn and is attractive. This coin appears to have been fairly well saved initially but then most were spent when the depression hit. Gem examples of this coin are worth more than $100,000 despite a mintage of nearly a million. A typical Unc is only a $5,000 coin.

 

You don't agree but this makes perfect sense to me. It is a scarce coin in a series with millions of collectors and tens of thousands of these collectors are quite serious collectors and/ or have a lot of money tied up in buffalo nickels. There more than 50,000,000 nice collectible buffalo nickels out there and these collectors own nearly every single one of them. Why wouldn't nice attractive specimens command a premium? Since large numbers of theseare circulated it only stands to reason that Uncs would have a premium reflective of the relative demand for the various dates and grades.

 

But these things DON'T apply to '82-P quarters. The simple fact is fewer than about .5% of these were nicely made and a mere handfull of these coins were set aside. The fact is that those set aside fairly closely mirror what was made. This means that a true Gem '82-P quarter may be no more common than a '26-S buffalo nickel. I just might own the finest '82-P quarter and I wouldn't call it a true Gem because it has a slight strike weakness. I'd call it a MS-64+. My second and third finest are far below this and are just nice very choice coins.

 

I've probably looked at more circ and Unc '82-P quarters than anyone else and even advertised to buy Gems at $40 each all through the '80's and '90's. I can state categorically that nice attractive well made '82-P quarters are tough even in circulated condition. My experience with graded coins is extremely limited and I can't say for certain that those high end grades are all gifts but I have seen pictures of some that don't change my opinion that well made and well preserved coins of this date are scarcer than hen's teeth.

 

Stay with me here.

 

There are only a few people collecting moderns. There are probably 2 or 3 thousand people seriously collecting clad quarters. Some of these people have significant money in them but most are acquiring them as they can and making upgrade. Most don't have a truly nice '82-P quarter because they are so elusive. Even nice choice well made MS-63 is tough. This coin isn't so tough with poor strikes, worn dies, and misaligned dies; it is tough to find one properly struck by good dies. Then to be still Unc is very very tough.

 

So why does an MS-64 1982-P quarter usually list for $10? Indeed the '83-P often lists in MS-64 for less than the wholesale value for MS-60. When a collector finally finds a really nice coin he just might be unwilling to pay the price if the seller knows it's choice.

 

These markets are tiny and everyone's on a different page. Apparently the graders are giving high gradesto anything without a lot of marking so even poor strikes with chicken scratches can be choice Gem. These are very immature markets and graders have little direction provided by market participants, history, and the numbers of collectors there are for '26-S buffalos.

 

OK, here comes the point.

 

By what logic, by what natural process are there a mere handful of collectors for '83-P quarters but millions for '26-S buffalos. In the past current coins always attracted some interest by almost all hobby participants. No, an 1860 coin in 1861 didn't have a premium but most hobbyist would own at least one or a few. In 1964 much of the coin hobby was composed of people speculating on the potential of 1963-D nickels but now half a century later there is still more interest in '63-D nickels than '83 quarters.

 

It is my contention that this is an unnatural state of affairs that can't last indefinitely. It can't last because it is founded on disdain for base metal coins and this disdain will evaporate over time because that is the nature of time. It's this time that is already driving up the prices of world coins that weren't saved because they were base metal.

 

Of course it's possible for almost anything to happen but the simple fact is that the newer generation doesn't share the hatred for clad and time is still marching on. If they desire to own coins from their youth or their parents youth they have no choice but moderns. These modern will not be more common in the future whether ten thousand people want them or ten million. A well made '82-P quarter will be even harder to find because a few will be lost or destroyed and those in circulation will continue to degrade. There's no certainty a ch MS-64 '82-P will be worth more than a 26-S nickel but it may be just as scarce. It simply doesn't matter if there are still 100,000,000 or 200,000,000 worn, corroded, and cull '82-P's in circulation if someone desires a Gem.

[World Colonial]

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.

 

No apparently you don't, just as you apparently still think that the primary obstace holding back the prices of world coins is the income of the prospective buyers. This despite that I already explained to you that even in a backward country like Bolivia, there are plenty who can easily afford to pay a lot more today. In Bolivia, the economy has been booming for the last five years due to higher commodity prices and increased credit availability. Out of a population of 12MM, there are easily at least thousands who have a liquid net worth of $1MM USD or more and a larger number in the six figures.

 

Of course there is no "shortage" of coins. The shortage is going to be in the number of buyers who cannot buy or afford what they actually want. Outside, the US, I am telling you it is primarily because the coins that collectors want to buy do not exist in sufficient quantity and no, they are going to buy the circulated dreck you apparently think they will as a replacement.

 

In the US as you stated, the middle class is under financial pressure and I obviously agree with this from my prior comments. This was my point. Affordability is an issue even now and your expectations and (presumably) those who favor these other series I listed would make it far worse.

 

While of course there are going to be many collectors who are always going to want the example you used, this is yet another of example of yours which contradicts how many people actually act.

 

You don't actually think the existing price structure has anything to do with the current popularity of US coins? It really doesn't make any difference? You don't think it had anything to do with it in the 1970's when prices increased far more than incomes? Do you actually believe that collectors both now and in the past are going to continually go down their preference scale to do what you claim or imply? If this is what you believe, you and I have a completely different view of how people actually act because in the reality I see, they do not behave the way you seem to believe at all.

[World Colonial]

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.

 

I will agree with you on one thing in this post, you and I see this subject completely differently. I agree there will be a preference change for a variety of reasons we have discussed but not remotely to the extent you do. I also do not see (for the reasons already provided) that this trend is going to be financially significant or meaningful to any critical mass of collectors which is where our "debate" started.

 

I am also aware of your demographic theme which is apparently primarily the age of the collector base. I have addressed this point of yours many times in this thread..

 

I have made many comments about demographics from the cultural standpoint. So I do not know where you get the idea that I think that the "status quo" is going to last "forever". I just disagree with you that the coins you favor are going to become remotely as popular as you have claimed (except in isolation) because I have not seen you provide any compelling reason to believe otherwise.

 

I have attempted to explain in detail what I think drives collecting generically and to a lesser degree, collector preferences specifically. Though I know you disagree with my position, I think I have been clear enough on this topic.

 

I know there are no absolutes but collector preferences today are not random. There are distinct reasons why collectors apparently have the preferences they do which are somewhat but not as different from the past as you seem to think. (I summarized these as I see them in a thread on this forum several years ago.) And no, these preferences do not favor the coins you prefer. The observable evidence for this claim is absolutely overwhelming.

 

Going back to demographics once again, what evidence do you have that collector age is going to result in the outcome you claim? I provided the specific example of the ASE which completely refutes this concept because if the popularity of US moderns was a function of the aging of the collector base, then the chasm between these coins should be impossible.

 

I conclude from your posts both here and on PCGS (especially the "Top 100" thread) that you consider collector preferences before the switchover to clad "normal". They were "normal" in the sense that collectors then preferred the coins they used as payment and since they did, it is or should be "normal" for some (unspecified) percentage (whether you believe the same or fewer, I do not know) to think equally highly of the US moderns you favor.

 

This is only reason I can see where you recently wrote that it isn't "natural" for the popularity between Buffalo nickels and clad quarters to be 20-1. This is how you apparently believe that one day, there will be enough collectors who will pay larger or much larger premiums for those 50,000 1971 or 1971-D gem quarters, that an obscure coin like that 1972 die variety quarter will become much more popular and in the PCGS "Top 100" thread, that apparently there are going to be so many more collectors who are going to want the better US moderns that there isn't going to be enough supply anywhere near current prices.

 

Except in isolation (as in for "conditional" rarities today), the evidence I see doesn't support this outcome because there isn't any correlation between age and collectors preferences at all; it is effectively zero. I don't believe that collectors prior to clad primarily preferred the "perennial collector favorites" because they used them in circulation and I have not seen you provide any reason to believe it either. The concept doesn't even make any sense except when limited to the numerous anecdotal examples you have provided which have no general predictive value at all, especially on how much someone will pay. Nostalgia certainly does not remotely explain the price differences.

 

No, the primary reason why collectors preferred the "perennial collector favorites" at the time presumably was mostly because they actually liked the designs while most collectors since the change did not and do not like moderns. The other reason I can come up with is the communication limitation you mentioned. In the past, I believe this potentially artificially distorted the popularity of these coins by artificially distorting what collectors could actually buy.

 

Today, this has (for example only) been the only reason I have been able to find most of the coins I currently own but its not going to materially change the popularity of coins like mine versus those most prefer. I agree it is a "game changer" but nowhere near to the extent I read from your posts. Most collectors today under the age of 55 who only used clad still like the "perennial collector favorites" much better than moderns, so how can age be the factor you claim?

 

I'm not going to disagree with you that those who collected at the time of the change to clad were biased, but I am going to disagree with you that this is nearly as relevant today because there are more than enough young collectors to make these coins are lot more popular than they are if age was such an important factor. The prices demonstrate that they are not.

 

And if you disagree that there hasn't been enough time yet, how much time do you need? Per my prior example, what evidence is there that the FDR dime is ever even going to substantially close the popularity gap with the Mercury, much less overtake it? To my knowledge, the latter coin has always been far more popular.

 

The evidence that I see shows that primarily as a result of general factors applicable to all coins (such as TPG and registry sets), the prices for some US moderns have increased substantially and because they started from a lower base (as in mostly FV), I am sure these have often been proportionately greater. Also, because the prior bias which no longer exists among younger collectors, there is and will continue to be some shift toward moderns.

 

However, there is no basis (and I mean) to extrapolate your demographic claim to the expectation that the popularity of these coins will ever reach the sentiments you included in the PCGS "Top 100" thread. You have not expressed the same sentiments here but I describe those as exaggerated and overenthusiastic hyperbole. And even in what I consider to be the improbable event that you are ultimately proved correct, still none within a timeframe which will matter to most reading this thread.

 

For world moderns, i would say that our viewpoints are somewhat closer than for the US, but I am not going to repeat what I wrote earlier.

 

In theory, many things are possible. This does not remotely mean they are probable, much less likely. This is ultimately the basis of my difference in opinion with yours, regardless that neither one us can prove it conclusively

 

[cladking]

The example of the Indian proof set you just used, you have used it before. Are you trying to tell me that this indicates that modern Indian coins or some segment of it have overtaken or about to overtake their classics in popularity? I don't follow this market at all and have no idea. And if the mintage of this set is very low, I also don't see that it is representative of Indian moderns either.

 

 

I am seeing far more interest in these coins than I ever expected. It's hardly widespread interest and most of this interest is largely the result of skyrocketing prices rather than collecting interest. People aren't out there seeking Indian moderns but many world coin collectors buy sets from time to time and actually have a few of these. It's these people SELLING the sets that I'm primarily seeing. Many of the sets appear to be flowing back to India.

 

The mintage of the early sets is unknown but based on their incidence I'd guess in the 5,000 range. The attrition on them is quite high and I've found a few impaired proofs in poundage or singles in dealer stock.

 

Most of the high prices are related to low mintages but Krause dramatically increased prices on many high mintage circulation issues this year as well (2014 edition). This is the first adjustment and is probably a response to collecting interest in India. The adjustments appear to be closely in line with the actual difficulty in finding the coins so I presume there is a small collector base now in India seeking these coins. There are likely going to be numerous scarcities in both high and low mintage coinage. While you might hate premiums for nice coins this is very likely to happen in Indian coinage because most of many of the issues were extremely poorly made. Collectors are naturally going to gravitate to nicly made coins and where these are scarce high prices will result.

 

I seriously doubt this is a large market in India for moderns. I used to keep very close tabs on Indian coins and collectors but now all I can do is speculate based on the rising prices and anecdotal evidence. There are probably far more collectors for silver than for the moderns. India has long had a love affair for precious metals and it's not going to end suddenly. Back when I corresponded with Indian collectors there was interest only in the older coins and in silver and gold. It was very difficult to acquire any coins and in thoise days coin shops were rare. I'd guess the internet has been of extreme importance to the Indian coin market.

 

Many of the coins that are turning out to be rare had very high mintages. While this isn't really visible in Indian coinage since the highest prices are in the $50 area it is visible in other countries and I strongly believe that India will have very high priced high mintage coins soon enough. And I believe that they'll also have what you call "condition rarities" within another generation. There will be collectors who even want their 1 paisa aluminum coins to look nice and some of these will be very tough in nice condition.

[World Colonial]

This is my reply to your last post. Much of the reply I have was just included in a post I just wrote, so I am not going to duplicate it. If it is not incldued here, please refer to it.

 

On your question on the Buffalo nickels survivors, you have me stumped because i do not know who owns all of them. It is the same question I asked on that other thread covering the size of the collector base. I know you used this as an example, but I have thought the same thing about most US coins that have surviving population of consequence. Another example would be Capped Bust halves. The 1830's lettered edge dates have mintages of five and six million. If 1% still exist which I don't think is unrealistic, that is 50,000 or more. Who owns them? I have no idea but I don't believe there are actually anywhere near this number of collectors for them, even accounting that many probably own them by the dozens.

 

Comparing the Buffalo nickel to the quarter, you are still trying to apply "normal" to this example. There isn't any "numismatic law" that says Buffalo nickels have to have a certain popularity and the quarter another. It just is what it is, whatever it is. I cannot tell you what it should be but based upon the criteria you just used, you are (once again) talking about very narrow quality criteria which is more stringent than the grading standards and which only a few people are going to care about. If there are millions of Bufflao nickel collectors, the lopsided proportion are paying nominal prices and nothing more.

 

I have already conceded to you that for "conditional" rarities, that I am not going to argue any price forecast. For the "undergrade" or quality near it, it is going to depend upon what price level you think is "reasonable". I cannot tell you what it should be, only that I don't believe that anywhere near the number of collectors you seem to think are going to want them as much as you think they will. I concede that somewhere in one of these series, there are going to be numerous exceptions but that is all.

 

On the difference in price increments between grades, I understand it conceptually. I know why the US price structure exists or at least I think I do. Its what I described in my prior posts here.

 

I disagree that the quality differences in many (notice I did not say all) instances are actually significant and I especially disagree that the price differences are justified such as in the example you gave with the 26-S because I consider it nonsensically disproportional. In reality, it is a "numbers" game from an "investment" standpoint and the universal acceptance that differences which were considered irrelevant in the past somehow are so much more important today. I disagree that they are except financially.

[cladking]

One always used to have to guess at which world moderns were scarce and which were rare. Thiswasn't so much Krause' fault as it was the nature of the beast. Almost no collectors were seeking these coins and they had no real competition. For the main part they couldn't find them anyway because they were rare so it didn't matter if the coin listed for a dollar or a thousand dollars.

 

It simply required effort to figure out what was available and what wasn't. In the process it was easy enough to get a lot of very common coins or pass up very rare ones because they were "fully priced".

 

I think the real problem with Krause is that their price discovery doesn't include all available information. There's not much interest in Japanese cu/ ni in the US but in Japan they have catalogs that list much higher prices. I don't know what the reality of the market is but I do know if you find something like a nice choice Unc '68, '69, or '71 100Y you'd better buy it even if you have to pay multiples of catalog because odds are you might never see it again. If you find a roll you offer full catalog and quietly back away. English moderns get no attention and no one lists strong prices but other than first year of issue most of these are elusive. '82 to date come in mint sets but just try finding something like a Gem 1981 50P. Krause has their hands full trying to keep up with rapidly changing markets all over the world but printing the same price year after year is very misleading. There must be a few people in Great Britain seeking Gem pre-'82 issues. Why not just ask them what they'd pay for specific coins? Why not adjust the market prices of the 100 Y issues to at least reflect the relative values in the home catalog?

 

It would be very misleading to their readers to simply raise prices for speculative reasons but the fact is that they are doing a greater disservice (IMO) to not reflect current conditions. If they raised prices of rare coins inapproipriately it would be of very little consequence since it's likely their readers don't own them anyway. It's not like showing a $10 value for a choice Unc '82 GB 50P is suddenly going to make them come out of the woodwork. Sure it's possible someone has 1000 of them stashed away but historically none of these hoards have actually shown up and making 1000 sales at $10 each is not going to be so easy as to constitute a windfall. After just a few such sales the interest will drop and further sales at full price become difficult.

 

There are a lot of good arguments that can be made for trying to reflect actual market conditions and there aren't many for maintaining a status quo in a coin world that is quickly changing. They would do collectors a very valuable service in raising these prices and most of their readers are collectors. Sure, the chances of overpaying increase but in the real world it doesn't increase much and collecting of these coins would increase dramatically. It would spur demand world wide but especially in the US.

[cladking]

Going back to demographics once again, what evidence do you have that collector age is going to result in the outcome you claim? I provided the specific example of the ASE which completely refutes this concept because if the popularity of US moderns was a function of the aging of the collector base, then the chasm between these coins should be impossible.

 

We might just be coming to some sort of agreement. More accurately we're coming to agree about what our disagreements are.

 

You believe there is some sort of intrinsic good in coins and some coins have more of this goodness than others. Some coins are good because they have popular designs or important themes. Some are good because they are big or contain silver.

 

I don't even believe in "intrinsic value". Gold doesn't have one iota of value other than what we agree it has. While a "good" design might increase a coin's popularity the fact is people enmass will change their definition of "good" as time goes by. Someday the East German designs could be considered "good" since they are very stark and they do reflect the times and place they were issued. We have a lot of difficulty thinking of this as good but there are an infinite number of perspectives and we have no way to predict how people in the future will view such things. Who would imagine ten years ago that the Soviet coinage would ever increase in value? Few people consider these designs "good", though again, they do possess a sort of stark beauty.

 

Demographics is and has always been everything. This will continue so long as we're all prone to pass on due to age. It is so critical because most people are virtually born with their beliefs. They come to form most of their beliefs by early adulthood and never change them. Since each generation has always been different this assures new beliefs lie at the core of people's action over time. Current belief of most of the hobby is that only US coins made between 1792 and 1931 are extremely collectible. These people are mostly baby boomers and we won't be around collecting coins much in a quarter century. It will be different people with different beliefs collecting coins. The world isn't likely to turn topsy turvy and everyone collect only tax tokens or Fijian 50c coins but it will be very much different with very different perspectives than exist today. Maybe large cents will become more popular and maybe coins that haven't even been made yet will become the rage. But one thing for certain and that is much of the collector base won't hate moderns just because they were made after 1964. This is certain because this is a demographic change. Of course the future is uncertain and the government might confiscate any collection with a coin minted after 1964 and make me wrong but this is highly improbable. Young collectors don't hate base metal now and an event to change this is very unlikely. Certainly people selling their cu/ ni and aluminum Indian proof sets for $4,000 for which they paid $4 aren't going to hate base metal.

 

Time changes everything but most major changes are demographic because most people are afraid of change.

[Mohawk]

cladking and world colonial,

You guys have certainly been having an interesting discussion!! I haven't chimed in much, but I have been following it. I have to say though, I agree with much of what cladking is saying here. Intrinsic value, in my mind, is just what cladking says it is, namely the price placed on a metal by a market and it could change at any given time. I remember when I first got into collecting seriously at 19, gold was something like $300 an ounce. Now it's $1300. It could change at any time. There are no guarantees. I know that I myself have largely steered away from gold coins in the past couple of years. In my mind, you have to pay a lot of money just for metal before you even get to the collectible value of the coin in question, and the collectible value is what I'm concerned with when I'm concerned with that end of things. When gold recedes, the part of the price of the coin that is metal driven recedes as well and there goes that money that you paid when you bought the coin when gold was high. I know that many people feel comfortable with this and gold is hot right now, no doubt, but this guy says " No thanks, I'll stick to my zinc and nickel" And that seems to be the attitude with many younger collectors, the metal content isn't as important as beauty and numismatic value. In my experience, the 40 and under segment of the hobby at present are probably the purest collectible value-oriented generation numismatists to exist since precious metal coinage was circulating as the coin of the realm, and looked like it would forever. Bullion is not something many of us worry about at all. We're in it to collect coins, not hoard metals.

 

Also, cladking is talking about changing demographics and changing tastes. I won't rehash everything I've already said but everything I've discussed so far revolves around the changing tastes among the generation of numismatists that is coming up following the baby-boomers. And the tastes of this group, in my experience, are very different than those of the older generation. Coins that languished for years, like many World Coins, are starting to move and be actively collected. The bullion factor is starting to be ignored, and it's starting not to matter if a coin is made from gold, silver, copper, nickel or zinc. It's about the coin, the history of the coin and the beauty of it, not what it's made out of so much. The tastes regarding US coins are changing as well, as I've already discussed. Many of the series popular with the baby-boomers, particularly the presidential and historical figure profiles and Morgan Dollars, are going to tank and tank hard. Younger collectors do not like them, at all, in my experience. And this is largely because they're ugly, plain and simple. They're ugly to that generation. I'm not sure why they're popular with the baby-boomers but I think that it is because that generation remembers using those coins in their youth as money, so they have a soft spot for them and many of them started collecting with those coins. But the younger generation is finding their ways to the hobby through different routes than the collectors who became before them. This is why I think that US Moderns as they exist now will never be popular with the 40 and under crowd, because many of us think those coins are ugly. It's not the lack of silver, or anything like that. It's simple aesthetics. Beauty seems to be very important to the younger crowd, probably moreso than to any previous generation of numismatists. However, if the US were to put out clad coinage with designs similar to the Peace Dollar or the Walking Liberty Half Dollar, I can see younger collectors flocking to them because they will be beautiful and exciting to collect.

[Mohawk]

Hey Joe,

You'd be surprised about people finding your blog. Blogspot is pretty good about getting their blogs out on the search engines, so people seeking coin information have a good shot of coming across it. I'd like to write a blog again someday as well, but with a full-time course load, it's hard to find the time to do it right, and I wouldn't want to do anything but, you know? It's also funny you mention the occupation coins.....I actually would like to give them their own blog someday!! Of course, there would be a definite end point as far as writing coinage issues up, but my learning process on them continues. For example, I just recently learned that the issues that are non-competitive on the NGC Registry set were not released for circulation. I previously thought that the extreme rarity issue with those coins was just a matter of survivorship, but it was fascinating to find out that survivorship was just a part of the story, and the fact that they weren't released plays a huge role in their present rarity. So there may be more of a blog in the world of Reichskreditkassens than I originally thought. I do know that those sets are my pride and joy, and I'd like to make them a specialty of mine.

 

I also like your look at the 1959 Red Book.....that has to be a fascinating read, and fun to compare and contrast the prices and trends to the present time. I think you're absolutely right in that many coins that weren't considered scarce in earlier times are now found to be quite elusive. I think that process is happening in many areas of World coinage at the present time. I also agree with your observation of the price trends over the preceding decades, but I think that much of that activity was driven by the baby-boomer collectors even then. 1959 would have been around the time many of them got started in their youth, and they were the driving force in the coin market for decades from that point. But you and I will live in the time in the future when those collectors will be out of the hobby, one way or another, and it will be interesting times for sure. I think that World coins will be the area that sees the most growth, but I also think that there will always be people that are interested in American coins as well. Mostly, the areas that I think will see the big declines in US coins are the post-World War II coins and the presidential profile coins that came on the scene before that like the Jefferson Nickel and Washington Quarter and also the Morgan Dollar. But the coins I listed in that one post, I really do think they'll be alright.

 

I also agree with you about many more people becoming interested in numismatics if they got a chance to be exposed to it. When I first got together with my girlfriend 6 years ago, she wasn't a collector. She liked coins and had always found them beautiful and fascinating, but she didn't know how to be a collector. But once she got the chance to see the world of numismatics and learned how it worked, she took to it very quickly and it's now one of the main loves of her life. I think that there are many people out there in that same boat. They like coins and enjoy them, but they don't know how to go about collecting them. Things like this board, books and your blog could really help bring new people into the hobby, which is a very good thing. I'm sorry about your Ebay experience though. I'm sorry that you lost some coins that way, but I'm certainly glad that you became a part of the numismatic community!!

 

cladking and world colonial have certainly been having a very interesting discussion, and I've enjoyed reading it. I haven't responded much, mostly because each of them have made the points I would have made at different points, but I have been following it. I'm also wondering what chicken scratching is as well......this is the first I myself have every heard that term in a numismatic sense. My guess is either hairlines or maybe die polish lines. But I'm not sure.

 

Also, thanks for the kind words regarding school!! I'm excited to get back to work again, but that thesis keeps getting closer......

 

Well, that's all I have for now!!

Best Regards

~Tom

[cladking]

 

Also, thanks for the kind words regarding school!! I'm excited to get back to work again, but that thesis keeps getting closer......

 

 

There are several points to which I need to respond but for now just one quick one;

 

"Chicken scratching" is simply retained planchet marking common on coins struck on hard metal like cu/ ni. It is especially common with low pressure or very high speed strikes. A lot of upsetting seems to worsen the situation.

 

This appears as ugly scratches around the periphery of the coin where strike pressure is low and metal flow is low. '82 quarters often have this problem. 1969 quarters typically have it.

 

A very similar effect is seen on the high points which are the recesses of the die. Here the pressure is low and marking from the planchet is often preserved. The appearance is different in these areas though because the dies tend to erase most of each scratch. This effect even shows up on tops of letters sometimes.

 

Clad planchets are roughed up to make them easier for the machinery to handle and the marks can easily survive striking in many cases.

[joes2001]

I'm still a little unclear about the chicken scratching. It sounds like problems on the dies, so I assume the scratches would appear as raised lines on the coins. Is this correct? Not a big deal though, just curious.

 

I was thinking about cladkings prediction that clad coins in the US will increase in popularity (or should increase?). I sometimes think that virtually no one collects this stuff except for people competing on registries. And even that kind of collecting seems more limited as opposed to collecting raw coins. I wonder how many Americans collect modern world coins in comparison to US clads. That would be interesting to know. I would think that world coins would have more collectors because of more designs, lower mintages, etc. Perhaps it would be impossible to make such a comparison because a lot of hobbyists collect all over the place. At least i kinda do.

 

I was also interested on cladking's take on the 82p quarter. I always thought the 83p was more scarce in higher grades. At least this is what the priceguides tell us. I haven't checked NGC's online prices but i assume they'd be close to the red book. And aren't NGC's prices based on population numbers, auctions, etc.?

 

Glad to hear from you Tom. I agree with you that the discussion going on lately is interesting. It's always good to hear opposite sides of things, and there's a lot of this going on here at times.

[World Colonial]

Demographics is and has always been everything. This will continue so long as we're all prone to pass on due to age. It is so critical because most people are virtually born with their beliefs. They come to form most of their beliefs by early adulthood and never change them. Since each generation has always been different this assures new beliefs lie at the core of people's action over time. Current belief of most of the hobby is that only US coins made between 1792 and 1931 are extremely collectible. These people are mostly baby boomers and we won't be around collecting coins much in a quarter century. It will be different people with different beliefs collecting coins.

 

Time changes everything but most major changes are demographic because most people are afraid of change.

 

You are right, we do agree to disagree. As I told you, I cannot disprove your claim but it isn't likely to have any relevance to most reading these posts, even if you can support it which you have not.

 

You can believe what you want, but it isn't remotely what most collectors believe either now or in the past and you have provided no reason to support how preferences are supposedly going to change so radically in the future. Almost no one believes as you do which is why you seem to be so perplexed with what you see.

 

Let me start with this example again, the ASE. If what you state is a reflection of reality, how do you explain the difference in popularity between this coin (which is only NCLT and not even a real coin) and the circulating moderns you prefer? Your demographic claim certainly does not explain it because there is no way that you can concurrently claim that younger collectors do not prefer it over circulating moderns while also claiming that they have bias since they only used them in circulation..

 

A few posts ago, you were comparing Buffalo nickels to clad quarters as if this was some abberation. Substitute ASE for Bufflao nickel and the outcome does not differ at all. If anything, the difference is even greater. Replace the 1926-S Buffalo nickel with that 1995-W ASE PCGS PR-70 DCAM which recently sold for $86,000 and there is also no difference. To practically everyone, it is apparent the difference is that collectors like the designs of the first two coins and metal content of the ASE and disproportionately dislike the designs on moderns. What do you not understand about that?

 

There are also many US classic designs where the same general principle applies. The Morgan dollar is far more popular than the Peace dollar, not as much as the difference between moderns and classics but still large. Is that really that unusual? If so, based upon what? The IHC compared to the and 3CN is the same. What in demographics is going to change that?

 

Outside of US coinage, there is the difference in popularity between ancient Greek and Roman versus Byzantine which is possibly at least as great as that between US classics and moderns. I suppose that no matter how long a time period I use, you are still going to be telling me that it isn't long enough, even if it is at least 500 years which is when modern coin collecting started and 1500 years since it was possible to collect these series.

 

If your usage of demographic has the causation you claim, you should be able to point to prior examples where preferences changed and at least provide a theory explaining how the linkage exists.

 

You say that you don't believe in "intrinsic" value? Well, practically everyone else who buys coins does and they have the entire 6000 years of recorded history to support that people do value gold and silver more than base metals. You are aren't going to be the right side of that angle ever, much less in my lifetime.

 

This post of yours implies that a form of numismatic relativism not only exists but is dominant. Obviously, there is no absolute requirement that people prefer one coin or group of coins over others, but as I have attempted to explain, it is possible to point to specific attributes which a coin either possesses or lacks and demostrate a correlation to prices which is absolutely an objective measurement of popularity. I have yet to meet or even hear of even one collector who believes in numismatic relativism except apparently for you.

[World Colonial]

Tom,

 

Let me start with your demographic comments since you are apparently confused by my responses. I have never said that demographics do not matter. I am saying that the age of the collector doesn't matter or if it does, it is insignificant. For US coinage at least, this is basically what I understand cladking's usage of the term to mean. I stated so and he has not contradicted me. As I told both of you in my prior replies, given the numerous cultural comments I made which are obviously related to national origin and therefore demographics, it should be equally obvious that I agree that changes in the composition of the population matter and will make a difference. I specifically stated this on multiple occassions and I think there is ample evidence now to support this position. I disagree that just because a collector was born when a particular coin was in circulation (clad in this instance) that this has any disproportionate impact on collector preferences absent specific evidence to support it.

 

Now to your metal claim. You probably did not even realize it but your own response contradicts the claim you just made.

 

First, my comments are not just based upon the current price of the metal. My claim is that this preference generally exists regardless of whether gold is at $300 or $1300 per your examples. This preference is not universal but it usually exists.

 

As an exception, early US large cents (1793-1814) are very popular and their popularity doesn't really have anything to do with the metal content. The 1913 LHN also fits this description because it is a "trophy coin" per cladking's terminology and a "celebrity" by mine.

 

Making a direct comparison is usually hard and subjective. The most direct comparison that I know is with US patterns, trial strikes and experimental pieces because there are instances where the designs are the same and mintages are not that different. To my knowledge, the gold (or silver) version is either always or predominantly worth more, much more. I am not aware of even one exception. If the metal content does not explain the difference, then what does? The same applies for larger versus smaller coins. The pillar dollar is always going to be more popular than the minors I collect and therefore, sell for more given approximate equal scarcity. This is obvious and I do not see how anyone can fail to see it.

 

Now on to your second paragraph. I cannot speak for you but what you described is not an indifference to metal content but actually a financial limitation.

 

Let me ask you this. If you had a much larger budget, would you prefer the same coins? I would and maybe you also would but I think most would not. I can't tell you what they would buy but I can tell you that in most instances, they would buy something else either instead or in addition to what they buy now.

 

The reason I conclude this is because my time on this forum (and reading PCGS) indicates to me that most collectors seem to move from one field to another over time. Sometimes, it is "up" and sometimes it may be"down" the preference scale but a preference scale (which I define as the order in which most collectors view a coin or series) exists and no one can deny it.

 

There is no relativism in numismatics because if there was or is, then those who claim it should not care about grade either. If collectors prefer coins where everyone or at least most who collect it can agree are higher quality, it is utterly nonsensical to claim that they do not have a preference between coins whether in a series, between two different series or between two markets.

 

Most collectors have aspirational coins they would like to own which they usually cannot because of a lack of money. It doesn't have to be a 1933 DE or 1804 dollar but is more often than not a series or coin from a series that is expensive, popular, rare or "rare" or a combination of all these attributes. And for the most part, they cannot afford these aspirational coins either. For me, its the rarer dates in the pillar and South Africa Union series. For many US collectors, it's "key" dates in popular series like the 1916-D dime or 1916 SLQ.

 

So what I am telling you is that I do not believe that in US coinage (as an example only), the Morgan dollar is really more popular than the early dollars. It is more widely collected but that is a function of its availability and lower cost. If any number of random Morgan dollar collectors were to suddenly have the financial capacity to also buy early dollars, I think it should be obvious that more often than not, they would prefer them. The same logic applies to any number of other coins and collectors. Simply because a coin is more widely collected versus another one does not actually mean that it is preferrred. The most objective indicator that this is true is when the collector has the capacity to buy something else yet they do not. And the larger the options available to any particular collector, the stronger the preference.

My point on this preference scale is that while it is not "forever", it isn't infinitely elastic either and even if it is, it is irrelevant to either most or everyone reading this thread because there is no evidence (and I mean none) which anyone can present to substantiate that coins - whether in the US or elsewhere - are going to dramatically change in their popularity just because it is possible. Particularly the Greek/Roman vs Byzantine coinage example I provided, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that anyone reading this post is going to live to see the day that the latter series is going to overtake the other two, absolutely none.

 

The second aspect of this consideration is "investment" angle. I have declined to buy coins I otherwise would have liked to buy if I think they are too expensive or will lose money on them. I presume every collector does that. For me, I will not currently buy MS South African Union where the price spreads are high because I consider them a poor value. I buy AU-58 or lower MS if warranted but this hardly means that I prefer the lower quality coin.

 

The same applies to "problem" coins which you also discussed in one of your posts. Recently, I bought a 1768 Bolivia 2 real in "XF". I think the coin is actually AU but will receive an NGC "Details surface hairlines". Once conserved, it is probably going to be worth about half the $350 or so I will have in it. I am willing to "eat" this loss because I don't think i can find a better one any time soon but I have declined to buy many other such coins as I mentoned on this thread.

 

So what I am trying to tell you here is that while collectors do not always prefer gold over silver or silver over base metal coins, it is apparent that they do more often than not. To believe otherwise is nonsensical and contradicted by what I think is obviously evident. If this is not true, then i would really like to hear what substantiates this opinion.

[World Colonial]

Tom,

 

I have another thought to add on your last post. So I need a second reply.

 

I agree with you and cladking (in this instance) that the popularity of many US classics is going to decline. Let me give them to you:

 

The first reason is economical. I don't think most people are going to be better off going forward. I believe they will be worse or much worse off.

 

Because the coins are generally so much scarcer elsewhere, I think it is going to matter much less outside the US, but it will still matter . I consider the existing correlation between income growth and world coin prices weak as I have explained because most aren't a mass market. The same logically applies in reverse over the longer term, for the most part.

 

In markets such as the US or the UK, I believe it is going to matter though. Most of these coins are common and I believe that the number of collectors and their ability to pay are both going to shrink.

 

The second is demographical, in this instance for both the reason I believe and what cladking believes based upon my interpretation of his posts. Most older collectors in the US disproportionately collect US classics. So as a function of mathematics, this increases the probability that there will be fewer of them in the future. For the cultural reasons I have provided, I believe that a disproportionate percentage of the change will be from US to world coins, subject to the limitations I described earlier.

 

The third reason is the internet, a reason cladking also provided. I believe that by increasing the options to collectors, it will reduce the propensity to collect both US classics and US moderns in the United States. The internet has opened the option to participate in micro fields (such as the tax tokens cladking mentioned) along with both US and world coins. I believe that these micro fields will have some unspecified impact which collectively could be significant, though I don't believe that more than a few will either necessarily gain any scale or become particularly profitable; only selectively and in isolation.

 

In the past, I believe that many collector preferences were distorted by what they could actually buy. When I returned to the US in 1975, I only had access to local dealers. Most other collectors might also have been able to trade with other collectors, buy from mail order and maybe attend a show once in a while. But regardless, it should be apparent that their practical options were far more narrowly limited. By limited, I am referring to the more common series which are the most popular (measured by the number of collectors) today.

 

A fourth consideration is metal prices. I am negative for the intermediate but not longer term. However, I do not see very high metal prices as a particular positive for coin collecting generally.

 

A silver price of $200/oz and gold at $5000 (which is what many "metal bugs" apparently believe should be their value now) might be good for the higher end (depending upon the associated economic and political environment) but only in the short term. It should draw funds away from most "paper" assets, but I think it will be a disaster for traditional "collector" coins including most in the series I am describing here. Over the longer term though, reducing the affordability of more coins to more collectors will ultimately reduce the collector base and negatively impact all or practically all of them.

 

The US series that I believe will be the most impacted are those I call the "perennial collector favorites"; most of them anyway. There are a vast number of these coins, in most instances even in very high grades. These coins are also disproportionately expensive versus other US coins, both moderns and otherwise. I believe the "value proposition" gap will be closed mostly by a decline in the prices of these coins, at least when measured in purchasing power.

[cladking]

To practically everyone, it is apparent the difference is that collectors like the designs of the first two coins and metal content of the ASE and disproportionately dislike the designs on moderns. What do you not understand about that?

 

Just a few quick comments and I'll try to catch up this evening.

 

No! Beautiful designs are not determinative of the reason people collect a given coin. For most collectors this is a part of the reason and for some it's no part or a large part. Everybody doesn't collect the same thing and everyone doersn't collect what they find the most beatiful.

 

I believe it was the 1963 Indian mint set that went up 3800 fold this last year. Not 3800% but 3800 fold or 380000%. If you had a thousand dollar invested in this you would in theory now have almost four million dollars. I defy you to find a coiun in this set that one person in a hundred agreed was "beautiful". It didn't soar in price because of the desire of millions of people to own great art but because a few people wanted what they considered important coins and they tried to outbid one another.

 

Of course these might be considered pretty attractive to an Indian who was very proud of his heritage and was patriotic or nationalistic. I personally find such designs attractive even where the term "beauty" doesn't really apply. People don't pay $1300 for an E German 1950-E 10 p because it's beautiful, I'd wager. They pay it because they want one just like every single buyer of a '26-S nickel or a 1996 clad quarter.

 

This is the reality but you're looking at the world from a perspective that is more ideal but not nearly so reflective of what other people desire or believe.

 

People, individuals, don't change but groups still change over time because they become composed of different individuals.

[World Colonial]

This is the reality but you're looking at the world from a perspective that is more ideal but not nearly so reflective of what other people desire or believe.

 

People, individuals, don't change but groups still change over time because they become composed of different individuals.

 

You talk of reality when your overall viewpoint contradicts what is apparent to the observable facts. If anyone is looking at it from an idealistic perspective, you are because I have pointed out numerous instances where people do not remotely behave the way you claim or have the preferences you think they do. If you want me to summarize them for you, by all means I can do so and then everyone can see who is and who isn't looking at reality.

 

I never said "everyone" and I never said it was the "only" reason either. In my examples, I have been attempting to explain how most apparently actually see it using a combination of theory, anecdote and hard data, not from my preference.. If you have better evidence, where is it? In this particular quote, your claim of bias certainly does not support, much less prove your claim. You certainly have not provided it to this point in our discussion. You just ignore the specific examples I provide as if this evidence doesn't exist because it contradicts your viewpoint.

 

The part of my post you quoted is obvious to everyone but you that most collectors prefer these US coins over clad quarters and since one is a modern, that there is no automatic reason to assume it is unusual as you apparently believe. You either cannot or refuse to provide any evidence to support this general claim of yours. No amount of reasoning or logic is going to get you to see or admit it.

 

In the example you just gave, obviously because Indian culture is different than my heritage, they are going to have different preferences than I do. Who doesn't know that and what does that remotely have to do with the preferences of US collectors which as you full well know, was the comparison I made?

 

With the E German and Indian coins, I presume that the scarcity is the primary driver given what they probably look like. Was that the point you were trying to make? Since I assume it was, it should be obvious that making a comparison with two rare coins versus these three from the US (which are common) is an apples to oranges comparison and I wouldn't make it

[cladking]

You just ignore the specific examples I provide as if this evidence doesn't exist because it contradicts your viewpoint.

 

I didn't respond to the examples because they are irrelevant to every single one of my points. It's not my contention that silver eagles are desirable or that clad quarters are. It is my contention that hatred for clad and moderns in general persists to this day and this is why so few have an interest in them.

 

Many newer collectors have been driven away from US coins if this thread is any indication. There's plenty of reason to believe many young collectors have lost interest because of the way they are treated by dealers and established collectors. When I was collecting low grade "junk" buffalo nickels as a child no one ever told me they weren't worth collecting. It probably wouldn't have discouraged me but many children will just quit. People are being driven away from foreign moderns as well because of the low valuations listed in Krause

 

So this situation persists and it still isn't natural for only a few thousand people to seriously collect clad coins. Why do you suppose there can be no regression to the mean when we are seeing ample evidence of this return to sanity all over the world? You might believe a 380,000% increase in one year is an aberration but it is occuring in many coins and the common denominators are these are base metal coins that weren't saved and people never collected.

 

The fact is that a mere handful of people desiring a US coin over a quarter century old that is still used in commerce is very unnatural bordering on weird. It is made possible by people who hated moderns in 1983 and still do. They didn't save them and they believe they still aren't "real coins". Until recently they advised children and young collectors not to collect them. Until 1994 even the ANA advised everybody that they were "uncollectable". This is the reality and it is not natural. It's not natural to hate coins at all.

 

If the situation changed in India and Russia (et al) why do you believe it can't change in the US even when we get a different demographic?

 

The part of my post you quoted is obvious to everyone but you that most collectors prefer these US coins over clad quarters (and other moderns) and you either cannot or refuse to provide any evidence to support this general claim of yours. No amount of reasoning or logic is going to get you to see or admit it.

 

They might always prefer them to clad quarters. It doesn't matter. Only the regression to the mean and a new demgraphic are relevant.

 

In the example you just gave, obviously because Indian culture is different than my heritage, they are going to have different preferences than I do. Who doesn't know that and what does that remotely have to do with the preferences of US collectors which as you full well know, was the comparison I made?

 

The coins aren't available because they weren't saved; exactly like US moderns.

[cladking]

 

On your question on the Buffalo nickels survivors, you have me stumped because i do not know who owns all of them. It is the same question I asked on that other thread covering the size of the collector base. I know you used this as an example, but I have thought the same thing about most US coins that have surviving population of consequence. Another example would be Capped Bust halves. The 1830's lettered edge dates have mintages of five and six million. If 1% still exist which I don't think is unrealistic, that is 50,000 or more. Who owns them? I have no idea but I don't believe there are actually anywhere near this number of collectors for them, even accounting that many probably own them by the dozens.

 

I have a completely different perspective on these things than you do.

 

Bust half dollars are probably my favorite coinof all and I'd collect them if I could afford a nice AU/ U collection of them. I'd aim for AU-58 for most dates. But I remember back in the '60's when these were a bread and butter coin for coin shops. When they weren't selling '63-D nickel rolls for $3 or '24-D Lincolns in VF this was the coin they made a lot of money on because it actually sold to the "older" collectors. They made 75 million or so of these and I no know reason to suppose only 1% survive. They were hardly used in commerce because many were stored as backing for specie. The government melted worn out examples but people would move heaven and earth to find lost coins. Attrition was low. More were destroyed whjen the currency was debased but no mass melting of any significance occurred and these used to be everywhere. Dealers would pay a dollar or two for attractive worn specimens and sell them for two or three dollars. Many were in higher grade since their wear was from sliding around in drawers for a century. They were essentially mishandled Uncs and these would sell for more and their was competition for better dates because there were lots of collectors. Most of these coins are still around but the collectors from the '60's have passed on for the main part. These were men mostly in their 40 and 50's with some in their 30's and 60's and a few older. No doubt there were some 20 year olds as well but there weren't a lot of people that age because it was a small demographic and most couldn't afford to buy expensive coins. I'd be pretty surprised if there aren't still five million of these out there and their grade hasn't deteriorated much from those days because of the widespread collecting and modern coin storage media.

 

Even rather poor examples of these now days go for $100. This is caused by growth in collecting them and most of this growth is baby boomers who got turned off on moderns in 1964. These collectors are mostly men in their 50's and 60's now. I'm sure there are some younger and even a few states quarter collectors have gravitated in this direction.

 

On the difference in price increments between grades, I understand it conceptually. I know why the US price structure exists or at least I think I do. Its what I described in my prior posts here.

 

I disagree that the quality differences in many (notice I did not say all) instances are actually significant and I especially disagree that the price differences are justified such as in the example you gave with the 26-S because I consider it nonsensically disproportional. In reality, it is a "numbers" game from an "investment" standpoint and the universal acceptance that differences which were considered irrelevant in the past somehow are so much more important today. I disagree that they are except financially.

 

If you collect circulated coins or rare coins that are usually well made then "grade consciousness" probably sounds absurd. But if you collect something that is dreadfully common in typical condition or is usually very poorly made then you will want a nice example. A VG 1965 quarter is too common for words. Nice examples aren't as common any longer but rthewre are still 100,000,000 really nice '65 quarters in this grade or higher. Who wants such a coin? There's nothing "wrong" with it but common coins don't provide as much satisfaction as scarce, rare, or less common ones. If you apply yourself you should be able to find this date in a nice pleasing XF and with luck AU is possible. If you want to spend money then MS-60's can be had for a dollar or two and nice examples not from sets can be quite scarce. You can search dealer stock for underpriced coins or attack them any way you please. You don't have to buy coins at prices that make no sense to you. If you work to find special coins then you'll know what's a great priceand what isn't. People paying large sums for '65 quarters generally know what they're doing. People searching for these know what they are looking for.

[cladking]

I'm still a little unclear about the chicken scratching. It sounds like problems on the dies, so I assume the scratches would appear as raised lines on the coins. Is this correct? Not a big deal though, just curious.

 

Chicken scratching isn't so much the dies or the planchets so much as the effect of low pressure and low metal flow around the periphery of the coin. The metal just doesn't flow very much because most of the metal is flowing away from the upset rims or toward the central design. The area around the lettering gets little strike pressure and any marking that was on the planchet can survive in this region. It often looks like a half moon area of scratches running in all different directions parallel to the rim.

 

Many clad quarters show this effect. It is typical on some dates.

[cladking]

Tom,

 

Let me start with your demographic comments since you are apparently confused by my responses. I have never said that demographics do not matter. I am saying that the age of the collector doesn't matter or if it does, it is insignificant. For US coinage at least, this is basically what I understand cladking's usage of the term to mean. I stated so and he has not contradicted me. As I told both of you in my prior replies, given the numerous cultural comments I made which are obviously related to national origin and therefore demographics, it should be equally obvious that I agree that changes in the composition of the population matter and will make a difference. I specifically stated this on multiple occassions and I think there is ample evidence now to support this position. I disagree that just because a collector was born when a particular coin was in circulation (clad in this instance) that this has any disproportionate impact on collector preferences absent specific evidence to support it.

 

Perhaps the problem here is partly in definitions.

 

I'm using the term "demographics" to refer to ages of the general population. As a bulge or a wave moves through time it affects everything from ice cream consumption to coin preferences. It is the most powerful of all predictable forces. It is a fact that most US coin collectors will retire in the next twenty years because we know their demographic. US coins need be no less popular but their will be new people collecting them.

[cladking]

 

With the E German and Indian coins, I presume that the scarcity is the primary driver given what they probably look like. Was that the point you were trying to make? Since I assume it was, it should be obvious that making a comparison with two rare coins versus these three from the US (which are common) is an apples to oranges comparison and I wouldn't make it

 

"Common" is a relative term. If there are three collectors and five coins it is common. If there are 100,000 collectors and 100 coins it is rare. If there are 100,000 collectors and 10,000 coins it is scarce.

 

I don't know how many collectors there are for E German coins but can make many inferences about some coins. I'd be surprised if there are more than a couple hundred serious collectors for old aluminum German coins.

 

I believe that there will be more demand for American coins than any other for at least another couple generations. This is dependent on events that haven't happened yet so is just a prediction.

[joes2001]

I was thinking about world colonial's comments about preference and precious metals, sizes, etc., of coins. I mostly agree with his statements here. However, I think there are numerous exceptions. For instance, that Mr. Snow guy who specializes in flying eagle (and indian heads i think) cents, and has that company Eagle Eye (he even places a sticker on coin slabs he approves of), probably prefers coins made in base metal over precious metals. You can take a lot of dealers/specialists who could care less about the gold and silver coins. However, maybe you're talking more about average collectors, but I'd guess that a similar percentage of hobbyists specialize and even prefer base metal coins over pm coins. Because there are so many factors to consider with coins--art, history, intrinsic value, rarity, etc.--I don't think we could generalize that collectors prefer more expensive metal coins. This my opinion that I just wanted to throw out there.

[cladking]

I was thinking about world colonial's comments about preference and precious metals, sizes, etc., of coins. I mostly agree with his statements here. However, I think there are numerous exceptions. For instance, that Mr. Snow guy who specializes in flying eagle (and indian heads i think) cents, and has that company Eagle Eye (he even places a sticker on coin slabs he approves of), probably prefers coins made in base metal over precious metals. You can take a lot of dealers/specialists who could care less about the gold and silver coins. However, maybe you're talking more about average collectors, but I'd guess that a similar percentage of hobbyists specialize and even prefer base metal coins over pm coins. Because there are so many factors to consider with coins--art, history, intrinsic value, rarity, etc.--I don't think we could generalize that collectors prefer more expensive metal coins. This my opinion that I just wanted to throw out there.

 

Exactly. It's the nature of any group of people. Each will have his own preferences and desires and most individuals barely understand their own motivations. This is evidenced by the fact that new collectors usually take a while to select an area to collect. It's not a simple decision and countless factors are involved.

 

It's a safe bet that there will be a new group of people collecting coins and it's a safe bet that this group will hate moderncoins far less than the existing group. This will almost certainly translate to a larger percentage collecting moderns. This doesn't mean everyone will sell their bust half dollars and buy clad quarters just that a larger percentage will collect moderns. Perhaps a larger percentage will also collect bust halfs but specific future states are not predictable and are merely speculation.

 

What is certain is that there will be many changes as the demographic bulge passes beyond the age at which most people collect coins. In this case the magnitude of the change will be especially pronounced because the current group of coin collectors is demographically homogenous due to the lack of new blood in the hobby between 1965 and 1998.

[Mohawk]

Hey World Colonial,

Sorry I've been away for awhile. My little piece of the world has been subjected to some crazy weather as of late, such as a horrendous blizzard, and it's also school registration time for both my girlfriend and I, so between shoveling tons of snow and getting ready for school, I've just been beat the past few days!! But I'm back, and I've given your comments some thought.

 

As for the precious metal issue, you are undoubtedly correct in that it is a financial limitation for many collectors. However, I can honestly say that, for myself, I absolutely WOULD still be collecting the same coins that I'm collecting now with a much larger budget. I don't know how much you know about German Reichskreditkassen coinage, but it isn't exactly cheap. Actually, with many of the issues, I could easily have purchased gold coins from a variety of nations for the same or less money. But I choose the Reichskreditkassens. I collect exactly what I want, and I overcome my budget limitations with some small scale vest pocket dealing, trading and buying fewer, but better coins. If I had a bigger budget, I'd still be in the Reichskreditkassen game, but I'd be seeking out the 5 issues that weren't issued for circulation as well as those that were. For myself personally, I stand by my words as I truly do feel that you have to pony up a ton of "metal money" for gold before you get to collector value, and I don't find that prospect very appealing at all. But I also think some of this is due to the experience I had getting bitten on a counterfeit Ottoman gold rarity. It has undoubtedly played a role in my hesitation to get further into gold, but I've also sold most of the gold that I've held in the past year or so in order to buy coins with high collector value that aren't gold and I doubt that I'll ever be a big player in gold ever again, at least as long as bullion plays such a role in the prices of such pieces versus numismatic value. But these are my personal feelings and how they apply to myself. However, I personally know other collectors who feel the same way about gold and metal vs. collector value, but you are undoubtedly correct that many collectors shy away from gold and other precious metal coinage due to budget limitations. I know collectors that feel that way too. They wish they could get into gold coinage, but they feel that they simply cannot with their current resources. I think that we both have good points on this, and we're both correct when looking at different individual collectors.

 

You also gave me some food for thought about coin series that are widely collected due to availability rather than true collector preference, and I agree with you wholeheartedly after reading your post and your points. I'd say that this is very true with many US coin series. They are collected because they are available, and also because there is a lot of easy to access and use information about US coins that is widely available as well. That ease of access to information is 95% of the reason that I was ever a serious collector of US coins during my time as a numismatist. I collected US coins because the information was easy to find. I could easily learn what was considered scarce or key and what wasn't. Beyond that, the coins themselves were also easily available. It was an easy pursuit. But it wasn't one that made me happy. Eventually, it made me so unhappy that I threw in the towel and set out to research the coins that I consider my true loves, namely my World issues that I pursue now. Your thoughts on why the Morgan Dollar and other US series of that nature are collected due to availability make all the sense in the world, and I'm sort of kicking myself now for not thinking of it on my own. But that is a big part of why I participate on here, to learn from other collectors and get different points of view and to see things that others think of that I don't, like this conversation here. Widespread availability has a lot going for it in the eyes of many collectors as they can quickly assemble a set and feel that sense of completion and accomplishment that we all seek as numismatists. I know that my favorite Reichskreditkassen pursuits would not appeal to many collectors because, high prices aside, the vast majority of the issues in both denominations are not widely available at all. The only issues that come up for sale with any regularity at all are the 1940 A and D 5 Reichspfennig coins and the 1940-A 10 Reichspfennig coin. Aside from those, the other issues may only come up for sale every year to few years. It's a very slow moving pursuit, and one that takes a huge commitment of both time and resources. I find it appealing for that, but I can also understand that those are exactly the things that scare many collectors away from these coins as a pursuit beyond getting one of each of the two denominations as type pieces.

 

I think that overall, you and I agree on many things regarding the many topics discussed on this thread. I also must say that even where we have disagreed, you have given me new perspectives and things to think about that I lacked prior to this interchange. And I thank you for it. And if I did contradict myself in my earlier response, I do apologize. I hate when I do that. Anyhow, that's all I have for the moment!!

 

Until Next Time

Best Regards

~Tom

 

 

[Mohawk]

Hey there Joe!!

I agree with you on the last point you made!! Even though that myself, world colonial and cladking have all been speaking in generalities, it IS a tough thing to do with accuracy and impossible to do with complete accuracy. There is a whole large numismatic community out there, with varied tastes, and we all have our likes and dislikes.

 

To cladking,

I've read your latest too and I'm giving it some serious thought. I'll get back to you!!

 

~Tom

[Mohawk]

cladking,

Actually, in thinking about it, I think some of my last post to world colonial could apply here, mainly the availability factor, both regarding the coins and information. More people may move into US moderns because of availability of the coins and information on them. After reading world colonial's last, I think that's why many collectors get into all areas of US coinage, because they could be considered easy compared to many non-US coins. I know you've made points about the lack of availability of gem US modern issues, and I'm going to take your word for it as I know next to nothing about modern US coins. I started collecting with Anthony Dollars in 1999, and then I did a set of Ikes and Kennedys, but that was it for me and modern US aside from some one offs. If the availability of information plays a large enough role, there may be an influx of collectors into modern US coinage. But I still think that they have a big aesthetic problem when compared to many World issues.

 

But the point was brought up that not everyone collects things simply out of the beauty that a collector perceives in the piece. While that is a line of thought that I no longer follow in my collecting life, you are undoubtedly correct. I know that I didn't start with Ikes and SBAs in 1999 because they were beautiful. They weren't and aren't ( though the SBA has more going for it than the Ike in my opinion). I started with the SBA because it was made in my birth year of 1980 and the Ikes because they were easily available when I was new collector all those years ago. So you're definitely right, not everyone collects coins because they find them beautiful and I'd say world colonial's point on availability is a huge part of why that situation exists. Could it possibly benefit the modern US coin market? Certainly. But information on World coins becomes more available to US collectors every year, and there's a lot of competition out there for modern US with World issues. And for collectors that focus in on the beauty of the coins being collected, I'd say these World issues will emerge the winners the vast majority of the time. But no one can predict the future with perfect accuracy and I might find myself very shocked in the years to come. Who knows? But I really doubt that the US modern market will really ever catch fire outside of the enthusiasts that participate in Registries of modern US coins......and from what I know, most of those guys are the baby-boomer generation that has been discussed here in other posts, and I think that the corrections that the whole US coin market will suffer with the loss of these collectors in coming decades will be the most severe in the modern US market and Morgan Dollars.

 

There are undoubtedly US moderns that are scarce, but I honestly think that they are as hot as they'll ever be right now due to the baby-boomers that pursue them on the Registry. My girlfriend made the point that many of them like the US moderns because they're seeking a way to rack up a lot of Registry points quickly and relatively easily in their later years, so they can quickly achieve that sense of completion and accomplishment that we all seek in some way. They cut up a few Mint Sets, break up some Proof Sets, send them in and grade them, get grades in the high 60's and those all important perfect 70's, slap them into the Registries and rise through the ranks relatively quickly and easily. And from what I've seen in participating in the Registry here, working in a coin shop for part of my life and being involved in numismatics for 15 years in a serious way, I'd say she's quite correct in her assessment of the situation. The baby-boomers are influencing the whole US coin market hugely and the loss of that generation will have a huge impact on all US coins. As with all of my thoughts, I could be completely wrong, but I don't really think that I am or I wouldn't say it.

 

So that's what I have for now on that part of the thread.

Until Next Time

Best Regards

~Tom