Is the Clad Quarter Market Strong?

[World Colonial]

On ‎1‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 10:48 AM, cladking said:

Keep in mind though that my points in this thread have far less to do with supply than they do with demand.  In all collectibles demand plays a far more important roll in the determination of price than does supply.  The supply has not changed dramatically year over year but demand does appear to be changing and for the very first time ever in any circulating modern it appears that the demand for Ikes is exceeding the available supply. 

I believe the Ike market is the canary in the coal mine and in this case it's the coal mine running dry. 

Nothing breeds success like success in coins.  Price increases simply cause more demand.  This could prove a very volatile mixture in a market with almost no demand and little supply.   While none of the regular issue Ikes are scarce in typical Unc some of the other denominations are very elusive.  Several of the Ikes are quite tough in nice attractive condition and "typical Unc" can be extremely ugly. 

Yes, I am aware of this dynamic.

First, let me ask you a question directly.  What is your expected price level for these "collector grade" coins?  Does it differ from those I listed in my prior post right here and if so, by how much?

Second, as in your prior posts whenever we have discussed any number of coins, you appear to be making the same logical error you have in the past.  The same one other proponents do with the coins they like.

What is this error?

You ignore collector behavior by assuming these coins (clad quarters in this instance) are (a lot) more preferred to the (prospective) collector base than is evident today and since inception.  The fact is, there is no evidence that most existing (much less future) eagle reverse clad quarter collectors remotely have any strong preference for these coins whatsoever.

Almost no collectors buy a series in isolation and will ignore competing alternatives in a similar price range.  Of course, the price level for this series is very low but then, so is the collector affinity for it.

If they did, they would be buying them in noticeably larger (as in material) numbers at proportionately (much) higher prices right now.  There is no need for prior SQ collectors to return to collecting clad quarters because the price level doesn't (and never did) create any economic constraints for anyone, not at this grade range and prices.  If it does, then these people cannot afford to collect anything, literally.

Up above, you mentioned that 100,000 collectors would not stress the supply but would do so for the supply chain.  I agree with this statement.

Where I disagree with you is that enough collectors are actually going to pay a high enough price to incent the public to dig into their change jars or for existing collectors to break up their albums to make enough of the supply available for sale, not for anywhere near an incremental collector base of 100,000.  How high is "high enough" is a matter of conjecture but it is certainly higher than the lower end of the prices I provided in my prior post here.  It is unlikely to happen because any noticeable price increase will almost certainly result in an outsized percentage of the base either quitting collecting altogether (as also occurred when many collectors after 1965 had to pay a premium) or buying something else.

So as an example, wholesalers aren't likely to offer more than a few dollars for MS 60-63 or slightly higher prices for the most common MS-65 because there isn't enough money in it for the work involved for most sellers, most wholesalers or most dealers.   I don't believe they will even offer these amounts, except as they already do now.  These coins are hard to buy by the bag or roll not because they are remotely scarce, but because they were either never saved by the bag or roll or only in isolation.  They were set aside in low numbers by hundreds of thousands to millions of individuals and it isn't economical to anyone to make them available for sale in any large supply.  Unless of course, the coins are actually a lot more common than you believe in which case there isn't any reason to believe hardly anyone will want to pay more than FV.

My assumption is that most of the current collector base pays FV.   If as many as 100,000 collect this series in some form today (per a prior post of yours in another thread), I'd estimate that maybe 1% (or 1000) attempt to collect the entire series in TPG holders (the rest being type collectors or random buyers) and maybe somewhat more do so "raw" in better grades (65 and above as an arbitrary cut-off) at any noticeable premium to FV.  The other approximately 98% are overwhelmingly "cherry pickers" paying little (if any premium) to FV.  This is a guess of course but one not out of line with the price level.

As for Ikes, my comments differ for this series somewhat and I shared my opinions on its prospects in a prior thread.  I think it's prospects are somewhat better because it is a large coin but still don't believe it will be anything anyone can consider "material".

[cladking]

17 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

First, let me ask you a question directly.  What is your expected price level for these "collector grade" coins? 

I'm not sure I have any "expected price level" per se. 

However I will say that there's no reason that it's impossible nice looking XF to Unc coins of the older dates could get over 8 to $10 each after they have fully appreciated.  Of course keys would be higher and later/ common dates lower.  It might take 30 or 40 years to be fully appreciated.  I say "nice looking" because most clads in these lower grades are poorly struck or otherwise very unattractive and I doubt they'll be widely collected. 

Nice attractive Uncs (mostly what we call MS-62 to MS-65) could easily sell for 20 or $30 but again with key dates higher and common ones lower.  Gems will be all over because their availability is very inconsistent. True Gems of some dates like 1969 or 1982 are virtually unknown and others like '72-D are virtually "common".  Their prices will be determined by the degree to which future collectors wish to own the best.  There's no reason to suppose they'll be as 'obsessed" by quality as current collectors but there's also no reason to suppose it can't be more important.  Top grade specimens and pricing is another question altogether and any suggestion as to their pricing is entirely speculative.  It will depend not only on how important good quality is but also the distribution in grades of each date.  For instance a top end '72-D is only marginally better and less common than the next grade down but a top end '83-P might be significantly nicer and scarcer than the next grades down.   In the former case I would imagine the price differential will muted and in the second less so. 

Of course EVERYTHING depends on the degree of interest and I'm merely extrapolating half a million to a million fairly serious collectors.  There's no certainty this base will exist at all.  My guess here is based on various trends but the most important one is that collectors have always sought the most unloved things of the past to collect and nothing is more reviled than clad.  Also this projection is based on how ubiquitous these coins are and have been for decades.  This also plays a major role in how much interest collectors have in old things.  The very fact that these are not only in circulation but are likely to remain there for years in the future also works strongly in their favor.  The fact that the states quarters also circulate as calling cards for collections and that millions collect them already is a strong indicator of possible trends. 

There's really not much question these older quarters are already getting peoples' attention.  That this affects the general public to much higher degree than numismatists or the hobby at all is another strong point in their favor as a future collectible.  We have significant numbers of people involved in these already and no infrastructure for supplying coins to them.  Anyone can easily locate a common circulated buffalo nickel from the 1920's in any number of venues at almost no cost other than shipping but if you want a clad you have little choice other than eBay and it has a highly limited selection for someone who understands these coins.   

 

The bottom line is price is determined principally by demand and even demand can manifest in myriad ways.  It's hardly impossible all these new collectors will prefer coins that have circulated and done their jobs yet survive in attractive worn condition.  But even here there are dates that aren't really "common" even in F.  By the time most clads wear to VG they have been lost and most of the survivors are culls.  This is different than the old silver coins which often survived to low grades without damage.  But this is partly because silver coins passed quickly to low grade and the type of forces that acted on them.  Any coin that actively circulates for 50 years is liable to acquire damage. 

[e1cnr]

I am fairly certain I will never see a XF 1982/3p/d clad quarter routinely sell for $8 in my lifetime. Although I will continue to try to buy graded 65's for under $20.

[cladking]

17 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 How high is "high enough" is a matter of conjecture but it is certainly higher than the lower end of the prices I provided in my prior post here.  It is unlikely to happen because any noticeable price increase will almost certainly result in an outsized percentage of the base either quitting collecting altogether (as also occurred when many collectors after 1965 had to pay a premium) or buying something else.

 

Of course collectors will be priced out of the market.  This is really the process that always has set all prices.  if corn is too high people buy oats.  If a  collector can't afford chU yet still wants to collect he can buy XF.  If XF is too elusive or expensive he can collect VF's from circulation.  Or he can collect dimes or thimbles. 

Having such a wide spread in grades and availability at various levels is a strength rather than a weakness.  In twenty years kids can still get their starts collecting low grades and culls from circulation, perhaps. 

 

 

[cladking]

1 minute ago, e1cnr said:

I am fairly certain I will never see a XF 1982/3p/d clad quarter routinely sell for $8 in my lifetime. Although I will continue to try to buy graded 65's for under $20.

I offered a dealer $20 once for an AU 1983-P and he turned me down. 

It was one of the finest strikes I've seen on the date (even though it comes with good strikes).  It wasn't even a slider but had very light even wear.  I wanted it because it was the type "d" reverse and highly PL. 

There are dealers paying $20 or more for sliders.  They aren't doing it to save money on the sets they assemble but because they can't get the Uncs. 

Even XF's can bring significant premiums on eBay.

 

Keep in mind though that by far the most common pre-1986 clad quarter in XF or AU is the '83-P (&D).  That they are so common is reflected in their prices.  If they were as scarce as the 1981 in AU they'd sell for $35 or more.  People saved these but they did not save the other dates. 

[coinman1794]

On 1/7/2018 at 12:09 PM, numisport said:

This is such an odd comment to make, I know. But why would anyone spend 2k on a coin that visually unappealing when 68 cameo coins are available for a fraction of the price. Also ask yourself if a truly nice MS 68 piece turned up would they call it an SMS coin ?

Some people collect Business Strike coins in high grades and other collect Proofs. They are like apples and oranges to many collectors. Clad business strikes, in high grades, from this era are rare and desired by collectors. SMS coins are a type of Proof and do not appeal to the same crowd. They are typically more common, too.

Every so often, a nice clad business strike 1965-1967 gets labeled as an SMS. The SMS dies were often used until they lost all PL qualities, and may have been used to strike some business strikes, so there is overlap.

I've seen NGC graded MS68 clad quarters go anywhere from $800 -$2000, so this price is right in that spot.

[LINCOLNMAN]

9 hours ago, coinman1794 said:

Some people collect Business Strike coins in high grades and other collect Proofs. They are like apples and oranges to many collectors. Clad business strikes, in high grades, from this era are rare and desired by collectors. SMS coins are a type of Proof and do not appeal to the same crowd. They are typically more common, too.

Every so often, a nice clad business strike 1965-1967 gets labeled as an SMS. The SMS dies were often used until they lost all PL qualities, and may have been used to strike some business strikes, so there is overlap.

I've seen NGC graded MS68 clad quarters go anywhere from $800 -$2000, so this price is right in that spot.

Yes, collectors of proofs and collectors of business strikes are often different, have different tastes. IHC collectors tend to like one or the other, for example. To those who don't differentiate, the price differences seem odd indeed as business strikes often trump proofs of a higher grade, price-wise. 

[cladking]

9 hours ago, coinman1794 said:

 

Every so often, a nice clad business strike 1965-1967 gets labeled as an SMS. The SMS dies were often used until they lost all PL qualities, and may have been used to strike some business strikes, so there is overlap.

 

One of the things that complicates this so much is that not all SMS dies were PL when they began operation.  They used several different processes in die preparation, striking, and planchet handling.  While it's normally easy to differentiate SMS and business strike it's far more difficult with high grades.  Add in the fact that it's apparent SMS dies were sometimes used to make business strikes and it's easy to see how mistakes can be made.   The services appear to err on the side of caution so often label business strikes as SMS. 

[Just Bob]

21 hours ago, cladking said:

collectors have always sought the most unloved things of the past to collect

This is an interesting statement, and one to which I have never given any thought. Do you have any examples, other than clad coins, or were you just referring to coin collectors?

[cladking]

14 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

This is an interesting statement, and one to which I have never given any thought. Do you have any examples, other than clad coins, or were you just referring to coin collectors?

Expensive and well loved items made in small numbers seem to dominate other collectibles to a little greater extent than in coins but certainly in coins it is a mixture of the expensive or the unwanted.  In the 1890's the reviled civil war tokens were popular and in the 1980's it was all about the previously unloved silver dollars. 

It probably happens in other collectibles but I'm not very familiar with any others.  There are many factors that can lead to collector interest in the long run but any sort of "emotion" applied to a collectible by groups can excite attention to it.  I doubt there are many coins ever that have caused more emotion than clad quarters or moderns in general.  Hate 'em or love 'em, most collectors do. 

[World Colonial]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 11:58 AM, cladking said:

Of course EVERYTHING depends on the degree of interest and I'm merely extrapolating half a million to a million fairly serious collectors.  There's no certainty this base will exist at all.  My guess here is based on various trends but the most important one is that collectors have always sought the most unloved things of the past to collect and nothing is more reviled than clad.  Also this projection is based on how ubiquitous these coins are and have been for decades.  This also plays a major role in how much interest collectors have in old things.  The very fact that these are not only in circulation but are likely to remain there for years in the future also works strongly in their favor.  The fact that the states quarters also circulate as calling cards for collections and that millions collect them already is a strong indicator of possible trends. 

I don't have a difference of opinion with your post except for this extract.

It once again comes down to your expectations that the hobby will experience much larger growth than I do and that these collectors will behave as US collectors did up to 1965 when they primarily collected the immediate US classic predecessors.

Not only do I believe the US collector base will be smaller or a lot smaller than you do, I don't believe anywhere near the same proportion are going to be set collectors of either recent US classics or moderns.  A noticeable though probably low minority will switch to world coinage and the a much larger number will switch from these coins to NCLT as is apparent now.

I'll just restate (yet again) that the internet has made this collecting paradigm obsolete and that absent that collectors have similar preferences to yours, there aren't ever going to be anywhere near 500,000 to 1MM serious (active or whatever term you want to use) collectors for this series. 

It isn't going to happen because outside of the Lincoln Wheat cent (a series most collectors actually like as opposed to this one), I have never read anything from anyone (including your posts) giving anyone a reason to believe that the collector base remotely approaches 500,000 for any other series.  This includes Mercury dimes, Buffalo nickels and all the common silver series.

 

[World Colonial]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 12:05 PM, cladking said:

Of course collectors will be priced out of the market.  This is really the process that always has set all prices.  if corn is too high people buy oats.  If a  collector can't afford chU yet still wants to collect he can buy XF.  If XF is too elusive or expensive he can collect VF's from circulation.  Or he can collect dimes or thimbles. 

Having such a wide spread in grades and availability at various levels is a strength rather than a weakness.  In twenty years kids can still get their starts collecting low grades and culls from circulation, perhaps. 

 

 

Sure, collectors will be priced out of the market assuming they like the series as much as you claim they will.

The point as I have attempted to explain to you is that, except by using assumptions which don't remotely reflect actual non-collector behavior or collector preferences, it isn't going to happen.

Obviously, if I agreed with the assumptions you have provided in our prior message exchanges, I would agree with this post.  I don't for too many to list reasons to go over all over again.

Literally almost no collectors pursue a series in a vacuum, especially one which hardly anyone really likes such as this one.  Since you assume that future collectors will like this series a lot more than I do and is evident from anything in collecting, that's how you come to this conclusion.

No collector is priced out of this series today, except for the highest grades, errors and die varieties.  Those who are can't afford to be collectors at all.  If they wanted to buy this series (and this includes any prior and current SQ collectors), a lot more would so, right now.

They don't because they like other coins more or a lot more.

[World Colonial]

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:18 AM, Just Bob said:

This is an interesting statement, and one to which I have never given any thought. Do you have any examples, other than clad coins, or were you just referring to coin collectors?

It is only anecdotally true and to the extent I am not completely correct with this statement, it isn't going to matter to anyone reading this thread.

In US collecting, it's been true of the highest TPG grade eligible coins and others within a specialization but this is a generic preference..

Otherwise, I have been a collector since 1975 and to my knowledge, there isn't single US series which has substantially increased in popularity or overtaken another one.  The largest changes have been in narrow areas such as die varieties for early large cents and Bust halves, Charlotte and Dahlonega gold and maybe certain "CC" mint coinage.

[World Colonial]

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:32 AM, cladking said:

Expensive and well loved items made in small numbers seem to dominate other collectibles to a little greater extent than in coins but certainly in coins it is a mixture of the expensive or the unwanted.  In the 1890's the reviled civil war tokens were popular and in the 1980's it was all about the previously unloved silver dollars. 

It probably happens in other collectibles but I'm not very familiar with any others.  There are many factors that can lead to collector interest in the long run but any sort of "emotion" applied to a collectible by groups can excite attention to it.  I doubt there are many coins ever that have caused more emotion than clad quarters or moderns in general.  Hate 'em or love 'em, most collectors do. 

The perception of silver dollars changed in the 1970's (not 1980's) due to currency debasement which brought in a disproportionate percentage and number of financial buyers, something which will never happen with base metal coinage in any time period which will matter to anyone reading our posts.

In other mass produced collectible fields, to my knowledge, the prices are driven by the same contrived standards applicable in US coin collecting.  It's obviously evident in every single one where grading and certification are in use but in others, also by the equally absurd practice of assigning as much or more significance to the packaging versus the contents.  

For collectibles with far more limited numbers, that's a wide area.  Some of them are clearly driven by nostalgia but hardly any coin has the distinction where this will be a factor in the price because.  Most coins are far too generic and anyone can satisfy their nostalgia at a very low fraction of the price of the most expensive examples.

[cladking]

16 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

Not only do I believe the US collector base will be smaller or a lot smaller than you do, I don't believe anywhere near the same proportion are going to be set collectors of either recent US classics or moderns.  A noticeable though probably low minority will switch to world coinage and the a much larger number will switch from these coins to NCLT as is apparent now.

 

 

I'm sure you're right that new collectors won't collect just like my generation did. 

But I still have to believe that among a population of 20,000,000 plus collectors, many of whom developed an interest in numismatics through states quarters, there will be half a million to a million serious collectors of clad quarters.  Of course there will be many things this population will collect and soon enough they'll own all the surviving coins.  Of course there will be more type collecting and more diversity in their tastes and collections. 

[cladking]

16 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

No collector is priced out of this series today, except for the highest grades, errors and die varieties.  Those who are can't afford to be collectors at all.  If they wanted to buy this series (and this includes any prior and current SQ collectors), a lot more would so, right now.

They don't because they like other coins more or a lot more.

No.  Relatively few younger collectors are coming on board yet but the number just keeps increasing.  The hobby is still presenting a nearly united front that moderns are uncollectible junk so many who do "sign up" have an interest in classics.  As time goes by there are more breaches in the united front and larger and larger percentages will be those who currently feel excluded. 

The hobby will never change to include these people but as these people become the hobby it will be transformed.  Real change in beliefs is always generational.

[cladking]

16 hours ago, World Colonial said:

It is only anecdotally true and to the extent I am not completely correct with this statement, it isn't going to matter to anyone reading this thread.

In US collecting, it's been true of the highest TPG grade eligible coins and others within a specialization but this is a generic preference..

Otherwise, I have been a collector since 1975 and to my knowledge, there isn't single US series which has substantially increased in popularity or overtaken another one.  The largest changes have been in narrow areas such as die varieties for early large cents and Bust halves, Charlotte and Dahlonega gold and maybe certain "CC" mint coinage.

I was just talking to a young (40ish) banker about interest rates. She was telling me that in her experience interest rates never change quickly.  I told her the story of the German heiress after WW I who was advised by her bank to invest her fortune but she neglected to do it.  A year later she got a letter from them advising her that her account had been closed to purchase the stamp on that letter.  

Series used to go in and out of favor far more quickly than they do now.  We've had a single generation of collectors controlling the market since about 1965. 

[World Colonial]

6 hours ago, cladking said:

I'm sure you're right that new collectors won't collect just like my generation did. 

But I still have to believe that among a population of 20,000,000 plus collectors, many of whom developed an interest in numismatics through states quarters, there will be half a million to a million serious collectors of clad quarters.  Of course there will be many things this population will collect and soon enough they'll own all the surviving coins.  Of course there will be more type collecting and more diversity in their tastes and collections. 

If by "serious", you are referring to a collector base of 500,000 to 1MM which will pay a premium over FV, there is no basis for it, regardless of how many collected out of pocket change during the SQ program.  Aside from Lincoln Wheat cents and maybe the ASE which has an outsized percentage of financial buyers as opposed to actual collectors, I have never seen anything to indicate that the collector base for the most "popular" US series is anywhere near either of these numbers.

And by "popular", I am once again referring to these series:  IHC, Buffalo nickels, Mercury dimes, SLQ, silver Washington quarters, WLH, Franklin half, Peace dollar and Morgan dollar.  I could agree a lot more for the Ike dollar (at low immaterial prices only) because it is a large common coin in "better" grades but there is no prospect for the eagle reverse clad quarter as there is no reason to believe it will ever be more "popular" (and definitely not preferred) versus the listed series.

As a recreational activity, I have never either seen or read any evidence to indicate that collecting is anywhere near as popular as it was in the 1960's.  It has been displaced by numerous other recreational activities which didn't exist in the past and to the non-collector, it is a lot less competitive for their money and time.  If there is a single reason to believe this will reverse, I have yet to see it anywhere.  If the SQ program had more than a transitory impact, it doesn't seem to be evident in the prices of the most widely collected US coins.  But even if I am wrong and the hobbyist (as opposed to financial buyer) collector base is larger now due to the much larger population, it's evident from the price level that the proportion of collectors who like these coins enough to prioritize it is less now than in 1965 because of the internet and NCLT.

Financially, there is no catalyst to support any expectation for a much larger collector base for this series either.  When the US coin price level improves substantially, the most likely (notice I didn't say only one possible) catalyst is noticeably higher gold and silver prices.  However, this doesn't support a mass increase in collecting of base metal coinage because these buyers bypass this coinage almost entirely.  The most logical explanation for the weak pricing of "collector grade" common US coins (all the most widely collected series) is that traditional set collecting has been substantially replaced first by NCLT and second, world coinage to a much lesser degree.

Longer term, demographics also works against this estimated collector base.  According to the US Census Bureau, the European population (non-Hispanic white) is projected to decrease from 196MM in 2014 to 182MM in 2060, not that far off from your 30 to 40 year timeframe per your earlier post.  The study didn't provide interim estimates but regardless, the message is clear.  As you know, the US collector population is overwhelmingly European and logically, so is the collector base for Washington quarters.

This almost certainly means that the US collector base will shrink but even if it doesn't, still doesn't provide any reason to believe that either recent US classics or moderns will be collected in the same number or proportion as now or in the past.  This is aside from the almost certainty that for much of this period, the collector base is likely to be (a lot) poorer.

So, how does a probable smaller and less affluent collector base with a lower affinity for (at least the most widely collected) US coinage translate into 500,000 to 1MM collectors for eagle reverse clad quarters?

The answer is that it doesn't, not even remotely close.

[World Colonial]

7 hours ago, cladking said:

No.  Relatively few younger collectors are coming on board yet but the number just keeps increasing.  The hobby is still presenting a nearly united front that moderns are uncollectible junk so many who do "sign up" have an interest in classics.  As time goes by there are more breaches in the united front and larger and larger percentages will be those who currently feel excluded. 

The hobby will never change to include these people but as these people become the hobby it will be transformed.  Real change in beliefs is always generational.

We have discussed your demographic claim numerous times, yet somehow miraculously collectors continue to prefer the same series generation after generation going back to the beginning of modern collecting.

IMO, replacing the Washington portrait is the only way to lift the general perception of this series.  And though you dislike this comment, it is evident that both the public and most collectors don't consider most US circulating moderns anything other than pocket change.  This isn't "bashing", it is a reflection of reality.  And before you accuse me of this, I don't have this opinion of the better quality coins (say MS-65 or better for this series) or the more collectible varieties but absolute do for all others.  It doesn't mean that I don't consider these coins collectible, it just means that I know that they are too common and lack the appeal you think they do to the overwhelming percentage of the collector base, whether now or later.

[numisport]

Yes nice Ikes are tough. Not too long ago 69 Ultra and DCam examples could be had for couple hundred bucks. They are mostly gone now.. I've never even seen one raw in brown box.

[cladking]

16 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

Financially, there is no catalyst to support any expectation for a much larger collector base for this series either.  When the US coin price level improves substantially, the most likely (notice I didn't say only one possible) catalyst is noticeably higher gold and silver prices.  However, this doesn't support a mass increase in collecting of base metal coinage because these buyers bypass this coinage almost entirely.  The most logical explanation for the weak pricing of "collector grade" common US coins (all the most widely collected series) is that traditional set collecting has been substantially replaced first by NCLT and second, world coinage to a much lesser degree.

 

Gold and silver profits were plowed right back into coins by collectors and dealers in the big 1980 run-up in gold and silver because this is what the vast majority of collectors were collecting at that time.  You are simply "predicting the past".  The reality is collectors collect but there is now and never has been more "collectability" of gold and silver than copper, cu ni, or aluminum.  That most collectors focus on these is an aberration caused by the experiences of the generation which is collecting them.  Previous generations thought things like bronze pennies were more "collectable" than US or foreign gold.  Some desires are constant but metal type is not one of them.  

Of course moderns are considered "pocket change" by the hobby.  And this is exactly why things will change.  If someone walks into a coin shop with a handful of silver quarters including a nice VF 1916 SL he'll probably be offered melt value for them.  If you bust open a roll of nice gemmy 1983-P quarters and take them in some dealers will tell you to spend them and send you on your way and some will make a significant offer for them.  People don't collect modern "pocket change" and this has severe implications in the present and future and has already had its most significant impact on the past.  It can't be undone in the past or present but the reality is it can only be undone in the future because today's collectors will be replaced and it's highly unlikely that such aberrations can continue.  Pendulums swing.  They do not go to their farthest extreme and find new energy to go further yet and they can't stay where they are.  They must come back to the center and until you can show me any sort of trend that would impede the creation of a new generation of collectors or that their nature will be just like ours I'll remain dubious you can be correct. 

This being said it's obvious that collecting could go out of style.  There are obvious forces that could push it into the background.  It's not only the mint and current collectors but other even larger forces and trends.  But the bottom line is people have money, they have leisure time, and numismatics is the greatest hobby on earth so I believe the future is safe. 

[cladking]

12 hours ago, numisport said:

Yes nice Ikes are tough. Not too long ago 69 Ultra and DCam examples could be had for couple hundred bucks. They are mostly gone now.. I've never even seen one raw in brown box.

I often wonder what's going to happen when everyone wakes up to the fact that registry collectors already own most of the finest Ikes.  This may not matter too much across the board but in many dates and instances it could matter greatly.  A lot of collectors might well desire Gem sets and they'll find that some coins have to be purchased in lower grades that are anything but Gem. 

Most collectors who consider moderns "pocket change" don't realize that sometimes second best isn't all that great and the best are all spoken for.  Anyone who has ever sought a 1982-P in well made pristine condition or a '70-S quarter heavily frosted on both sides will be aware of this but everyone else has this crazy notion that anything made in "huge quantity" must be common in every condition. 

Classic coins were made to exacting standards; moderns not so much. 

[World Colonial]

5 hours ago, cladking said:

Gold and silver profits were plowed right back into coins by collectors and dealers in the big 1980 run-up in gold and silver because this is what the vast majority of collectors were collecting at that time.  You are simply "predicting the past".  The reality is collectors collect but there is now and never has been more "collectability" of gold and silver than copper, cu ni, or aluminum.  That most collectors focus on these is an aberration caused by the experiences of the generation which is collecting them.  Previous generations thought things like bronze pennies were more "collectable" than US or foreign gold.  Some desires are constant but metal type is not one of them.  

Of course moderns are considered "pocket change" by the hobby.  And this is exactly why things will change.  If someone walks into a coin shop with a handful of silver quarters including a nice VF 1916 SL he'll probably be offered melt value for them.  If you bust open a roll of nice gemmy 1983-P quarters and take them in some dealers will tell you to spend them and send you on your way and some will make a significant offer for them.  People don't collect modern "pocket change" and this has severe implications in the present and future and has already had its most significant impact on the past.  It can't be undone in the past or present but the reality is it can only be undone in the future because today's collectors will be replaced and it's highly unlikely that such aberrations can continue.  Pendulums swing.  They do not go to their farthest extreme and find new energy to go further yet and they can't stay where they are.  They must come back to the center and until you can show me any sort of trend that would impede the creation of a new generation of collectors or that their nature will be just like ours I'll remain dubious you can be correct. 

This being said it's obvious that collecting could go out of style.  There are obvious forces that could push it into the background.  It's not only the mint and current collectors but other even larger forces and trends.  But the bottom line is people have money, they have leisure time, and numismatics is the greatest hobby on earth so I believe the future is safe. 

Do we have to go over this yet again?  Apparently, we do.

You claim I "predicting the past"?  You aren't doing anything other than interjecting your personal preferences into your posts and projecting it onto (most) other collectors.  

Your demographic claim has nothing to do with how people collect coins.  There is no evidence that the age of the collector correlates to anything, except anecdotally as I have explained to you numerous times.   What you call an "aberration" isn't abnormal at all.  There is no minimum required popularity for any coin or series; not in the past, not now and not in the future.

What you are really claiming and have been since our initial discussion is that collectors are supposed to prefer the coins they used in circulation in some minimal proportion.  When I brought this up previously, you denied it but it's the only logical basis for your broader theme and your claim here.  Otherwise, there is no reason to assign significance to your demographic claim and certainly no reason to remotely claim 500,000 to 1MM future "serious" collectors for one of the least preferred series in all of US coinage.

This is why I have told you that if your claim were remotely true, then the relative popularity between the ASE and all US circulating moderns would be impossible.  It's been almost 20 years since the start of the SQ program and there must be hundreds of thousands of this age group collecting now.  It's obvious from the price level, the TPG population counts and anecdotally from coin forums that only a very low proportion from this group spend any meaningful sums on the coins you like and it certainly isn't because they can't afford it.

Your answer has been that they have been conditioned to "hate" these coins or have been "chased away" by "naysayers" such as myself who have the audacity to question the merits of the coins you like.  Well, I'm telling you the real reason is that just as collectors before them, they prefer essentially the same coin attributes I described to you from the preference scale and clad quarters score low on every one of them.

Financially, I agree with you that gold and silver profits are "plowed back" into other coins to a large extent.  I'm telling that these buyers have essentially zero affinity for the coins you like and it's obviously evident.  You claim they will in the future but I'm telling that they won't, not due to any of the premises you have ever presented in our post exchanges because that's not how collectors or even people behave generally.  

Second, the claim I made about the popularity of the hobby as a recreational activity is obviously evident.  It's not impossible that the real hobby aspects of collecting won't become a lot more popular because coin collecting isn't physics.  However, the claim I am making is a much better one than those who disagree with me (including you) who believe otherwise.   

Third, the demographic data I presented has a proven correlation to how the population perceives coin collecting generally and how collectors choose what they collect.  You know this as well as I do and the demographic trends I presented are a negative for collecting but if you choose to claim otherwise, I can certainly elaborate.

Fourth, I didn't bring up economics in detail in this thread or how changes in the monetary system (in other words, how eliminating a denomination or all coins from circulation) will impact collecting but neither of these are favorable to your claim either.

[World Colonial]

6 hours ago, cladking said:

I often wonder what's going to happen when everyone wakes up to the fact that registry collectors already own most of the finest Ikes.  This may not matter too much across the board but in many dates and instances it could matter greatly.  A lot of collectors might well desire Gem sets and they'll find that some coins have to be purchased in lower grades that are anything but Gem. 

Most collectors who consider moderns "pocket change" don't realize that sometimes second best isn't all that great and the best are all spoken for.  Anyone who has ever sought a 1982-P in well made pristine condition or a '70-S quarter heavily frosted on both sides will be aware of this but everyone else has this crazy notion that anything made in "huge quantity" must be common in every condition. 

Classic coins were made to exacting standards; moderns not so much. 

"Everyone" isn't going to wake up to it because there is no reason to believe more than a miniscule number will ever give a hoot, not where they will ever "pay up" for it.

In all coinage, the number who will pay "high" prices or significant premiums for "gems" (whether scarce or not) is mmaterial.  And to your comment on quality, recent US classics are better made but many older ones (from the US or elsewhere) are not, including the series I collect. 

It is one thing to "cherry pick" "gems" as you do and another entirely to pay open market prices for these coins, something I might which your posts indicate you have never done.  The overwhelming percentage of collectors (as in over 99.9%) prefer to buy a slightly lower graded coin for a few percent (or even less) of the price for one of these "gems" and use the balance for something else.

[cladking]

19 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 There is no evidence that the age of the collector correlates to anything, except anecdotally as I have explained to you numerous times.  

The age of a collector has a virtually perfect correlation to his demographic.  Young collectors are not older collectors. No states quarter collecting youth was alive to bemoan the passing of silver from circulation in the '60's or the disappearance of scarce dates from circulation in the 1950's.  This is reality and the reality is that all of these  collectors are not only individually different from their predecessors but they are not predisposed to share the desires and values of their predecessors.   Most of them are shaped by their own experiences and own set of standards and values.  Despite the fact that current collectors try to instill only the love of silver and gold coins in them, they'll still collect what THEY desire without regard to your tastes or my tastes.  The fact that they'll be the new custodians of all coin collections is simply irrelevant to how they value those coins relative to one another. 

In two years time I believe we'll see nice pristine and typical 1969 mint sets selling for $20.  Of course this will be the retail price because most of these will trade retail.  Wholesale will be much lower to reflect the fact that most '69 mint sets are badly damaged from bad packaging and/ or poor storage.  The '70 will be slightly higher with a lesser spread.  Several early sets will be in great demand because there simply isn't enough supply to satisfy the growing demand. 

Ironically enough much of the initial boost in demand will come from dealers trying to fill the pipeline. As soon as it's recognized that the coins are unavailable at any price dealers won't want to miss out on sales by the lack of product. 

How the high end market will fare through all this is anyone's guess.  As I said before the initial reaction will likely be downward as more product is brought to market and checked for Gems.  This increase in supply will be significant in some dates.  However, most of the Gems are scarce so the longer term effect is almost certainly very positive.  The fact that so many moderns are unattractive resulting in  many collectors feeling driven to get nicer examples is likely to have a massive effect even at the highest levels. 

If this is really happening now you can be certain it will all happen quickly.  Nature abhors a vacuum and there is a massive vacuum in supply and demand that has existed for decades. 

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

The age of a collector has a virtually perfect correlation to his demographic.  Young collectors are not older collectors. No states quarter collecting youth was alive to bemoan the passing of silver from circulation in the '60's or the disappearance of scarce dates from circulation in the 1950's.  This is reality and the reality is that all of these  collectors are not only individually different from their predecessors but they are not predisposed to share the desires and values of their predecessors.   Most of them are shaped by their own experiences and own set of standards and values.  Despite the fact that current collectors try to instill only the love of silver and gold coins in them, they'll still collect what THEY desire without regard to your tastes or my tastes.  The fact that they'll be the new custodians of all coin collections is simply irrelevant to how they value those coins relative to one another. 

In two years time I believe we'll see nice pristine and typical 1969 mint sets selling for $20.  Of course this will be the retail price because most of these will trade retail.  Wholesale will be much lower to reflect the fact that most '69 mint sets are badly damaged from bad packaging and/ or poor storage.  The '70 will be slightly higher with a lesser spread.  Several early sets will be in great demand because there simply isn't enough supply to satisfy the growing demand. 

Ironically enough much of the initial boost in demand will come from dealers trying to fill the pipeline. As soon as it's recognized that the coins are unavailable at any price dealers won't want to miss out on sales by the lack of product. 

How the high end market will fare through all this is anyone's guess.  As I said before the initial reaction will likely be downward as more product is brought to market and checked for Gems.  This increase in supply will be significant in some dates.  However, most of the Gems are scarce so the longer term effect is almost certainly very positive.  The fact that so many moderns are unattractive resulting in  many collectors feeling driven to get nicer examples is likely to have a massive effect even at the highest levels. 

If this is really happening now you can be certain it will all happen quickly.  Nature abhors a vacuum and there is a massive vacuum in supply and demand that has existed for decades. 

Did you intentionally misinterpret my post?  I mean, it isn't like we haven't discussed this numerous times before and I am not aware of your claim.  We discussed this aspect of your claim a few months ago, I provided evidence refuting it and yet here you are (yet again) attempting to rationalize this premise.

I am aware that the age of the collector has a correlation to their demographic.  It is a meaningless truism which has nothing to do with collecting.  That isn't the point.

The point is that there is essentially zero correlation between a collector's age and their preferences.  There is your exaggerated claim of nostalgia but then, the correlation to the price level is also zero and essentially irrelevant.

You are once again also attempting to claim that because this is a new generation, preferences are unpredictable and random.  You can also attempt to rephrase this claim as often as you wish with different semantics and it will still never support your theory or disprove the data I previously provided to you.

There is a preference scale which exists in collecting which has a proven correlation to collector preferences, whether you are going to admit or not.   I can use these attributes as I have before to explain why a coin or series is or is not popular and have, numerous times.  I do not need to prove that it is "fixed forever" to contradict your theory because nothing you have ever written in any post of yours I have ever read has given anyone any reason to believe that the future  will remotely resemble what you claim.

I have never said there cannot be some growth in the size of the collector base and the price level.  But then, this is a completely different claim than yours where you are now telling me there is a massive vacuum in both supply and demand.

There certainly is no vacuum in demand .  Your claim of pent up demand is only evident to you based upon your unsubstantiated premises.  As I told you before, if your claim were remotely true, then prior SQ collectors who were ages six to 18 and are now 24 to 36 would be "falling all over themselves" to buy both moderns and this series at (much) higher prices.  Instead, the evidence proves they prefer the ASE over this series by a factor of at least 100-1 and versus all US circulating moderns by a factor of at least 10-1. 

[World Colonial]

3 hours ago, cladking said:

How the high end market will fare through all this is anyone's guess.  As I said before the initial reaction will likely be downward as more product is brought to market and checked for Gems.  This increase in supply will be significant in some dates.  However, most of the Gems are scarce so the longer term effect is almost certainly very positive.  The fact that so many moderns are unattractive resulting in  many collectors feeling driven to get nicer examples is likely to have a massive effect even at the highest levels. 

If this is really happening now you can be certain it will all happen quickly.  Nature abhors a vacuum and there is a massive vacuum in supply and demand that has existed for decades. 

Another comment on this extract and a clarification on my prior post.

I can agree there is pent up demand selectively for pre-1999 highest quality moderns and eagle reverse clad quarters, but not otherwise.  But then, there is nothing unusual about this idea because this is true of most coins since collectors given the opportunity would rather have a better coin, at the "right" price.  Aside from "grade rarities" which I equate as a proxy to your "gems", it's possibly true of a few others such as the 1971-P Ike in MS-66.

On the other hand, if as I suspect you are applying this idea to a much broader population, from both a quality standpoint or the prospective collector base, forget it.  There is no evidence that there is a "tidal wave" of pent up demand "clamoring" to buy these coins at (much) higher prices and I make this claim despite agreeing with you that the quality in moderns isn't as good as the immediate classic predecessors.

The reasons for this conclusion is the result of:

One: The very low preference and weak collector affinity for these coins based upon the preference scale I previously described to you;

Two: Collectors almost never collect a coin or series in a vacuum and will overwhelmingly opt to buy something else if the prices of your "gems" or near quality appreciates substantially even temporarily.

Three: There are no actual supply constraints except as I have conceded to you.  Only for "gems" which is a contrived scarcity and only applies to a miniscule proportion of the collector base, regardless of the series.

With some of the coins I collect, the abnormal scarcity creates the outcome you implied but not for "high" quality moderns generically.  The same applies to US coinage with strong collector affinity such as early large cents and dollars, even though these coins are (a lot) more common than most I collect.  If the supply of either was larger, both would be a lot more "popular" in the sense that the collector base could and almost certainly would also be larger.

[cladking]

4 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

The point is that there is essentially zero correlation between a collector's age and their preferences. 

Yes.  I stated a meaningless tautology.

But you are obviously making false statements apparently based on too small of a sample.  How many young collectors do you know?  Yes, most older collectors prefer silver and gold.  This is because they were shaped by the same experiences in all probability.  But new young collectors will have been shaped and are being shaped by a different set of experiences. 

I use tautologies to try to communicate.  Sometimes they do get trite. 

[cladking]

1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

Another comment on this extract and a clarification on my prior post.

I can agree there is pent up demand selectively for pre-1999 highest quality moderns and eagle reverse clad quarters, but not otherwise.  But then, there is nothing unusual about this idea because this is true of most coins since collectors given the opportunity would rather have a better coin, at the "right" price.  Aside from "grade rarities" which I equate as a proxy to your "gems", it's possibly true of a few others such as the 1971-P Ike in MS-66.

On the other hand, if as I suspect you are applying this idea to a much broader population, from both a quality standpoint or the prospective collector base, forget it.  There is no evidence that there is a "tidal wave" of pent up demand "clamoring" to buy these coins at (much) higher prices and I make this claim despite agreeing with you that the quality in moderns isn't as good as the immediate classic predecessors.

 

By "Gem" I simply mean a very nice attractive BU that is well made by good dies and pristine.  For the main part the services will grade these MS-64 or better but, then, the services will sometimes grade "dogs" as MS-67.  If a coin is mark free it can end up in a high grade holder even if it's weakly struck by badly aligned and worn out dies.  Only some MS-64 to MS-67 coins are really Gems.  Almost all MS-68's are true Gems.  The higher the grade the higher the percentage that are well made and pristine. 

There is no "tidal wave of demand" gathering.  What appears to me to be happening finally is that the small but increasing demand is finally beginning to exceed the small and decreasing supply.  This is forcing higher bids and this will change everything going forward.  I'd be very surprised if the hobby just ignores things like spectacular increases in BU roll prices.  People will pile on and dealer will buy stock to fill the pipeline.  All the demand now is real demand and this real demand will probably continue to slowly grow for many years yet.  It's the "non specific demand" caused by dealers and speculators that would (will?) shake the market. 

 

[World Colonial]

7 minutes ago, cladking said:

Yes.  I stated a meaningless tautology.

But you are obviously making false statements apparently based on too small of a sample.  How many young collectors do you know?  Yes, most older collectors prefer silver and gold.  This is because they were shaped by the same experiences in all probability.  But new young collectors will have been shaped and are being shaped by a different set of experiences. 

I use tautologies to try to communicate.  Sometimes they do get trite. 

I don't need to use my anecdotal experience to make this claim because there is verifiable data to prove it.  It is called the price level and population reports. 

Are you actually going to tell me that it's predominantly older collectors who prefer the ASE, modern US commemoratives and world NCLT?  Because if this is your claim, why should I believe it?  

If your claim is true, why isn't it reflected in the prices of US moderns now?  There are hundreds of thousands of younger collectors who grew up with SQ who still collect now but they aren't buying US moderns above immaterial prices in substantial numbers and the outlay is collectively insignificant.

In this context, the only observable macro evidence for a "different set of experiences" is the options made available by the internet and the generic preference for high quality coinage. But then neither has anything to do with a collector's age and it doesn't support your claim either.

There is absolutely no evidence that collector preferences were ever or are unpredictable, none whatsoever.  You claim it but that is nothing more than your personal preference and you cannot point to any supporting evidence than anecdotally.  If you could, you have done so many threads ago in our prior post exchanges.

As I told you only a few months ago, there is also no evidence of any decreasing preference for gold or silver among the general population for either gold or silver.  Gold is near multi-century highs relative to commodities generally and most (if not all) generic physical goods.  Silver has lost little if any value since the switchover to clad in 1965.

This preference I am describing here, it isn't based upon age either and it applies at least equally to collectors as to the general population due to the number of "metal bugs" in the collector population. 

Your belief in this absurdity puts you in the same camp along with government bureaucrats and professional economists who don't believe this preference should exist either.