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

[World Colonial]

"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.

 

The reason you received the last reply from me is because you prior comments didn't have anything to do with what we were discussing in our last post exchange. There is little if any similarity between clad quarters and these two coins except that both are moderns.

 

I am aware that there are many factors which influence collecting. I have been a lot more specific on these than you have in this thread. In the past, I provided my list and if necessary, I can post it again. How these (or others I exclude) are considered will vary depending upon the collector and the coin under discussion.

 

There is no fixed formula for determining popularity but there is a general correlation which I think is obvious to anyone who will consider what is known about collecting today. To a large extent, these are cultural and age has little if anything to do with it.

 

[World Colonial]

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?

 

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

 

Your concept of "natural" and reversion to the mean" are your own inventions. They do not exist, never did and you can't provide any reason whatsoever to demonstrate that they will.

 

The reason I provided those examples is because they specifically contradicted your claims. Just because they do and you do not like it doesn't mean they are not relevant. These examples and facts were directly related to your claims, they contradict them and so you ignore them. If you want me to revisit this merry-go-round, I can certainly do so to clarify it for you.

 

Let me start with the ASE and the clad quarter. You used the example of the Buffalo nickel to show that the relative popularity with the clad quarter is not "natural". I suppose it is not "natural" to you because it is a classic coin. However, when I demonstrate to you that the same preference exists with the ASE which is a modern (though non-circulating coin), all of sudden it is irrelevant. What a complete farce.

 

I have already admitted to you that you are right about the bias which existed in 1965 and that to some extent, it exists now. What I have and am telling you is that with younger collectors with the ASE example, that if your claims were valid, that the difference in popularity would not be so great. What do you not get about that? The buyers of the ASE obviously have the financial capability to buy the moderns you favor in much larger numbers. They do not buy them because they do not want them and there are certainly a much larger proportion of younger collectors buying the ASE than who pay the same prices for circulating moderns. How is that not relevant to your claim?.

 

The example of the Indian and Russian coins do not reflect a "return to sanity" all over the world. These are isolated examples and simply another instance where you represent a trickle for a tidal wave. They are isolated examples and the equivalent of the price increases which have already occurred in the US in the specialized fields (such as "conditional rarities" and some in the "Top 100") which I have mentioned dozens of times in this thread. But then, you were already aware of this before you wrote that comment but found a need to say it anyway.

 

No one has to prefer the coins you do, whether in any proportion or otherwise. Since there is no evidence for such a concept at all, your argument for a “reversion to the mean” is equally unsubstantiated. I have never seen anyone else either on this forum or PCGS make such a claim. The fact that you are the only one to do so shows that its only your view that is not “natural”, not the preferences of anyone else.

 

[World Colonial]

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

 

Obviously you do and it is just evident that we disagree. Your preference are those of collectors in the US and I already knew that. Mine are far more like those outside the US, when it comes to paying premiums. I was explaining to you why I am not interested in that type of collecting.

[World Colonial]

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.

 

Josebet,

 

I have already provided a subsequent reply on this topic and you can refer to my other post.

 

Obviously, there are no absolutes. I specifically stated as such because it is obvious. I was attempting to explain what appear to be the preferences of most collectors; just not everyone.

 

First, let me give you the factors I use:

 

1.National origin: Where was the coin issued?

2. Size and metal content: Is it gold, silver or base metal?

3. Perceived artistic quality: Do or do not collectors generally find the coin attractive?

4. Perceived historical significance

5. Is the coin a "celebrity" or "trophy" coin?

6. Current and potential supply

7. Collector budgets

8. Market depth or liquidity

9. Collectability of the series or the coin

10. Demographics

11. Practices of the national mint

 

I don't claim it is a complete list but a useful starting point. Now it should be obvious that of the factors above, one or more will explain the price for one coin but not another. I never said that metal content was the primary or only factor because such a claim would be completely nonsensical. What I was trying to explain is where reasonably comparable coins exist, the gold coin cost more than the silver and both more than base metal.

 

If the you take the handful of Jewish Revolt coins which sold for close to $1MM USD at Heritage, its obvious that the buyers did not pay this price due to the few grams of silver. They did so because of the association with the events of 66-70 AD first and the rarity second.

 

If you take the UK 1839 "Una and the Lion" proof 5 pounds, it has a mintage of 400. The rest of the set, a mintage of 300. The first coin costs a multiple of the "short set" (which includes the silver and bronze) combined. It should be obvious that in this instance, the size, metal content and artistic appeal account for the price difference.

 

The bottom line is that whatever criteria anyone wants to use (which absolutely includes the above factors), some coins or series "score high" and others do not to most collectors. This is generically what we call the preference scale or order of popularity.

 

Combine this with the market characteristics and this generically explains why coins in some markets (such as the United States) are much more expensive than others. The same applies to a coin or series within a market, not always or usually. Once again, I am not claiming that this is all encompassing but it sure is more descriptive than not using such a method at all.

 

Finally, of course more collectors collect base metals over those with precious metals, but there preferences are less relevant from a financial aspect which is how this whole discussion even got started.

[cladking]

 

Your concept of "natural" and reversion to the mean" are your own inventions. They do not exist, never did and you can't provide any reason whatsoever to demonstrate that they will.

 

The reason I provided those examples is because they specifically contradicted your claims. Just because they do and you do not like it doesn't mean they are not relevant. These examples and facts were directly related to your claims, they contradict them and so you ignore them. If you want me to revisit this merry-go-round, I can certainly do so to clarify it for you.

 

Let me start with the ASE and the clad quarter. You used the example of the Buffalo nickel to show that the relative popularity with the clad quarter is not "natural". I suppose it is not "natural" to you because it is a classic coin. However, when I demonstrate to you that the same preference exists with the ASE which is a modern (though non-circulating coin), all of sudden it is irrelevant. What a complete farce.

 

I have already admitted to you that you are right about the bias which existed in 1965 and that to some extent, it exists now. What I have and am telling you is that with younger collectors with the ASE example, that if your claims were valid, that the difference in popularity would not be so great. What do you not get about that? The buyers of the ASE obviously have the financial capability to buy the moderns you favor in much larger numbers. They do not buy them because they do not want them and there are certainly a much larger proportion of younger collectors buying the ASE than who pay the same prices for circulating moderns. How is that not relevant to your claim?.

 

The example of the Indian and Russian coins do not reflect a "return to sanity" all over the world. These are isolated examples and simply another instance where you represent a trickle for a tidal wave. They are isolated examples and the equivalent of the price increases which have already occurred in the US in the specialized fields (such as "conditional rarities" and some in the "Top 100") which I have mentioned dozens of times in this thread. But then, you were already aware of this before you wrote that comment but found a need to say it anyway.

 

No one has to prefer the coins you do, whether in any proportion or otherwise. Since there is no evidence for such a concept at all, your argument for a “reversion to the mean” is equally unsubstantiated. I have never seen anyone else either on this forum or PCGS make such a claim. The fact that you are the only one to do so shows that its only your view that is not “natural”, not the preferences of anyone else.

 

I don't understand how it's possible that you can't agree that, all else being equal, a group of people who irrationally hate clad coins will collect them to a lesser extent than a distinctly different group who don't hate clad coins do.

 

This is the bottom line you are refusing to see.

 

It's not natural to hate inanimate objects. I used to hate clad more than most people so I have first hand experience. In twenty years almost no one will hate them. This is demographics and it's what time causes. It's the disappearing hatred world wide causing moderns to explode and it's only begun.

[World Colonial]

I don't understand how it's possible that you can't agree that, all else being equal, a group of people who irrationally hate clad coins will collect them to a lesser extent than a distinctly different group who don't hate clad coins do.

 

This is the bottom line you are refusing to see.

 

It's not natural to hate inanimate objects. I used to hate clad more than most people so I have first hand experience. In twenty years almost no one will hate them. This is demographics and it's what time causes. It's the disappearing hatred world wide causing moderns to explode and it's only begun.

 

I don't refuse to see anything. I simply reject your position because you have nothing to demonstrate your case other than your own personal preference, period. Just because collectors in the aggregate do not choose to collect and pay the prices you demand for the coins you prefer does not mean they hate these coins. Everything else isn't equal, it only is under your relativist philosophy where apparently preferences are infinitely elastic.

 

Here are three posts for you to consider. Below, I list the logical fallacies I have identified from your posts in this thread, and these are only those I remember. Also those points where I think we agree which demonstrate that I am hardly unreasonable, given actual evidence to support it. The next two posts are my analysis of this "natural" claim of yours.

 

Both US and world moderns but apparently more in the US

1) You have invented a concept you call “natural” even though there is no evidence that it exists anywhere, not now and not in the past. This concept presumably is based upon the experience in the United States from 1933 to 1965. Not only do you extrapolate this invention of yours to the present in the United States, but also to all other markets.

2) This “natural” state you have invented is supposedly determined by your definition of demographics, the age of the population and collector. Under your claim, you presume that a predisposition exists for collectors to disproportionately prefer the coins they used in circulation over all others, even though there is absolutely no evidence of this concept anywhere.

3) You predict a “regression to the mean” based upon your invented “natural” state and the logical fallacy of your demographic claim. It is a form of numismatic determinism where apparently, collectors must 1) buy the coins you prefer 2) at the prices you demand 3) to the extent your preferences require. This is the only logical conclusion since you have provided no reason to explain how it will occur voluntarily. Your “new demographic” explanation does not remotely do so given what is obvious in collector preferences even with moderns since the ASE was introduced.

4) You advocated a form of numismatic relativism. This is the only logical explanation for your claim that collector preferences in the future remotely have any possibility of differing so radically from the past. Apparenlty under your version of the future, its completely realistic for collectors to abandon preferences that have existed 500 years or more to prefer moderns which you would have everyone else believe are far more compelling.

 

World coins but especially moderns

5) You insist that the current level of participation isn't “natural” in societies that either have a limited or even no history of collecting.

6) You claim that the root cause of this limited participation is the lack of wealth and income, even when I repeatedly explained to you that it isn’t.

7) You expect these societies and collectors elsewhere to increase their preference for moderns substantially, even when there is a limited history of collecting their classic equivalents. As with the United States, you claim it isn’t “natural” that others do not buy moderns and pay the prices you demand to the extent your preferences require.

8) You ignore the supply limitations of the most desirable classics which exist in many (if not most) countries. Instead, you apparently expect these future collectors to either buy circulated dreck that hardly anyone in the United States would ever buy. Or presumably (since you have not even stated it), to pay nonsensical prices for moderns that they do not pay for classics today and possibly never will. The latter is the only logical conclusion to your claims given that there aren't remotely enough in demand quality (and sometimes average circulated) classics for existing collectors in many countries even today, much less in the future.

 

Here is where I think we have at least partial agreement:

 

US Moderns

1) As I have said many times, I do not dispute any price forecasts on “conditional rarities” because I cannot predict what a handful of buyers will pay. So long as existing preferences continue, who knows how much they might rise.

2) I agree that the trend favoring specialization will also continue such as for toned coins. Despite the number of die varieties, I also agree that selectively, some additional but proportionately low number will become more popular, including maybe that obscure 1972 quarter which you have mentioned more times than I can even remember. Most will disproportionately remain forgotten as they are now.

3) I agree that because the number of older collectors overwhelmingly collect classics today, that a somewhat larger additional proportionate number will pay more than trivial amounts for circulating moderns in the future. Today, I estimate that a fraction of 1% favor them as you do. In the future, maybe it will be 1% or somewhat more. I disagree that it will be any higher than a trivial percentage such as this one due to the relative popularity of the ASE versus these coins today which is much better evidence to support my claim than any evidence you have presented to support yours.

As a result, since there are in the vicinity of 500 different issues, some such as the 1982-P or 1983-P quarter in the “undergrade” (MS-66 today) may sell for a lot more, but nowhere near as much as you apparently believe. Heritage sold the 1983-P for $293 in 2013 (before the census increased) so though I would never pay $1000 (in 2013 money), maybe someone will do so. I consider this possible if they come to be viewed as any number of “key” dates in the classic series are today and collecting practices remain more or less unchanged, but not otherwise. I reject that there will ever be 50,000 collectors (or anywhere near it) who will pay any noticeable premium for any circulating modern within our lifetime, such as for a 1971 or 1971-D gem quarter.

4) I agree that the discrepancy within the Jefforson nickel between earlier and later dates makes no sense. It is exactly the same design and even the same metal composition. I expect the coins which are actually scarcer to become worth more than their more common counterparts.

5) I can see that the discrepancy between silver and clad issues within the Washington quarter and FDR dime series might be illogical. I’m not sure about this because I am not familiar with the specific scarcity of every issue or the price distribution. If it is “excessively” large, then I agree it should and probably will decrease in the future. To my knowledge, some clad issues are already worth more in the same grade but only where they are much scarcer. My only qualification to this comment is that I consider some lower but unspecified premium justified for the silver issues because at this time, collectors clearly show this preference.

 

World moderns

1) In developed markets such as the United Kingdom or Australia, but only with US practices such as TPG because the coins are otherwise too common, regardless that you think some are rare using the US criteria.

2) I have previously concurred that primarily as a result of random buying, a miniscule percentage of all circulating world moderns - primarily those that are actually scarce - will reach the $800 and $60 price targets you mentioned as examples. I agree that maybe 1% or 500 of the 50,000 to 100,000 issues will reach $800 in 2013 money and a slight multiple $60.

3) To a much lesser degree if TPG is not adopted, in larger markets such as China and India. Its feasible (though I still do not consider it likely) due to the sheer size of the potential market that moderns will become a lot more popular than I believe. Otherwise, it is disproportionately just going to be random buying which accounts for most future price increases, whether the coins are scarce or not.

 

 

 

[World Colonial]

In this post, I am going to attempt to summarize collector options and preferences as they existed in 1965 when clad was introduced. The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate that collector behavior was “natural” both then and now. Since I was born that year, this is an inference but an entirely common sense application of what is known from collector behavior today. Anyone else may clarify or add as appropriate.

 

Your primary premise of this “natural” state is that collectors preferred the coins in circulation then and therefore, it is not “natural” for collectors to “hate” moderns today since under your logic, a minimal percentage must prefer them to satisfy your preference.

 

The first question I ask is, what options were available to most collectors in 1965? First, it would have been the series I call “perennial collector favorites” which are once again: IHC, Lincoln Wheatback, Buffalo nickel, Mercury dime, SLQ, silver Washington quarter, LWH and Morgan dollar. To these I will also now add: Jefferson nickel, silver FDR dime, Franklin half, Peace dollar and classic commemoratives.

 

Though I consider all of these common to extremely common today (using 1933 as a cutoff per an article by Greg Reynolds in Coin Week), they were even more common in 1965 due to their recent vintage and the silver price. It is my understanding that all of these series were still in circulation or available from banks except maybe for commemoratives and the IHC. The latter I conclude from a first hand account where someone searched $50 in rolls each week for a year or two in the late 1950’s and found only four.

 

Aside from these series, I am going to guess that the Barber and Liberty Seated coinage and the Capped Bust half would have been the next preferred choices considering their prices and availability. I also understand that a much lower proportion and number collected world coins than today, except maybe for Canada and Mexico. The first I infer from accounts that Canadian coins circulated in at least parts of the northeast or bordering states and the second from an article on the Mexican Coin Company website. For world coins, I do not know if this was intentional but regardless, it would have been almost impossible to find most of the coins I own today anyway.

 

The second question to ask is, aside from the first group of coins, did any other US series exist in sufficient supply to meet the needs of a mass market? My answer is that it did not. Though a somewhat higher supply must have existed compared to today, I have never heard of (as an example) Barber halves for any particular date existing by the thousands in the 1960’s in UNC (or near it) and by the tens of thousands as “collector” coins in VF or XF. To my knowledge, most of these coins exist today in an average grade of VG or F. I consider these coins common but they are much scarcer than the subsequent series.

 

Considering my answers to the above two questions, the “perennial collector favorites” were among the most widely available choices for the collector in 1965, though yes the option did exist to collect some of the earlier series in lower grades. This (somewhat) limited availability is a variation I previously described for world classics at the beginning of this thread. Other US coins were available, but not in sufficient number and quality at prices that most collectors could afford. This is what actually created your fictional “natural” state.

 

The third question to ask is, how do collector choices differ today? For US coinage, in addition to those available in 1965, there are now also in the vicinity of 500 circulation issues, modern commemoratives and bullion. For world coins, these are more accessable due to the internet.

 

The fourth question then becomes, what is the primary difference between 1965 and now? My answer is twofold. First, collectors in large numbers in 1965 did not have a practical alternative to their “moderns” (since that is what these coins were at that time) which they have today. Today, the coins most available in 1965 still exist in vast numbers and are affordable by current standards except for “key” dates and in the higher grades (65 or above). And second, they actually liked the designs while the lopsided proportion today dislike those on moderns.

 

With this background as an alternative to your claim, the fifth question then becomes, is what existed in 1965 a logical basis for your “natural” state? My answer is no because there is a logical explanation for the preferences which existed at that time. These preferences were entirely logical given the options.

 

My last question then is, are collector preferences today so unusual as you have repeatedly claimed? My answer is no because there is also a logical explanation. Collectors disproportionately like the same designs in US coinage that they can afford, just as they did in 1965. This is also supported by the huge popularity of the ASE and secondly by modern commemoratives. Regardless that these two series do not circulate, this shows that collectors do not “hate” all moderns. It demonstrates that they only collect coins they like and no one has to prefer the coins you do.

[World Colonial]

In a prior post, in addition to the ASE, I used examples within classic series in US coinage and ancient coinage. For illustrative purposes, I am going to return to the and 3CN since they are easily among the least popular series within classics.

 

So now tell me this, is the popularity of these two series “natural” or isn’t it? Regardless of your answer, based exactly upon what?

 

If your answer is yes, why should these coins remain permanently at the bottom of the classic preference chain? Why should so few collectors in the future prefer them versus circulating moderns, which under your claims are required to soar in popularity?

 

Given the claim you have made for moderns, why have these two series been at or near the bottom of the preference scale from the beginning? Any advocate for these series can equally make many if not all of the same claims you have since you apparently believe that preferences are infinitely elastic.

 

The only difference that I can see today is that these two series no longer circulate. And since moderns are more recent and still in use, younger collectors under your theory are required to prefer them far more. There is no reason to believe such a claim whatsoever.

 

If your answer is no, then tell me what time frame according to you is long enough for your theory to be proved or disproved? The has been out of circulation for 140 years and the 3CN for 124. How much longer will be required for preferences to change? My answer to this question is “never” because it isn’t an accident that collectors both now and since inception have today’s preference, just as is disproportionately true for the coins you like.

 

It should be obvious even to you that collector age has nothing to do with the popularity of any classic series, just as it is either entirely or disproportionately with moderns. Generations have come and gone and the order of preference has changed either minimally or not at all. There certainly have been none since I started collecting in 1975.

 

The end result under either scenario is that your theory fails, so make your choice. If you do not like this example, I can give you any number of others because the outcome does not differ. If you still disagree with my explanation (as I know you do), then you can arrange to have someone inform us after we are both dead because it isn’t going to happen in either of our lifetimes.

 

If you decline to provide an answer, then let me guess the reason. My example or any other I can use is not relevant. Your logic only applies to moderns and only as you choose to apply it. The only outcome which is valid is the one where the popularity of US moderns resembles the “perennial collector favorites” (those in circulation prior to clad) and the prices satisfy your targets, however implausible they may be to anyone else. The same applies to world moderns. Anything less is not “natural” and reflective of bias. Does that sound about right?

[cladking]

You seem to understand my position much better than I had thought. I'll just highlight a few points in your long and excellent post where we are on much different pages.

 

 

I simply reject your position because you have nothing to demonstrate your case other than your own personal preference, period. Just because collectors in the aggregate do not choose to collect and pay the prices you demand for the coins you prefer does not mean they hate these coins. Everything else isn't equal, it only is under your relativist philosophy where apparently preferences are infinitely elastic.

 

In groups preferences are infinitely elastic. This is the nature of people. We each see things differently. My preferences are simply irrelevant to the behavior of groups except to the degree I'm part of that group.

 

I can assure you that most collectors who lived through the change in coin composition have exceedingly unfavorable attitudes not only to the denominations that were changed but all coins made after the change. These people in the hobby own probably around 75% of the value of all coins in the hobby. But, I doubt we own even 25% of all moderns despite the fact that moderns are a tiny segment of the overall hobby. This lopsidedness is caused by the disdain for moderns among most baby boomers. Of course groups are elastic so this is why people like me do like moderns. I'm the exception.

 

In the future people won't have strongly negative feelings for moderns so any given demographic or any given segment will be divided more evenly. If a group owns 50% of one coin they are likely to own 50% of another. This doesn't assure prices will increase since moderns could still be a tiny part of the market but it certainly implies a potentially much higher demand. In collectables demand is always more important to price than supply (remember the tax tokens).

 

1) You have invented a concept you call “natural” even though there is no evidence that it exists anywhere, not now and not in the past. This concept presumably is based upon the experience in the United States from 1933 to 1965. Not only do you extrapolate this invention of yours to the present in the United States, but also to all other markets.

 

Quite true and very perceptive.

 

Obviously there's no certainty that the conditions that led to massive collecting in 1933 couldn't have been an aberration rather than the natural result of technological and societal changes. Even if this were natural there's no certainty it won't be supplanted by new technological changes. But it is my belief that the net will tend to help most collectables. I believe TPG's will instill more confidence in originality and grade. I believe that coins will circulate for decades yet enticing ever more coin collectors into the fold.

 

There will be changes. People might care little about having date collections or some other changes are virtually certain. But the bottom line is still more collectors and fewer that have a negative view of moderns. Every single person today and in the future can and should collect what they like but, I believe, this will naturally mean more clad collectors. Yes, because of demographics.

 

Apparenlty under your version of the future, its completely realistic for collectors to abandon preferences that have existed 500 years or more to prefer moderns which you would have everyone else believe are far more compelling.

 

No! Collectors will probably never prefer moderns to classics. It's simply unnatural for moderns to be so disliked that no one set them aside.

 

Don't forget, too, though that in 20 years the oldest moderns are going to be 70 years old. This is getting a little long in the tooth to call "modern".

 

6) You claim that the root cause of this limited participation is the lack of wealth and income, even when I repeatedly explained to you that it isn’t.

 

Sure. And in Costa Rica there's widespread interest in collecting coins even though few people have much money for it. There are differences in societies as you mentioned as it concerns South Africa.

 

Remember though that demographics change large groups as well, and coin collecting could catch on anywhere. Perspectives can change overnight and demographics change them regardless.

 

I used to have this same argument with people back in the 1970's. Back then I had only my hunches and "knowledge". There were no facts or evidence to support me. People said that even if I'm right that the coins are rare they'll never be worth anything with no demand. Today everything has changed. High grade US moderns go for thousands of dollars now as do many world moderns. There are still lots of coins that I'm quite confisdent are quite scarce that go for peanuts. This probably won't last this time any more than it did the last time.

[cladking]

collector behavior today. Anyone else may clarify or add as appropriate.

 

Your primary premise of this “natural” state is that collectors preferred the coins in circulation then and therefore, it is not “natural” for collectors to “hate” moderns today since under your logic, a minimal percentage must prefer them to satisfy your preference.

 

No, this is absolutely not my argument.

 

The state of the maket was an aberration in 1964. I could see even then that it was highly unsustainable. Coins made in enormous numbers and saved by the multi million were bringing huge premiums. '60-D sm dt cents were common in pocket change but briefly hit $15 a roll or more (yes, that's about $100 in today's money). '50-D nickels were going for as much as $50 and virtually the entire mintage was saved.

 

I wasn't buying into this madness. I was selling. I was mostly collecting buffalo nickels out of pocket change because everyone else was collecting Lincolns and buying new coins to save for future demand. Contrarians almost always do better. When the market tanked I lost nothing. Just about everything went down but buffalos in low grade were barely affected at all. I lost 4c for the stamp to buy my 1965 proof set. They returned the cash.

 

People simply went from one extreme to the other. They went from saving coins in incredible numbers to never even looking at their pocket change. I was looking at new coins harder than ever because for the first time they weren't being saved by the trunk load. But I didn't start saving or collecting them for several years because the FED wasn't rotating their stock. You could find brand new coins all the way back to 1965 being released. Then in 1972 the FED and mint announced they were going to FIFO accounting and would begin rotating their stocks. At first I was just saving any nice specimens I could find of anything but over time I learned means of refining the search. The best coins and varieties were released in specific locations so I'd obtain rolls from there. The same thing was going on with mint sets to some degree so I'd search mint sets in different locations.

 

I think part of our differences is that you expect groups to be homogenus, unchanging, and sane. I expect none of these. People do what they do and each behaves in unpredictable ways and then over time a new group replaces them. If people were predictable then moderns would have gone up long ago. Now it's anyone's guess what is next. But demographics is not a guess but a force that's as certain as the tide and even more transformative.

[cladking]

 

Given the claim you have made for moderns, why have these two series been at or near the bottom of the preference scale from the beginning?

 

A large part of the problem for these series is the simple fact they were issued as "fiat" money. This especially applies to the 3c NI. Historically collectors preferred "sound money" like large cents and silver. Debased coinage has never had following that other coins do. Of course there's more to it than just this and inertia since the nickels do get some attention. The nature of the series and their brevity combined with the rarity of some dates probably works against them. I believe when people get used to the idea of cu/ ni moderns being valuable then they'll go back and the 3c NI will have its day.

 

It should be obvious even to you that collector age has nothing to do with the popularity of any classic series, just as it is either entirely or disproportionately with moderns. Generations have come and gone and the order of preference has changed either minimally or not at all. There certainly have been none since I started collecting in 1975.

 

Sometimes groups are segregated by age and sometimes not as much. Look at the age of silver dollar collectors. They tend to be a little younger because they were the people who enterredthe hobby between 1965 and 1998. An extreme example is states quarter collectors; these collectors are very young and many were children when they started in 1999. Many have been born since 1999.

 

The hobby had been in a sort of frantic stasis between 1965 and 1998. Now it's in a transitionary phase and no one really knows what it will turn into. But there will be more interest in coins made of copper, aluminum, nickel, and other base metals.

 

You know an awful lot of what defines what people collect is what the mints produce. Mints and issuing authorities have been making a great number of base metal coins since the 1850's and these are likely to get more attention. This may seem obvious but it's an easily overlooked fact. If you see collecting as acquiring silver then you won't notice that people are buying eagles despite being moderns because they are silver.

 

 

[World Colonial]

I think part of our differences is that you expect groups to be homogenus, unchanging, and sane. I expect none of these. People do what they do and each behaves in unpredictable ways and then over time a new group replaces them. If people were predictable then moderns would have gone up long ago. Now it's anyone's guess what is next. But demographics is not a guess but a force that's as certain as the tide and even more transformative.

 

The primary difference between our opinions is first, that you seem to think that age (demographics) is a much bigger factor than it actually is as demonstrated by the existing evidence. It isn't. (The second is the magnitude of the increase which I cover in my post below.)

 

If you look at the collector preferences within the United States today, there isn't any evidence that I can see that younger collectors have any significantly larger preference for the coins you like than they did in the past. What I am going to write below is for the US because more data is available but I do not see that it is really going to differ that greatly elsewhere. I will add the remainder of my comments in a second post.

 

For US moderns, I concede that younger buyers are probably buying all modern issues more than those who are older; older in this instance than 55 or those who only used clad as payment. I also suspect that those who are under 30 buy them in slightly higher proportion than those aged 30 to 55. (I use 30 and 55 as arbitrary cutoffs for the two generations who have only used clad in commerce.)

 

But concurrently, I disagree absent specific evidence that their actual preferences are significantly different. An unknown percentage are certainly buying them because of financial limitations, just as those who purchase recent classics do not necessarily prefer them to their predecessors. Everything I know indicates that most collectors who start with circulating moderns are transitory. They “move up the preference ladder” (which you apparently believe is infinitely flexible) as soon as their financial circumstances permit it.

 

Second, most collectors who buy moderns don’t buy the coins you prefer, the circulation issues. They buy ASE and modern commemoratives instead. The census populations for both exceed those of circulating moderns by a lopsided proportion indicating an equally lopsided preference by those who are actually spending any “real” money, regardless of age.

 

Then there is the price level. If younger collectors (especially those under 30) are supposed to have a much larger preference for the coins you like, then how do you explain the disproportionately low prices of the “undergrade” coins? Are you actually telling me that they cannot afford to pay more than $123 for the 1983-P PCGS MS-66 quarter (Heritage 3/14)? Or $66 for the 1982-P PCGS MS-66 quarter (Heritage 8/12)? No, there is a much better reason to believe they would rather buy something else, as in the ASE which is exactly what I believe a disproportionate percentage actually do.

 

The same reasoning applies to an entire series. Since the ASE was introduced in 1986, it includes 60 issues both proof and business strike? Excluding the 1995-W (which I presume is missing from most collections), it costs $4000 to $5000 in MS and PR 69 with maybe a few 70 included? Given the census counts, there must tens of thousands (at least) collecting the full series since most probably do not bother submitting their coins at all. The numbers are probably lower, but the same concept applies to modern commemoratives.

 

How much does a set of Washington clad in the “undergrade” cost today? Extrapolating from the prices of these two (semi) keys, I conclude it is a lot less than $4000 to $5000. I am speculating here since I have not priced the few coins whose “conditional rarity” grade is an MS-68 and whose “undergrade” is an MS-67. In these instances, the MS-67 may have an outsized impact on the set price but if so, I suspect that many collectors will buy the MS-66 anyway.

 

The point I am making is that any ASE set collector can buy any circulating modern (usually) in the “undergrade” for the same or less. The data shows that they don’t except maybe in isolation and in completely logical fashion, I conclude that they do not because they prefer the ASE. Or perhaps ASE collectors actually prefer Washington clad quarters but don’t buy them anyway? At the same time, every set collector of circulating moderns cannot buy ASE because they do not have the money. There are at most 2000 (and probably far fewer) collectively pursuing sets of circulating moderns in the “undergrade” at open market prices.

 

The only collector segment where we can know with virtual certainty that actually prefers circulating moderns (primarily US but could be others) are those who are spending substantial or relatively substantial sums, as in at minimum the “undergrade” set of Washington clad quarters in my example here and certainly “conditional rarities”. We know this because the prices they pay and the likely value of their collections are substantial enough to buy a relatively wide range of alternatives, though most of the other options will include fewer coins. The buyers of the "undergrade" coins are the only ones who will have any substantial impact on a mass market for moderns but then for the US at least, this limited group I described doesn't conform to the future collector base implied by your posts.

 

Here is what I conclude on the preferences of younger collectors (Gen-Y or under my cut-off of 30) today. There is no visible evidence that their preferences are really that different than those of either my generation (Gen-X) or the Baby Boomers who “hate” moderns. Neither one of us know the actual age distribution of modern buyers and what they actually buy or if you do, what is it and how do you know it? Regardless of the actual distribution, the observable evidence demonstrates that even if Gen-Y prefers circulating moderns somewhat more, the difference is not that great and financially irrelevant. We know the latter from the price levels below “conditional rarity” grades.

 

So then (once again) the question is, when exactly will this “new demographic” of yours become evident in the aggregate statistics as implied by your posts? Let me answer this question for you. The answer is “never” because there is either zero or at most a very weak correlation between age and collector preferences.

In response to your recent claim that in 20 years, this “new demographic” of yours will no longer hate moderns and therefore, their popularity will (presumably) resemble their most recent classic predecessors, I predict coins will be even less relevant to this age group than today. How often do people need (not choose) to use coins in commerce even now? I almost never use them at all even though I still use some cash to pay for purchases. My only recent recollection was paying a road toll in February. This is aside from the fact that one or more denominations may be discontinued long before 2034 which may reduce their popularity among all age groups.

 

The likely reason why collectors today prefer bullion and modern commemoratives to circulating moderns:

 

They prefer large precious metal coins (some with classic designs) over small base metal coins with mediocre if not artistically inferior designs.

 

They prefer high grade coins over lower grade ones. A large percentage presumably actually want to buy but cannot afford high quality classics, such as Morgan dollars.

 

These coins are liquid enough to be viable “investments” while comporably priced circulated classics frequently are not and most circulating moderns aren’t either. There is also less “slippage” upon resale.

 

Many of these collectors are likely new. They don’t have your knowledge and the information barrier to collect these coins is really low. The risk of buying counterfeit coins or slabs is much lower. A small minority of these collectors either have migrated or are candidates to migrate to circulating moderns but like most collectors, most never will pay more than nominal prices for them.

[World Colonial]

The second area where we disagree is one of scale. I just disagree that any of the changes which are plausible based upon what is known from collector behavior are remotely going to result in the outcome implied by your posts.

 

Following up on my last post, the prices today indicate that maybe out of a thousand collectors today who spend enough money to buy a circulating modern "conditional rarity" or one in the "Top 100", maybe 10 do now. (This as opposed to bullion.) Because of the trends I see in collecting today where more and more money is going into fewer and fewer coins, I can see where the prices of the five specializations will increase and in some instances substantially, even as inflated as I consider them to be now. I see this because it is consistent with what is happening (especially in the United States) across all coins. So I do not differentiate between circulating moderns and all others. I don't differentiate because I agree that these are the collectors who actually prefer these coins over all others or at least most of them likely do.

 

For those who spend less than the first group above, these I am going to place in the category of potential buyers of the "undergrade" and all other circulating moderns. As a complete guess, out of a thousand buyers today who spend up to $1000 on a single coin, one or two buy these coins at open market prices. I make this distinction because I believe that the majority of modern collectors in this group today are "cherry picking". They aren't buying coins at the price in a TPG holder but at significant discounts and maybe for no premium at all like you have in the past. In completely logical fashion, I also conclude that most of them will decline to pay a much higher price when this is no longer an option since it is generically true of anyone.

 

Now I come to where we disagree. you seem to believe that this group is going to be larger or much larger than I do in the future. From one or two today per thousand, I can see it increasing to maybe five. The reason for this is because there isn't any actual evidence that age is as predictable factor as you think it to be. And the only reason I even think this is feasible is because I agree that older collectors are biased as you state but I don't believe that younger ones really like circulating moderns hardly at all. Mathematically though, if five per thousand replace one or two, then this is how I can arrive at the "points of agreement" I listed previously.

 

The other area where I think we disagree is on the scarcity of the "undergrade" coins and others near them. I previously attempted to describe how the surviving population may be extrapolated form the current census. For the 1983-P quarter, I "guesstimated" 500 as eligible for a PCGS MS-66. (I used PCGS because it is preferred today based upon the market prices.)

 

Taking this as a :"ballpark": number, I do not see that it is remotely actually scarce. And taking my estimate of 5/1000 as potential buyers across all series or about 500 coins today, I don't see that its going to result in more than a market price of $1000 in constant money. I actually think this is a very generous price, even as a future "semi" key date.

 

For the rest of them, they are even more common. I see no possibility whatsoever than in either of our lifetimes that there will remotely be enough buyers to pay any premium worth considering for 50,000 1971 or 1971-D gem quarters.

 

The ultimate irony to me is that you are complaining that I and most collectors do not see the merits of the coins you favor. Yet in this thread in discussing the 1982-P quarter, you admitted that you have limited exposure to graded coins. This tells me that you are disproportionately “cherry picking”, which is exactly my opinion of how most “serious” collectors acquire them. So what you are telling me is that you think those who do not collect these coins today should pay a lot more than current prices, yet apparently you are not even willing to pay them yourself now? That really makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

[World Colonial]

 

Given the claim you have made for moderns, why have these two series been at or near the bottom of the preference scale from the beginning?

 

A large part of the problem for these series is the simple fact they were issued as "fiat" money. This especially applies to the 3c NI. Historically collectors preferred "sound money" like large cents and silver. Debased coinage has never had following that other coins do. Of course there's more to it than just this and inertia since the nickels do get some attention. The nature of the series and their brevity combined with the rarity of some dates probably works against them. I believe when people get used to the idea of cu/ ni moderns being valuable then they'll go back and the 3c NI will have its day.

 

I was not referring just to the past but also to now.

 

For collectors today, I don't see that you have anything to support this claim either, but make it because it is consistent with your claim for moderns.

 

The real reason these coins have not been popular for 140 and 124 years is because of their collective numismatic attributes. And yes, collectors have apparently used essentially the same criteria throughout this entire time. Here are the similarities with moderns:

 

The is a short lived series? So are the SBA and Sacagewea dollars.

 

The coins are made of base metal? So are circulating moderns.

 

The coins are small? So are most of the coins you like.

 

Collectors don’t like these two designs? No they don’t, just as they do not for most or even all of the circulating moderns today..

 

The reasons I just gave, these are the actual obvious reasons why these two series have their current popularity and are at or near the bottom of the preference scale among classics. But of course, if you admit these attributes are valid for these two series, it will concurrently weaken the claims you have made for moderns. In addition, just as you cannot explain how the popularity of these two series will increase (substantially) in the future after 140 and 124 years, you cannot do it for moderns either. Your demographic claims certainly do not do so or else it should have already happened for these two or any number of others.

 

The other problem with a series like this one becoming more popular is one I mentioned before which you also disagreed with. If the least popular classic series and the moderns you favor become a lot more popular and therefore, a lot more expensive, what is the traditional collector supposed to buy?

 

Your posts indicate that you believe that people find coin collecting so compelling that they will move down the (shifting) preference scale indefinitely just so that they can still collect anything. I do not believe there is any evidence for that at all. Some will but most have an "uncle point" where they are just going to quit. This is what I believe happened to some extent in the past and part (not all) of the reason why collecting seems to be less or a lot less popular in the United States today.

 

Its another concept entirely, but I suspect the increasing lack of affordability due to factors such as TPG and the decreasing liquidity for most coins is increasing buying concentration into fewer coins. Others here on this board probably heard the "Box of 20" concept long before I did but my interpretation is that more collectors are abandoning set and type collecting in favor of buying any coin they like, whether it fits the traditional definition of a set or not. If this is true, this is going to adversely impact the prices of most coins, whether they are moderns or not.

[World Colonial]

In groups preferences are infinitely elastic. This is the nature of people. We each see things differently. My preferences are simply irrelevant to the behavior of groups except to the degree I'm part of that group.

 

I can assure you that most collectors who lived through the change in coin composition have exceedingly unfavorable attitudes not only to the denominations that were changed but all coins made after the change. These people in the hobby own probably around 75% of the value of all coins in the hobby. But, I doubt we own even 25% of all moderns despite the fact that moderns are a tiny segment of the overall hobby. This lopsidedness is caused by the disdain for moderns among most baby boomers. Of course groups are elastic so this is why people like me do like moderns. I'm the exception.

 

I do not disagree with the second paragraph which I quote above which is why included it. I disagree with your first one.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that group preferences have been or actually will be infinitely elastic, not within my lifetime or yours. Neither you nor anyone else can substantiate this claim whatsoever. And if you can, then show me where the order of preference has changed between any US series and how it did so. Or for that matter, with any foreign series. Even if you can find one or a few, there is going to be a specific root cause which your claims do not provide because age does not have the predictive impact you have tried to claim. And given the number of series from all countries (literally in the thousands), it hardly would support this claim you just made anyway.

 

Obviously, I am aware that people can change their minds. That is a given. Based upon one of your prior posts, you would have everyone believe that this means that collectors may find tax tokens and pillar dollars equally compelling. Of course, it is "possible" that this can happen. However, there is no reason to believe it will actually happen. None at all.

 

The reason why I make this particular statement is that I do not need to prove that collector’s preferences will never change or for world moderns, disprove that eventually, somewhere in the world, somehow a handful of collectors might decide to agree with you to buy one these scarcer coins you have used as examples. I only need to provide better evidence than you and I have, much better because what I have described in my posts is far more consistent with the observable evidence and therefore, the behavior of collectors which anyone can independently confirm for themselves.

[cladking]

If you look at the collector preferences within the United States today, there isn't any evidence that I can see that younger collectors have any significantly larger preference for the coins you like than they did in the past.

 

This isn't about coins "I like" because I like all coins.

 

It's not about younger collectors liking anything at all; it's about younger collectors not having disdain for coins only because they were made in huge numbers, are junk, or because they are base metal. The fact that they don't hate these coins as a group will assure that some unknown percentage will someday collect one modern or another. This is what the mints make now days and the alternative to not collecting these coins is not collecting circulating coins made after the switch to base metal. It's entirely possible collectors will never desire these coins but if they want coins from the era there is no choice.

 

The lenghts to which people will go to avoid moderns is humorous. I've heard people say that they want their own birth year sets buit they were born in 1969 so they collect 1869 instead. The irony is some of the best coins and most undervalued coins of all time were made in 1969. There are lot of reasons most of these are so cheap. Of course the primary reason is weak demand but part of the reason for weak demand is the absurdly low prices listed in the guides and by Krause. For instance there's a 1969 Dominican Republic One Peso coin. This was the first debased Peso so it probably wasn't saved at all. The mintage was a mere 30,000 and so far as I know it didn't appear in any mint sets at all. It lists for $4.50 in Krause which is pretty high by modern standards. Never mind you probably can't find one unless you're lucky and find a beat up VF in poundage. There's no market though I'm sure there are a few people seeking this coin. The odds are fairly good that the bulk of this date was shipped to Japan and melted to make refrigerators.

 

For US moderns, I concede that younger buyers are probably buying all modern issues more than those who are older; older in this instance than 55 or those who only used clad as payment. I also suspect that those who are under 30 buy them in slightly higher proportion than those aged 30 to 55. (I use 30 and 55 as arbitrary cutoffs for the two generations who have only used clad in commerce.)

 

I don't believe that people are never going to collect the DR peso. I don't believe that US moderns can't be collected because they aren't silver and don't fit your arbitrary definition of what's desirable and collectable.

 

But concurrently, I disagree absent specific evidence that their actual preferences are significantly different. An unknown percentage are certainly buying them because of financial limitations, just as those who purchase recent classics do not necessarily prefer them to their predecessors. Everything I know indicates that most collectors who start with circulating moderns are transitory. They “move up the preference ladder” (which you apparently believe is infinitely flexible) as soon as their financial circumstances permit it.

 

There had been, perhaps, about 2,000,000 fairly serious coin collectors over the last few decades up until 1999. Most of these people had no interest in moderns, were baby boomers, and lived in the US. In twenty years there will be 15,000,000 collectors and they will be a very different group of people. You can already see their effects but price guides are not keeping up with all of the reality. You do know that 1954 Indian set doesn't have even one single silver coin in it and some are even aluminum!!? These aren't being bought by the "old guard". They are being bought by collectors, not investors and speculators. I shudder to think what they could be worth in twenty years if demand continues to grow and speculators start buying them as well.

 

I don't desire any gambling in coins because it's bad for the market and most of the gamblers. I don't care what people collect in the future. I'm just telling you that your vision of the future seems to be stuck somewhere around 1960. Your points can be both valid and inapplicable. You can't apply standards and beliefs of the past to a constantly changing world. The old beliefs arose as a result of conditions that no longer apply. Mints no longer strike silver and gold for circulation so if you want a circulating DR Peso from after 1963 you MUST seek a base metal coin. Things change and the composition of the coins changed long ago and most older collectors are still resisting this fact.

 

When Krause starts trying to more accurately reflect the prices of all this "junk" then there will be a much stronger market since prices will be fair to both the buyer and seller. As is you can't buy things like modern Japanese because the prices are far below the home market. Not only will it make collecting far easier and the markets more efficient but new pricing will catch more peoples' eye. They'll wonder why some modern coins sport such high prices and they might even start a collection for themselves. Much of the reason for current pricing is related largely to inertia. It's related to a sort of disbelief that a cu/ ni Peso from 1969 could be worth too much more than its metal value.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cladking]

 

But concurrently, I disagree absent specific evidence that their actual preferences are significantly different.

 

Yes! Absolutely! Their preferences and desires are already factored into the overall market. But we're talking abourt the future here and this has nothing or little to do with current choices. By looking at trends you can make inferences about the future. By understanding people, causations, and trends you make guesses about what things will be like in the future. Back in the '70's I bet that people would want to own pristine examples of all moderns someday. This was based largely on the observation that all coins have always been collected and there was no reason to assume that the switch to base metal starting in 1945 would change this. I still strongly believe this and my only regrets are not being more confident and not expending more money and effort in the search. I could have saved many more of these coins from oblivion if I'd been able to acquire them. Attrition has been staggering because there were so few people searching for the coins or collecting them.

 

This is something you don't seem to appreciate in its full effect. Because these coins haven't been saved or collected and have suffered horrendous attrition over the next few decades there will be very very few modern collections coming on the market. There will be millions of classic collections up for sale because their owners are older. But there aren't modern collections so it matters little how old their owners are. Of the few collectors most are younger anyway.

 

The opportunities to acquire scarce moderns will be many because most large collections will include a few oddball items and some of these might be something like a 1954 Indian Proof set acquired in a visit sometime. The opportunities in moderns are actually likely to be better in the future than they were for me in the 1970's because the market will separate the wheat from the chaffe and I had to learn as I went. It was very labor and time intensive to collect coins the way I did and set aside extras for the future. There wasn't even an internet to help. Sometimes I'd acquire twenty of something before I realized it was common or I'd run in to several right away and pass on them because I figured they were common. I passed some really Gemmy Iceland 10K because the seller had a bunch of them and I figured they must be common. They were less than a dollar each and appear to me now to be borderline scarce (especially choice).

 

It's not what they're buying that's so very much different as what they are capable of buying. No matter what they collect over their lifetimes most of them would collect base metal coins if they wanted to. Some of them will, including EVERY SINGLE ONE who desires to collect modern circulating coins. You can see their desires already include things like the Indian base metal coinage.

 

The change in the demographic will affect some coins and no coins are likelier to be helped than moderns. The demand for some moderns will essentiually go from zero to hundreds, thousands, or possibly even tens of thousands.

 

 

[cladking]

A lot of people seem to think modern coin collecting is all about "condition rarity". This is not what I'm talking about. They believe it's about cherry picking and condition rarity because this is the part of it they can see. It's the tip of the iceburg.

 

The reason it's visible is that it's the only part of the modern US market that demand exceeds supply. There are a few people collecting the highest grades and even fewer of these coins so prices are "above the waterline". They can't see the rest of the market because it's cloaked in a mantle of invisibility; the coins aren't collected.

 

One of the reasons that US coins are desired in high grade is that most modern coins were poorly made by bad dies and then they were beat up. Typical coins aren't always common but they once were.

 

I believe well see this same phenomenon with some foreign coins where they were poorly made AND there are enough surviving to find superb coins. This won't happen with most of the coins that were beautifully made like Swiss moderns or where the coins are so scarce there's little opportunity to compare like some of the mid-century aluminum. If you have an Unc 1955 Japan 1Y or China 5f then it's very little matter if it's well made or not. You might not find a better one. But some coins like Brunei are available enough to search and Gems are scarce enough to care about condition.

 

The only reason you can find something like a 1983-P quarter is that there isn't much demand. If this had the kind of demand that a '50-D nickel has then they would harder to locate and much more expensive. Few people would seek extraordinary coins because just a nice Unc would be tough enough.

[World Colonial]

We are not getting anywhere because you are rehashing the same things you said before. I have already addressed every single one of your points in my prior posts (ether in the last group or prior to that) and you just ignored them, just like you did before.

 

Your whole point is that somehow, because there is another generation of collectors, that this is what is going to prove you correct. I have demonstrated with far better specifics than you have that the observable evidence does not remotely support your claims at this time and that what you claim for the future is also completely contrary to how collectors and even people generally behave.

 

What you have written in these last three posts, its what I already conceded to you in my "eight points of agreement" to at least some extent.. This still does not refute or even contradict any of my primary points. To take but one, the detailed post I wrote comparing the preferences of today's collectors between the ASE and circulating moderns, you just ignored it because you certainly cannot refute it. It doesn't matter that younger buyers prefer this coin anywhere from 10 to as much as 1000 times over any circulating modern series, you are going to make your claims anyway. It is utterly nonsensical.

 

Below, I have added three more posts. You can reply if you wish and unless you have something else to new to add, I am going to post a detailed summary of my position in this thread and you can do the same. Then, we can both comment on each other's summaries and be done with it because we aren't getting anywhere. Here is what I am going to add at this time:

 

The first is the application of preferences to anything else outside of coins;

 

The second is a summary of how current preferences have changed and an application of the preference scale.

 

The third is my position in logical argument format.

[World Colonial]

 

But concurrently, I disagree absent specific evidence that their actual preferences are significantly different.

 

Yes! Absolutely! Their preferences and desires are already factored into the overall market. But we're talking abourt the future here and this has nothing or little to do with current choices. By looking at trends you can make inferences about the future. By understanding people, causations, and trends you make guesses about what things will be like in the future. Back in the '70's I bet that people would want to own pristine examples of all moderns someday. This was based largely on the observation that all coins have always been collected and there was no reason to assume that the switch to base metal starting in 1945 would change this. I still strongly believe this and my only regrets are not being more confident and not expending more money and effort in the search. I could have saved many more of these coins from oblivion if I'd been able to acquire them. Attrition has been staggering because there were so few people searching for the coins or collecting them.

 

This is something you don't seem to appreciate in its full effect. Because these coins haven't been saved or collected and have suffered horrendous attrition over the next few decades there will be very very few modern collections coming on the market. There will be millions of classic collections up for sale because their owners are older. But there aren't modern collections so it matters little how old their owners are. Of the few collectors most are younger anyway.

 

The opportunities to acquire scarce moderns will be many because most large collections will include a few oddball items and some of these might be something like a 1954 Indian Proof set acquired in a visit sometime. The opportunities in moderns are actually likely to be better in the future than they were for me in the 1970's because the market will separate the wheat from the chaffe and I had to learn as I went. It was very labor and time intensive to collect coins the way I did and set aside extras for the future. There wasn't even an internet to help. Sometimes I'd acquire twenty of something before I realized it was common or I'd run in to several right away and pass on them because I figured they were common. I passed some really Gemmy Iceland 10K because the seller had a bunch of them and I figured they must be common. They were less than a dollar each and appear to me now to be borderline scarce (especially choice).

 

It's not what they're buying that's so very much different as what they are capable of buying. No matter what they collect over their lifetimes most of them would collect base metal coins if they wanted to. Some of them will, including EVERY SINGLE ONE who desires to collect modern circulating coins. You can see their desires already include things like the Indian base metal coinage.

 

The change in the demographic will affect some coins and no coins are likelier to be helped than moderns. The demand for some moderns will essentiually go from zero to hundreds, thousands, or possibly even tens of thousands.

 

 

As a premise, the idea that preferences are infinitely flexible (which is what you claimed in a prior reply) is completely nonsensical and to demonstrate it, I will use examples that have nothing to do with coins at all.

 

If you believe that preferences are infinitely inflexible, then perhaps you also agree with these statements:

 

•Comic fans will come to prefer “The Flash” over “Batman” and “Spiderman”;

•Literature students and scholars will think more hightly of Virgil’s Aeneid than Homer’s Illiad and Oddyssey;

•Sci-Fi fans will like “Battlestar Galactica” more than “Star Wars”;

•The MLS (US soccer league) will become more popular than the English Premier League and Spanish “La Liga”;

•More tourists will visit the Atlanta High Museum of Art than the Paris Louve, the St Petersburg (Russia) Hermitage, and the NYC Metropolitan Museum of Art, regardless of whether the current holdings and exhibits change or not;

•Art critics and buyers will think more highly of and pay higher prices for Tiffany antiques than Faberge Russian Imperial Easter Eggs; and last but hardly least

•Future residents will come to prefer the Bronx over the Upper East Side (Manhattan) and their international counterparts will also prefer Soweto, Johannesburg in South Africa more than South Kensington, London. (In making this claim, I am of course referring to these locations as they exist today.)

 

These are not valid extensions of the argument you just made? Why not? Why should your argument be limited just to coins? If people’s preferences are really infinitely flexible as you claim, then each and every one of the examples I just gave not only are possible according to you, they are probable and there isn’t any reason for anyone here not to expect that they won’t occur within the same 20 year “new demographic” timeframe you provided for moderns.

 

If your rebuttal is that just because most won’t prefer them, it doesn’t mean that the relative preference won’t change, my response is the same one as before. You cannot demonstrate that any of these preferences will change at all simply as a function of a new generation aging and the burden is on you to do so.

 

You cannot object to my use of your own arguments to dispute your claims. If this claim is good enough for moderns, it should certainly be good enough for any other coin or for that matter, anything else no matter what it is because the logic you are trying to use certainly does not preclude it. Or are you actually now going to claim otherwise?

 

Under your theory, someone might get the idea that this “new demographic” of yours will not only desire these moderns you favor in much larger numbers, but also pay nonsensical prices for them. This is exactly what you implied in the PCGS “Top 100” thread. Sorry to tell you this but almost no one aspires to collect the coins you prefer anymore than they are going to actually make the choices I just used as examples. As in the last example I just gave, while some may or will prefer the Bronx over the Upper East Side, there isn’t ever going to be a day when many more will, much less that they are going to leave Central Park to relocate.

 

[World Colonial]

If your view point was consistent with how collectors actually behave, then anyone should be able to apply what you have claimed to coins across the aboard. Just look at the logical fallacies I listed from your prior posts. These eight claims you made (including collector preferences which I am covering now), none of them remotely reflect how collectors actually approach coin collecting, much less how non-collectors view the appeal of the hobby. This isn’t just my opinion, its what anyone can see for themselves by looking at collecting practices in this country and elsewhere, both now and in the past.

 

So far in this thread, you haven’t provided any alternative to explain how preferences are supposedly going to change, except in isolation which is what I have to some extent at least already conceded to you. Just an open ended claim that because people can change their minds this supposedly is going to result in your forecast being fulfilled in the future.

 

Like I told you, I do not need to disprove every one of your claims to invalidate your future expectations and I am not going to do it. Of all the logical fallacies you have put forward in this thread, this is one of the worst and its nonsensical. If you want to believe it, you are free to do so but I am not going around in endless circles debating a concept that has no merit whatsoever under the fiction that it is plausible.

 

In a prior post, you used 20 years as the timeframe when this “new demographic” will apparently be evident in the prices of the coins you favor. As I have explained multiple times, I do not see that you can demonstrate this with any specifics at all. You have made this generic claim in this entire thread but with nothing from existing behavior to give anyone a reason to believe it except in isolation.

 

Earlier in my posts, I used 38 years or since I have been collecting to show how collector preferences have changed which is none whatsoever between series. So the question now becomes, what possible reason can you give to explain how the changes you claim will occur in the next 20 years when they haven’t except generically as I describe below? It certainly can’t only be the age of the collector base because if it was, then the under 30 collector segment’s influence on the price of circulating moderns would already be far more apparent as I already explained.

 

To illustrate this concept for you one last time, first I am going to summarize the primary cultural changes in the United States over the last 40 years that have directly impacted preferences. These prove that even though substantial changes have occurred in some aspects, it has had minimal to no impact in the context you claim. Second, I am going to provide some more examples of how the preference scale applies which shows how obvious the relativist claims you advocate do not remotely reflect how collectors act in the aggregate and never have, ever. And to these, I can add as many more as necessary for anyone who thinks they aren't representative.

 

Cultural influences in collecting

 

Previously, I listed what I know as the five most significant trend changes in collecting in the United States since the 1970’s with a financial impact. These are (once again): 1) Coins bought as “investments”; 2) TPG; 3) Internet; 4) Registry sets and if there is a 5) Specialization which has increased the demand for toned coins and “special designation strikes”.

 

None of these are specific to the age of the collector at all. They aren’t even specific to any series. These factors have substantilaly increased the demand and price spreads for the (perceived) highest quality coins across the board, yet didn’t do anything to change the relative preference between different series. Or if it did, only minimally but still no change in the order. The age of the collector base certainly does not explain it because the data I provided on the ASE is much better evidence to refute your claims than anything you have provided to support them. Either most or even all of any price outperformance by circulating moderns can also be attributed to most issues being available at face value prior to these changes and many of them still are, which is exactly how you acquired either most or maybe even all of yours.

 

More recently, collectors have also further refined preferences by favoring the coins approved by the CAC while specimens not having original surfaces (such as many “white” or previously dipped 19th century coins) have also fallen (further) out of favor. This still has nothing to do with the age distribution or any series either. I presume that the CAC will sticker moderns but if they do, it must be minimal at this time. I have never read a single comment on either this forum or PCGS mentioning it. If they do, the demand for it must be non-existent because in most instances it doesn’t do anything to improve their marketability.

 

In my last set of posts, I mentioned the “Box of 20” concept. If this is actually a growing trend and becomes widespread, then obviously, it is going to have a substantial impact on the prices of a wide range of coins. But whether younger collectors practice it more, it still has nothing to do with moderns or any other series. I rate the odds at essentially zero that collectors will opt to include circulating moderns in this format to any greater extent than what has existed in the past.

 

The large cent and capped bust half are among the most popular and in-demand because they are the most widely collected by die variety. Whenever it started, today the explanation for both is the EAC and Bust Half Nut Club collector. This sub-culture explains the higher popularity versus most other series, independent of the coins’ numismatic attributes. There may be a few other series which have smaller but similar followings (such as Charlotte and Dahlonega gold), I do not know. But regardless, most do not and I rate the chances of a US circulating modern equivalent at effectively zero in my lifetime. I already know you can’t provide any reason to believe there will be one to fulfill your forecast either or else you would have already done so.

[World Colonial]

Part 2

 

Application of the preference scale

 

In a prior post, I listed a number of attributes where it should be apparent from the current price structure and census populations that it provides a reasonable framework for how collectors generically view different coins. These were only examples but it should be obvious that specific factors such as these explain collector preferences (behavior) in the aggregate, not collector age which doesn't explain anything.

 

Ancient Greek and Roman have been favored over Byzantine for at least the entire modern numismatic period (or 500 years) and presumably since both were available to be collected. Are you telling me that 20 or even 50 years from now collectors are actually going to find the historic merits and the relative artistic appeal of the latter series more compelling? And for anyone who does not know it, except for the gold Solidus, the bronze or at least silver denominations in the Byzantine series are much scarcer certainly in better quality yet are still much cheaper. My prediction is that long after we are both dead, the current order will still be in place because there isn’t any reason to believe that future generations will admire Byzantine culture more than Greece or Rome. They certainly have not for the last 1500 years.

 

What reason is there to believe that the pillar minors I collect are going to become more popular than the pillar dollar? Or the drapped bust half dime versus the dollar? Given identical or even similar attributes, collectors have always preferred larger over smaller coins by a lopsided proportion and these have the same design. To imply that such a preference is arbitrary or random is complete nonsense and there is no merit to such a claim whatsoever. If you can find even one exception, what is it? What possible reason can you provide that this will change?

 

With US series such as the 3CN and (whose attributes I already described), you mentioned that collectors need to get used to high(er) prices. Well, some of these coins already have high prices. They are cheaper or much cheaper than other US classic series but the most expensive are hardly cheap in absolute terms. Those who want these coins are already used to paying high prices for them and it isn’t like many others aren’t already aware of it. And it isn’t recent either as evidenced by the prices during the TPG bubble in the late 1980’s. High grade proofs (at least) from the 3CN series either sell for about the same or even less than they did 25 years ago, as I believe several others do as well. Other than your personal preference, what evidence or even reason can you provide that future collectors are suddenly going to find these coins so much more compelling?

 

To close this subject out, if your rebuttal is your claim about preferences not being "natural", I have already answered that idea multiple times and provided far more specifics to illustrate why there is no reason to believe it except in the context of a series such as the Jefferson nickel or FDR dime (silver vs. clad). I have also already provided more specifics to rebut your claim that age is such a significant factor as well.

[World Colonial]

A summary of my position in logical argument format.

 

My 1st Premise

 

Collectors only buy coins they actually like, subject to availability, perception of economic value and budget constraints.

 

Commentary: Culture is the primary driver in whether a society has a propensity to collect at all. Culture (not age) drives willingness to pay and preferences in the aggregate. Culture (not age) is the dominant demographic factor. The age distribution of the collector base absent changes in culture is irrelevant in predicting future aggregate (as opposed to in isolation) collector preferences. Income and wealth are the primary factors in collector budgets (in other words, how much those who are collectors will actually pay) but secondary to culture in whether they will collect or not.

 

My 2nd Premise

 

In the aggregate, collectors buy coins which are higher on the preference scale and at higher prices over those which are not.

 

Commentary: There are many factors which collectively influence the popularity of any coin. This is known as the preference scale. It is not fixed but can be demonstrated as generally consistent over time. The visible preference scale is also a function of availability and budgets since collectors cannot buy something which does not exist or they cannot afford. In other words, most Morgan Dollar collectors likely actually prefer early US dollars but do not have the money to buy them and the coins do not exist in sufficient quantity and/or quality anyway even if they did. This is one of the reasons you will never see me make your claims for the coins I collect, even though they are much higher on the preference scale than moderns.

 

My Cause

 

Moderns disproportionately contain attributes which place them at or near the bottom of the preference scale to most collectors, both now and since inception.

 

Commentary: This is so obvious I do not see how even you can deny it. Moreover, absent your numismatic relativism which has no merit whatsoever, there isn’t any basis to expect preferences to change except selectively, as in the eight points of agreement I previously listed. A culture change is the most logical reason to predict or even expect it.

 

My Conclusion

 

Collectors disproportionately do not buy moderns because they do not like them. Or, those who will consider them disproportionately like other coins better, which is why they buy them first and almost no one can buy everything concurrently. This conclusion is consistent with the price level, census populations and the non-statistical preferences as indicated on both this forum and PCGS.

 

[World Colonial]

There had been, perhaps, about 2,000,000 fairly serious coin collectors over the last few decades up until 1999. Most of these people had no interest in moderns, were baby boomers, and lived in the US. In twenty years there will be 15,000,000 collectors and they will be a very different group of people. You can already see their effects but price guides are not keeping up with all of the reality. You do know that 1954 Indian set doesn't have even one single silver coin in it and some are even aluminum!!? These aren't being bought by the "old guard". They are being bought by collectors, not investors and speculators. I shudder to think what they could be worth in twenty years if demand continues to grow and speculators start buying them as well.

 

I don't desire any gambling in coins because it's bad for the market and most of the gamblers. I don't care what people collect in the future. I'm just telling you that your vision of the future seems to be stuck somewhere around 1960. Your points can be both valid and inapplicable. You can't apply standards and beliefs of the past to a constantly changing world. The old beliefs arose as a result of conditions that no longer apply. Mints no longer strike silver and gold for circulation so if you want a circulating DR Peso from after 1963 you MUST seek a base metal coin. Things change and the composition of the coins changed long ago and most older collectors are still resisting this fact.

 

When Krause starts trying to more accurately reflect the prices of all this "junk" then there will be a much stronger market since prices will be fair to both the buyer and seller. As is you can't buy things like modern Japanese because the prices are far below the home market. Not only will it make collecting far easier and the markets more efficient but new pricing will catch more peoples' eye. They'll wonder why some modern coins sport such high prices and they might even start a collection for themselves. Much of the reason for current pricing is related largely to inertia. It's related to a sort of disbelief that a cu/ ni Peso from 1969 could be worth too much more than its metal value.

 

I find the premises of this extract to be nothing short of incredible.

 

This 15 million number you just wrote is a number you pulled out of the air. You cannot support it and there isn't any basis for it whatsoever, Not only do you not know how many collectors there will be in the future, no one has the ability to actually know what they are today, at least outside of a handful of countries if even that.

 

I presume from this statement that you believe most of these collectors will be outside the US The reason why this number of 15 million should not be believed is because of the last four fallacies I listed from your prior posts, numbers 5 to 8. I list them again for your reference:

 

5.You insist that the current level of participation isn't “natural” in societies that either have a limited or even no history of collecting.

6.You claim that the root cause of this limited participation is the lack of wealth and income, even when I repeatedly explained to you that it isn't.

7.You expect these societies and collectors elsewhere to increase their preference for moderns substantially, even when there is a limited history of collecting their classic equivalents. As with the United States, you claim it isn't “natural” that others do not buy moderns and pay the prices you demand to the extent your preferences require.

8.You ignore the supply limitations of the most desirable classics which exist in many (if not most) countries. Instead, you apparently expect these future collectors to either buy circulated dreck that hardly anyone in the United States would ever buy. Or presumably (since you have not even stated it), to pay nonsensical prices for moderns that they do not pay for classics today and possibly never will. The latter is the only logical conclusion to your claims given that there aren't remotely enough in demand quality (and sometimes average circulated) classics for existing collectors in many countries even today, much less in the future.

 

And to specifically comment on the part of your post in bold, I have already answered that multiple times. You have provided no reason whatsoever to believe that the changes you see will occur other than 1) the age of the collector which doesn't correlate to anything. 2) Your personal preference.

[cladking]

 

Under your theory, someone might get the idea that this “new demographic” of yours will not only desire these moderns you favor in much larger numbers, but also pay nonsensical prices for them. This is exactly what you implied in the PCGS “Top 100” thread. Sorry to tell you this but almost no one aspires to collect the coins you prefer anymore than they are going to actually make the choices I just used as examples. As in the last example I just gave, while some may or will prefer the Bronx over the Upper East Side, there isn’t ever going to be a day when many more will, much less that they are going to leave Central Park to relocate.

 

I'm surprised that the 1954 Indian set at more than four thousand dollars doesn't cause you some dissonance. How about little mass prooduced East German aluminum coins from the 1950's at $1300? High mintage Soviet coins of the 1970 at nearly $1000? This list goes on and on.

 

Do you believe these are anomalies? Moderns are junk that will never be of interest but, sure there are always speculators to drive up individual coins?

 

It's my contention that these are simply in the vanguard. Is it your contention that these are part and parcel of all the desirable modern coins and it doesn't matter how rare the rest are because no one will ever collect it?

 

 

There's really a little logic to the order in which the coins have sky rocketed. It is based on things like age, Lenght the coins were used, beauty and importance of design, and economic changes. To date demographic forces haven't played a large role because few countries have the same demographic we do (Japan is close), and these skyrocketing prices are primarily driven by local demand. So far it's been Portugal> Greece> Romania> Russia> India>. There are numerous series in other countries affected as well. How early a country is in the sequence will have little correlation to the degree to which the moderns increase. Some of the latest countries will have spectacular increases and some of the earlier ones will be muted. Some of the countries that have had only one or twoi series affected so far will have more as it's seen that later coins are nearly as elusive as the earlier ones.

 

Moderns come in two varieties; those which are as common as grains of sand on the beach and those you can't find. Thirty years ago all of the ones you can't find listed for a dollar or two at the most. Now about 25% of them list for $10 to $5,000. I don't know what they're worth but as I said thirty years ago, higher prices won't bring many to market because they just aren't out there in any meaningful quantities.

 

Ironically I used to consider Soviet mint sets a little "common". Sure, I knew there was no demand so they accumulated in dealer stock but I never wanted to pay more than a few dollars apiece for them so I passed a lot of them. I passed a lot of them and even some that list for hundreds of dollars now. Over the years these sets have been simply whittled away and now that there's real demand they are gone.

[cladking]

A summary of my position in logical argument format.

 

My 1st Premise

 

Collectors only buy coins they actually like, subject to availability, perception of economic value and budget constraints.

 

Commentary: Culture is the primary driver in whether a society has a propensity to collect at all. Culture (not age) drives willingness to pay and preferences in the aggregate. Culture (not age) is the dominant demographic factor. The age distribution of the collector base absent changes in culture is irrelevant in predicting future aggregate (as opposed to in isolation) collector preferences. Income and wealth are the primary factors in collector budgets (in other words, how much those who are collectors will actually pay) but secondary to culture in whether they will collect or not.

 

My 2nd Premise

 

In the aggregate, collectors buy coins which are higher on the preference scale and at higher prices over those which are not.

 

Commentary: There are many factors which collectively influence the popularity of any coin. This is known as the preference scale. It is not fixed but can be demonstrated as generally consistent over time. The visible preference scale is also a function of availability and budgets since collectors cannot buy something which does not exist or they cannot afford. In other words, most Morgan Dollar collectors likely actually prefer early US dollars but do not have the money to buy them and the coins do not exist in sufficient quantity and/or quality anyway even if they did. This is one of the reasons you will never see me make your claims for the coins I collect, even though they are much higher on the preference scale than moderns.

 

It's funny how closely we agree but how radically different our conclusions are. I think we both know that we don't share the same premises. Your world is ordered and logical as well as being static. This makes perfect sense to you since nature and logic are static so human reaction individually and in aggregate will tend to the static. You can't imagine any different world than one where wheat is a grass grown for food and kentucky blue grass is for mowing in suburban lawns. You can't imagine any change in the collective perception of Greek and Roman culture that might allow Byzantine culture to rise to the fore. I can imagine many ways this might change and, ironically enough, I predict it! I believe Byzantine coins will rise relative their Greek counterparts in the next half century.

 

There's nothing wrong with your premises and they work remarkably well in the short term 99.99% of the time. They always have because nothing ever really changes. The problem is that in the long term your premises invariably fail because nothing can remain unchanged; not even the way man percieves his place in nature. We are a product of our time and place but those who follow are a product of the same place but a different time. The coin market was as static as a collectibles market can be between 1965 and 1998 simply because it was the same group of individuals (for the main part).

 

You say people aren't infinitely adaptable but you can only do this by ignoring history. Would you have been different if you were a German in WW II? If you are so certain of your grip on logic then how do you explain the abysmally poor quality of modern products that result in resources being transferred almost directly from mine to landfill as those who cause it are more wealthy than ever before in human history?

 

 

 

[cladking]

 

Moderns disproportionately contain attributes which place them at or near the bottom of the preference scale to most collectors, both now and since inception.

 

 

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

 

 

I think a Greek 1957 2 D is one of the most beautiful coins ever made. Almost any half century old aluminum coin in pristine condition is remarkable. I like Ikes.

 

This doesn't take away a bit from a capped bust half or an ancient Roman coin. This isn't about the difference between a "pig face" and Donna Douglas. It's about the attitudes of a group of people who are coin collectors. This attitude that moderns are at the bottom of the preference scale will barely exist at all in the future. It is the product of a place and time that already no longer exists because mints haven't made circulating silver for many years. It is beside the point that many younger collectors prefer silver eagles to clad dollars. It's only natural to desire coins with silver in them. For many individuals silver will always be the deciding criterion. But this isn't about individuals whom haven't even been born yet but about attitudes and what coins actually exist. Every single individual who wants a circulating coin from this era or the last half a century will necessarily be a modern collector and will have base metal coins.

[cladking]

 

I find the premises of this extract to be nothing short of incredible.

 

This 15 million number you just wrote is a number you pulled out of the air. You cannot support it and there isn't any basis for it whatsoever, Not only do you not know how many collectors there will be in the future, no one has the ability to actually know what they are today, at least outside of a handful of countries if even that.

 

 

For all I know gravity will quit and there will be no coins and no collectors by the end of the day. What I'm looking at here are trends. I see a world where there is increasing wealth and this increase is largely in countries that allow competition and that have good resources and demographics. Some of these countries will be in surprising places that haven't had much wealth in millinea and others will be ones that already have good infrastructure and educational establishments.

 

Think of it this way; there were two million collectors in 1964. Since then we exported much of America's wealth and the total world economy will have increased about 10 fold in twenty years from that level. The economy is a mess but the ability to service demand has improved tremendously from 1965 levels. This is efficiency and increased market even though there is so much room elsewhere for efficiency gains. This translates to well over a ten fold increase in the ability of individuals to afford luxuries like coin collecting. The US market will almost certainly grow over the coming decades as a result of the states quarter program.

 

Yes. Most of the increase in collector demand will be abroad but US markets are likely to grow substantially as well. The foreign demand will largely be for foreign coins and, yes, a growing middle class probably won't translate to substantial amounts of coin collecting in some places. There are cultural and societal components to the desire to collect and what people choose to collect. The lackof availabilty of coins might well also play a role.

 

I would point out though that decades ago I tried to establish a trading network in a few countries. India was one of them. There was, at that time, almost no infrastructure for buying and selling coins outside of there metal content. There were no coin shops and no means to acquire coins so despite my being able to establish the links there were no coins (modern base metal) that could be acquired in India without extreme effort. Yet, even without this infrastructure the internet has made it possible to bid up the prices of many coins to what you consider exorbitant levels. I don't know many Saudi Arabians but even if they generally have no interest in coins it doesn't mean that the prices of some can't increase substantially. At least, I believe, none of their moderns are common. I could be wrong. I know that if you try to systematically collect them you will find more stoppers than "easy" ones.

 

A lot of the moderns that exist were saved inadvertantly. They were brought home to places all over the world by tourists but these coins tend to be worn and they have a very high attrition rate.

 

I don't think 15 million is a very high estimate. Even if you were right that wealth has little or no effect on people deciding to collect the world population will still have tripled since 1964. I think this estimate is actually quite conservative. It's a mere .2% of the population and people will never have been so closely connected to one another and all markets. Perhaps by then some of the current safety concerns with purchasing things on the net will be solved or partially solved.

 

The US market will be transformed over the next twenty years but the foreign markets are emerging from their infancies and more are born daily. This will continue no matter what happens here.

[cladking]

OK, brass tacks. I consider the Portuguese 50c and 1 E to be the very first moderns. This is a complicated definition and many might argue for other coins. As a rule moderns didn't really start until after WW II but these and Danish coins really fullfill most of the defining characteristics. The somewhat older Danish coins could be considered the first moderns but the early issues were short series. Mintages of Portuguese coins soared when silver was removed as is almost always the case. If the mint doesn't need to purchase silver than the coins are "pure profit". Normally quality suffers as well.

 

In Portugal only some 4.2 million silver 1 Escudo coins were made in mintages of about 1.4 million a year. Then this coin was made in aluminum bronze and mintages about doubled. The first year of issue was saved as typical but the second year despite its large mintage lists at $300 in XF! This is higher than any of the silver issues despite their great popularity and nearly universal appeal. The silver KM #560 is a beautiful one year type coin and is two thirds of an ounce of good silver (.835 fine). But these coins appeal to people now and they appealed to people in 1910. They are timeless classics that will always be in demand. But the 1930 Escudo in cu/ ni was allowed to circulate for decades before anyone even thought of setting some aside for future collectors. Despite the far higher mintage, despite the lack of silver, despite the widespread notion that it's modern junk, and despite the relatively poor quality and lack of much demand it lists for three times the price of the most valuable of the silver coins.

 

If you look you can see this in country after country. The moderns are higher priced despite the lack of demand. In twenty years "moderns" will be over a century old. They'll be 110 years old so my guess is they won't even be called "modern" any longer. The term "modern" implies "of recent vintage" so it's unlikely to survive with a new generation of collectors. Someone will think of a more apt term and it will catch on.

 

I don't know what the future holds any more than you do. But I do know trends and I know some of these trends are aimed square at the coin hobby and that world coins will be among the most directly and significantly impacted. Among these coins none will be more affected than moderns. This is simply because moderns have mostly ALL been ignored since the day they were made. Now many are elusive and some are rare in pristine condition. What happens to a $1 coin when demand increases 100 fold or 1000 fold? Some will still be about $1 but watch out with those that can't be found.

[World Colonial]

There's nothing wrong with your premises and they work remarkably well in the short term 99.99% of the time. They always have because nothing ever really changes. The problem is that in the long term your premises invariably fail because nothing can remain unchanged; not even the way man percieves his place in nature. We are a product of our time and place but those who follow are a product of the same place but a different time. The coin market was as static as a collectibles market can be between 1965 and 1998 simply because it was the same group of individuals (for the main part).

 

You say people aren't infinitely adaptable but you can only do this by ignoring history. Would you have been different if you were a German in WW II? If you are so certain of your grip on logic then how do you explain the abysmally poor quality of modern products that result in resources being transferred almost directly from mine to landfill as those who cause it are more wealthy than ever before in human history?

 

I never said that people don't change. The better and far more relevant question is, why should anyone believe your claims when you have provided no reason to do so other than your own personal preference? One does not lead to the other and to believe and claim it does is yet another logical fallacy.

 

Let me give you another example right in your own "backyard", the Jefferson nickel. In my “points of agreement” #7, I agreed with you that the price variances within this series between the pre and post clad era do not make any sense. The coins are exactly the same except for the date. From this, I logically conclude that eventually, the coins which are actually scarcer should and will sell for higher prices than their more common counterparts, despite the preferences which exist today.

 

Even assuming your claim of numismatic relativism has merit (which it obviously does not), it should be apparent even to you that if this obvious illogical discrepancy has existed for almost 50 years (depending upon the date of the coin), the changes you claim aren't remotely going to happen in 20 years or anywhere near it. If this preference which makes no sense at all has persisted for 50 years despite the numerous changes I listed during the last 40, how can you possibly claim that the drastic change you claim will occur in the next 20?

 

There are two new generations of collectors since clad was introduced (Gen-X and Gen-Y) and soon there will be a third. As I illustrated far better than you have, their preferences are not observably different than the baby boomers. So the question once again becomes, what exactly is supposed to be so different to fulfill your forecast? And in your answer, don’t tell me that it will be because they no longer “hate” moderns because even if they stop "hating" them does not lead to your logical faalcy where they will buy them in the numbers and for the prices that you insist.

 

Like I told you before, you and I will both be dead long before your claims ever happen. You can tell me from the grave if you are ever proved correct.