Creating a Jefferson Nickel short set - what is the ideal date range? 1 1

[Lem E]

If I were to build a war nickel set, I would go for a minimum grade of 67 5FS coins. It can be done for a reasonable amount. The tougher date/higher $ coins will be the 42S and the 45 P & S coins. The 43/2 will be a bit of a different story if you so choose to include this in your set. NGCs basic war nickel set requires this coin for completion. I just watched a NGC 1943/2 67 5FS coin (pop of 4) sell on GC a few weeks ago for a little over $3K. You may have to lower your standards for this slot. I know you have at least one pretty high grade war nickel already right? Thats a good start. Whatever you choose to do I wish you the best of luck and hope to see some nice nickels from you.

[VKurtB]

On 8/11/2022 at 8:34 PM, World Colonial said:

In my limited review of the Heritage archives, appears to have peaked around 2006.

I think it was predictable too in the sense that the prices would have declined, whether Congress did or didn't authorize a continuation of these seemingly never ending mostly mediocre design changes.

The reason?  The coins aren't interesting enough to enough collectors, not versus what the same money can buy in other coinage above a relatively nominal price point.  Almost no coins (if any) are priced in a vacuum where collectors will ignore all comparably (or lower) priced alternatives.

The same concept applies with this series.  It's a US series and most US collectors prefer US coins.  It's affordable to modest budget collectors or of interest as a "sideline" collection similar to the OP.  But as their primary interest, only to a minimal number of bigger budget collectors and even fewer "investors". 

As a US series, it's more liquid than the vast majority of non-US coins which is important to most collectors.  That's the primary advantage it has over a coin like the 1759 AU-MS Peru 1/2R I bought recently for about $300.  

Per the Heritage archives, the "earlier" date business strikes (1938-1964 as a dividing line using the old Whitman folders) have a lopsided collector preference over 1965 and later.  Concurrently, the number of collectors spending "noticeable" amounts must be really low.  

Agreed. Your specialty is one I’ll probably never be into. The ultimate non-liquidity. It’s just not my cultural thing. I’m descended from the Hun, and other Norse/Germanic hoards - you know, like Queen Elizabeth is. 

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

On 8/11/2022 at 9:38 PM, Lem E said:

If I were to build a war nickel set, I would go for a minimum grade of 67 5FS coins. It can be done for a reasonable amount. The tougher date/higher $ coins will be the 42S and the 45 P & S coins. The 43/2 will be a bit of a different story if you so choose to include this in your set. NGCs basic war nickel set requires this coin for completion. I just watched a NGC 1943/2 67 5FS coin (pop of 4) sell on GC a few weeks ago for a little over $3K. You may have to lower your standards for this slot. I know you have at least one pretty high grade war nickel already right? Thats a good start. Whatever you choose to do I wish you the best of luck and hope to see some nice nickels from you.

Thanks @Lem E.  Funny you would write this.  I was literally looking at eBay to get a feel for the higher end of the retail spectrum and saw some of the same trends.  Stopping at 1945 (vs 1964) does free-up a lot of capital that can be used to move from MS66FS to MS67FS (maybe some 67+) war nickels.  My 1944-D is a 67+FS, but I realize this is an easier coin.  I would like to do all major varieties, but I agree - compromises will likely have to be made.

I really have to get in there and start to put it together.  I really appreciate you (and the rest of the board) giving me some direction and advice.  Lot's of different perspectives, and I enjoy them all.  Thanks x 1,000,000

PS - @VKurtB You were right... I think I can get gaudier than MS66 with War Nickels.

Edited August 12, 2022 by The Neophyte Numismatist

[J P M]

On 8/11/2022 at 11:10 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Thanks @Lem E.  Funny you would write this.  I was literally looking at eBay to get a feel for the higher end of the retail spectrum and saw some of the same trends.  Stopping at 1945 (vs 1964) does free-up a lot of capital that can be used to move from MS66FS to MS67FS (maybe some 67+) war nickels.  My 1944-D is a 67+FS, but I realize this is an easier coin.  I would like to do all major varieties, but I agree - compromises will likely have to be made.

I really have to get in there and start to put it together.  I really appreciate you (and the rest of the board) giving me some direction and advice.  Lot's of different perspectives, and I enjoy them all.  Thanks x 1,000,000

PS - @VKurtB You were right... I think I can get gaudier than MS66 with War Nickels.

Going for the 67FS in nickels is like purchasing MS69 + 70 in other denominations. For some reason nickels are very popular now. I saw a couple of bidders fighting over a $90 coin that ended at $1500   If you shop around you may get some reasonable priced ones. Good luck if you go with the war set.

[Mr.Bill347]

 

 

On 8/11/2022 at 9:34 PM, World Colonial said:

In my limited review of the Heritage archives, appears to have peaked around 2006.

I think it was predictable too in the sense that the prices would have declined, whether Congress did or didn't authorize a continuation of these seemingly never ending mostly mediocre design changes.

The reason?  The coins aren't interesting enough to enough collectors, not versus what the same money can buy in other coinage above a relatively nominal price point.  Almost no coins (if any) are priced in a vacuum where collectors will ignore all comparably (or lower) priced alternatives.

The same concept applies with this series.  It's a US series and most US collectors prefer US coins.  It's affordable to modest budget collectors or of interest as a "sideline" collection similar to the OP.  But as their primary interest, only to a minimal number of bigger budget collectors and even fewer "investors". 

As a US series, it's more liquid than the vast majority of non-US coins which is important to most collectors.  That's the primary advantage it has over a coin like the 1759 AU-MS Peru 1/2R I bought recently for about $300.  

Per the Heritage archives, the "earlier" date business strikes (1938-1964 as a dividing line using the old Whitman folders) have a lopsided collector preference over 1965 and later.  Concurrently, the number of collectors spending "noticeable" amounts must be really low.  

How would you explain the “golden nickels” Presidents, Sacawega, innovation, etc. nobody seems to want them.

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

On 8/12/2022 at 5:57 AM, J P Mashoke said:

Going for the 67FS in nickels is like purchasing MS69 + 70 in other denominations. For some reason nickels are very popular now. I saw a couple of bidders fighting over a $90 coin that ended at $1500   If you shop around you may get some reasonable priced ones. Good luck if you go with the war set.

Thanks JP.  I appreciate you and everyone looking out.  I do see people getting carried away all this time.  This seems to be particularly true at eBay auctions.  I have watched coins that don't sell when they are "buy it now" at $90, and the dealer converts it to auction starting at $20, and the same coin auctions for $300.  i think people just get too passionate and lose their sensibility in the moment.

Also, I am not a guy that absolutely needs a grade matched set.  I try to make the coins look cohesive, but I could have a MS65 in the same set as a MS67.  I will have to be patient and flexible.  

Thanks again for the advice,  It's always great to better understand the series from those that have been down that road. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by The Neophyte Numismatist
autocorrect messed up

[World Colonial]

On 8/12/2022 at 7:56 AM, Mr.Bill347 said:

How would you explain the “golden nickels” Presidents, Sacawega, innovation, etc. nobody seems to want them.

It depends upon what you mean by "want". 

The "Sac" IMO is one of the better US modern designs but it's extremely common except as a "top pop", error, or die variety.  These coins are far from cheap for what is actually being bought.

The other series, aside from being really common, mostly have designs collectors don't really like very much.  I wouldn't call the price level "low", since I don't think any should sell for more than the grading fee. 

For those collecting the entire series, we're talking dozens to over 100 coins (presidential dollars including proofs) where even "low" prices may add up to thousands for the set.  It's not competitive versus the alternatives as a collectible and isn't bought for "investment".  It's not competitive now and no basis to believe it will improve later either.  Assuming the US Mint continues to strike circulating coinage indefinitely, demand should be less later versus now, as it will be competing with new circulating designs from a potential shrinking collector base.

[World Colonial]

On 8/11/2022 at 9:44 PM, VKurtB said:

Agreed. Your specialty is one I’ll probably never be into. The ultimate non-liquidity. It’s just not my cultural thing. I’m descended from the Hun, and other Norse/Germanic hoards - you know, like Queen Elizabeth is. 

My primary interest has a reasonably high preference but cannot be "popular".  It's the polar opposite of most US coinage.  The coins are too scarce where there is almost nothing to buy worth buying.  No one who prioritizes getting most of their money back will buy it.

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

@World Colonial I really don't know the world coin market very well.  I just don't care about it.  If you wanted to sell me your rarest coin for 10% of its value, I wouldn't buy it.  I just can't identify with world coins, I grew up in the US and US coins are what I want.  This is probably a very myopic view of Numismatics, but I know I am not alone.  

So, while your arguments of relative rarity are valid, it doesn't make much of a difference in the marketplace today (and I do not expect this to change anytime soon).  From what I have seen, world coins can be bought for pennies on the dollar when compared to US coins of similar rarity (and even coins less rare).  I agree that this would make them seen as relatively undervalued.  Comparing world to US coin collecting is not apples to apples, because the buyers just are not there - and this can easily be extracted by the number of registry sets in world vs US coins.

Maybe the world financial stage will change?  Perhaps emerging market will become superpowers, and the influx of capital will lead to the people of those emerging markets buying coins of their origin?  I think that could be a plausible, but highly speculative scenario.

Much of your arguments around the future of US coins seem to be "crystal ball" driven (i.e. less collectors in the future, or collectors will flock to more rare world coin alternatives.).  I cannot help but to believe that your passion for your sect is driving some of the collector bias that we also have in the US.  I am really trying not to be ethnocentric about coin collecting, but it is clear that the US drives the coin market today.

To be clear - I think coins are a bad investment.  Period.  For every Pittman, there are thousands+ that will lose money or struggle to break even.  It really doesn't matter what I buy coin-wise, I will make more (and predictable) money with traditional investments based on actual fundamentals.  I am not saying this because I don't like the thrill of coins, but if you gave me coin collectors in the 1980s and 1990s and had me manage the money - nearly ALL of them would be better off financially today.  Bold statement? Yes.  Accurate?  Yes.  It takes an INCREDIBLE collector to outpace a well-balanced portfolio over long term traditional investing.

All that said... I am not ready to say that most US coins will be worth grading fees in the future.  There are really too many variables for anyone to make such statements with any degree of confidence.  Like all collectibles, the patterns are cyclical... and like all investments, these cycles are difficult to predict.  If you know the secret sauce, I look forward to reading about you in Forbes.

Edited August 12, 2022 by The Neophyte Numismatist

[World Colonial]

On 8/12/2022 at 12:08 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

So, while your arguments of relative rarity are valid, it doesn't make much of a difference in the marketplace today (and I do not expect this to change anytime soon).  From what I have seen, world coins can be bought for pennies on the dollar when compared to US coins of similar rarity (and even coins less rare).  I agree that this would make them seen as relatively undervalued.  Comparing world to US coin collecting is not apples to apples, because the buyers just are not there - and this can easily be extracted by the number of registry sets in world vs US coins.

Where from my post did you get that my comments are based upon a comparison to world coins?  I used it as an isolated example, not the basis of my claims.  I hardly mentioned it at all.

My position isn't just based upon relative rarity, since most coins can be bought practically any time.  Rarity in and of itself isn't a primary factor in how coins are priced, especially since in US collecting most "rarity" is a pure contrivance based upon the TPG grade or some specialization. 

In this thread, it's that the coins subject to discussion aren't actually that interesting to most collectors, above a nominal price level.  This is evident even from your posts.  You're asking about this series as a "sideline" collection, not your primary interest.

Look at the prices in the Heritage archives for higher grade or die varieties and then look at how the sales records compare to other series.  The price is predominantly due to the TPG label.  Concurrently, this series is also near the bottom of the US preference scale, measured by how collectors spend their money.

The coins are available in volume any day of the week (unlike coins which are actually scarce), so obviously, the relative prices are due to collectors preferring to buy something else.

[World Colonial]

On 8/12/2022 at 12:08 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Much of your arguments around the future of US coins seem to be "crystal ball" driven (i.e. less collectors in the future, or collectors will flock to more rare world coin alternatives.).  I cannot help but to believe that your passion for your sect is driving some of the collector bias that we also have in the US.  I am really trying not to be ethnocentric about coin collecting, but it is clear that the US drives the coin market today.

My position doesn't have anything to do with your inference, and unlike practically everyone else I have ever debated on this subject, I never base my claims upon any preference I have. I'm not claiming any coins I own or like will become a lot more valuable in the future and never have.

Since you brought it up, here is the basis of my claim:

One: For more expensive coins, the end of the global asset mania.  This isn't specific to US coins and won't happen "tomorrow", but with the most inflated price level, should impact US coins the most, eventually.  (This claim is very unpopular.)

Two: A (noticeably) poorer population.  This isn't specific to the US, but the US is one of the few countries with a "mass market" and outsized "investment", so collecting is more closely correlated to broader economic and financial conditions.  (This claim is particularly disliked any time I bring it up.)

Three: Negative demographics, not age but the ethnic composition of the US population.  Look at the US Census Bureau forecasts.  Most US collectors are overwhelmingly "non-Hispanic white" with most of the remainder (presumably including me due to my surname but not anything else) presumably mostly classified as "Hispanic white". One or both are projected to grow minimally or decrease.  Whatever shift occurs doesn't bode well for the size of the US collector base and whatever that number is, a noticeably lower proportion collecting US coins due to cultural reasons.

Four:  Continuing decreasing competitiveness as a recreational activity.  This peaked in the 60's or 70's predominantly as a recreational expense.  

Five: Discontinuance of one or more circulating denominations.  I consider this a lot more uncertain (than the other four) but when (not if) it happens, will particularly be a negative for post-1933 US coinage and world coinage like it.

The biggest positive I see is the next upward cycle in gold and silver spot.  However, it didn't make much difference to most coins up to 2011 and don't believe next time either.  Primarily to "investment" coinage.

The US price level is predominantly driven by artificial affluence where since at least the early 1990's, above a nominal price level (maybe $300), most US collectors would never pay the price they do/did as a collectible as it's (totally) disproportionate to the merits.  Unless of course, they expect to get most of their money back at resale.

The price level is predominantly due to financialization and marketing, not actual interest in collecting.

[World Colonial]

On 8/12/2022 at 12:08 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

All that said... I am not ready to say that most US coins will be worth grading fees in the future.  There are really too many variables for anyone to make such statements with any degree of confidence.  Like all collectibles, the patterns are cyclical... and like all investments, these cycles are difficult to predict.  If you know the secret sauce, I look forward to reading about you in Forbes.

I didn't claim it for US coinage generally, only post 1933.  You can infer my conclusion from my prior replies.

This coinage is extremely common, except as a specialization or some arbitrary number on the TPG label.  In the overwhelming majority of instances, there are likely (far) more currently not in a holder than in one meaning the potential TPG counts are usually a (very large) multiple of the current counts except for the very highest grades.  (Current "top pop" and maybe one grade below it.) 

The only reason the actual counts will almost certainly not approach the potential is because:

1) It's not economical to submit it.  Any large proportional increase in the counts will collapse the market price.

2) Most collectors (especially low budget) prefer to spend their money on coins than grading fees.

However, collectors reasonably still infer the potential supply is much larger than the TPG counts.  Hardly anyone accepts the five premises I included above (#5 excepted), but using these premises, it's easy enough to concurrently conclude that over time, grading fees will increase a lot faster than the prices on this coinage, eventually exceeding the market value on an increasing percentage.  It's not like grading fees are low for most of this coinage now.

[VKurtB]

On 8/12/2022 at 6:56 AM, Mr.Bill347 said:

 

 

How would you explain the “golden nickels” Presidents, Sacawega, innovation, etc. nobody seems to want them.

Reminder: when they were current, outside of the very sparsely populated west, “nobody” wanted Morgan dollars either. Things change. 

[VKurtB]

On 8/12/2022 at 12:45 PM, World Colonial said:

I'm not claiming any coins I own or like will become a lot more valuable in the future and never have.

So then no self-aggrandizing Money Talk at an ANA show? Hee, hee. 

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

I assumed your basis was on relative rarity with world coins because this is the only true example you provided of coins that collectors would find "more interesting".  However, your actual basis leaves me with more questions than answers. In reading your response, it is clear that regardless of my questions we will not align.  

I cannot see into the future.  I cannot tell you what a cultural shift in the US will do.  I see no end to consumer commercialism and the asset mania that follows.  I do not feel that we are a noticeably poorer population in economic terms, however, I do feel that the divide of high/low income has widened.  I have no idea what/when the US will discontinue another denomination to coins or what that will do to the prices of those series immediately afterward or in decades to follow.

Even when based on solid fundamentals (i.e corporate earnings, Market CAPs, Cash-flow positions, P/E multiples and growth forecasts), future valuation of assets can be difficult.  When such fundamentals are removed (as above) it's a wild shot in the dark.  I am not saying that there are better fundamentals available, I am saying that anyone that makes absolute claims like yours is a speculator that is using little more than a crystal ball.  

As humans, we are all programmed to try to draw correlations.  We solve problems that exist and problems that do not.  The ability to recognize and replicate patterns is a part of the psyche that has kept us alive for eons, and it's hard wired.  Everyone does it.  However, it does not make all that we see true, and our bias will fill the gaps erroneously.

Buy what you love.  You may win, you may lose... but in the end, you will have the coins you love.

[World Colonial]

On 8/12/2022 at 2:39 PM, VKurtB said:

So then no self-aggrandizing Money Talk at an ANA show? Hee, hee. 

Nope, not from me.

[VKurtB]

On 8/12/2022 at 1:43 PM, World Colonial said:

Nope, not from me.

So many guys over the years pumped up their material with slickly produced talks and then announced the sale of their stuff (dumped). Aka “pump and dump”.

Edited August 12, 2022 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 8/12/2022 at 11:08 AM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

 I just can't identify with world coins, I grew up in the US and US coins are what I want.  This is probably a very myopic view of Numismatics, but I know I am not alone.

Trust me. You WILL get over this if you stay involved with coins. We all do. 

[World Colonial]

On 8/12/2022 at 2:40 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

I assumed your basis was on relative rarity with world coins because this is the only true example you provided of coins that collectors would find "more interesting".  

Coins are "interesting" to collectors at one price but not necessarily a (much) higher one, especially when we're talking about one with such a low general preference.  That's my primary claim behind this concept.

With Jefferson nickels or any other US series like it, you can see the difference in "interest" between the current financialized era (either the mid-70's to now or TPG era, depending upon the coin) and previously.

The US price level was always higher than elsewhere (at least since most or all of the 20th century).  Concurrently, since few coins were bought as "investments" until the 70's, it should be evident that any coin with a "high" price prior to it was primarily based upon buyer interest as a collectible.

As examples, all the actual 20th century US common key dates, like the 09-S VDB cent and 16-D Mercury dime.  Concurrently, what is now a "top pop" selling for high three figures and sometimes in the six figures was worth a nominal price, like a few dollars to or $20, usually.

The coin didn't change and unlike the preferred inference, I know collectors didn't miraculously experience a collective epiphany where they suddenly discovered these coins are supposedly so much more desirable than their predecessors thought.

That's how I know it's financialization and marketing.

[World Colonial]

On 8/12/2022 at 2:46 PM, VKurtB said:

So many guys over the years pumped up their material with slickly produced talks and then announced the sale of their stuff (dumped). Aka “pump and dump”.

There is a recent thread on the PCGS Forum where I argued against "noticeably" higher prices for world coins too.

Nobody there liked it either, as it was also contrary to their personal preference.  One poster even claimed I was trying to decrease my competition by being so "negative".

[VKurtB]

On 8/12/2022 at 1:57 PM, World Colonial said:

There is a recent thread on the PCGS Forum where I argued against "noticeably" higher prices for world coins too.

Nobody there liked it either, as it was also contrary to their personal preference.  One poster even claimed I was trying to decrease my competition by being so "negative".

That would make you a clever Bond movie villain. I can recommend a hairless cat dealer for you. Tell me, are you in the market for a nice subterranean monorail?

Edited August 12, 2022 by VKurtB

[Mr.Bill347]

Where is Chicken 🐔 man when you need him? 🐓 
 

[World Colonial]

On 8/12/2022 at 2:40 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

I cannot see into the future.  I cannot tell you what a cultural shift in the US will do.

I know there is a clear connection between culture and collector preferences.  It's not absolute but it's obviously evident.

The US Census Bureau forecasts won't prove to be 100% accurate but there is more reason to believe it's "directionally" correct than not.  I could believe that demographic groups who have shown virtually no propensity to collect will somehow find coin collecting compelling but there is no basis for it. I could also believe that any future collectors from these other demographics will have a similar preference for US coinage to current US collectors but that would contradict common sense.  It's absurd.

So, from the combination of what I just told you, yes, it's evident that demographics is a negative for US collecting and the price level.  I didn't say it was popular but there you have it.

On 8/12/2022 at 2:40 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

I see no end to consumer commercialism and the asset mania that follows.  

A basic understanding of physics principles provides the answer, at least to most people who will see the parallel and view the data impartially.  That's all I am going to say about that.

On 8/12/2022 at 2:40 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

I do not feel that we are a noticeably poorer population in economic terms, however, I do feel that the divide of high/low income has widened.  

No, not yet, thanks to artificial prosperity.

On 8/12/2022 at 2:40 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

I have no idea what/when the US will discontinue another denomination to coins or what that will do to the prices of those series immediately afterward or in decades to follow.

I don't know when one or more will either but I know it's going to happen.  It's going to happen either due to:

1) Lack of future purchasing power due to inflation.

2) Replacement by electronic money.  I can see world mints continue to strike NCLT afterwards but that's another factor.

I presume one of the reasons you hold this view is because you are new to collecting.  I've been collecting since 1975, off and on.  Decades ago (especially pre-internet), most or at least a much larger proportion of collectors got into collecting from circulating coinage.  Back then too, the hobby's footprint was a lot more visible.  More coin shops, coin magazines in bookstores, and ads in print media.

Without circulating change, it will almost entirely have to come from world mint advertising and buying gold and silver "as investments".  I infer this is a big factor now but mostly because of financialization and marketing.

[World Colonial]

On 8/12/2022 at 3:11 PM, Mr.Bill347 said:

Where is Chicken 🐔 man when you need him? 🐓 
 

No Chicken Little here.  I only use logic in my claims, whether it turns out to be accurate or not.

[VKurtB]

On 8/12/2022 at 2:18 PM, World Colonial said:

No, not yet, thanks to artificial prosperity.

You HAD TO go there, didn’t you? You make so many other cogent points and then WHAMMO, you go there, apparently to erode your own credibility. “Artificial prosperity” indeed. Gimme a stinking break! If I can pay my bills, feed myself and my wife, have some extra money to play with, for travel or coins or travel to buy coins, that’s prosperity, and there’s nothing artificial about it. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by VKurtB

[World Colonial]

On 8/12/2022 at 3:29 PM, VKurtB said:

You HAD TO go there, didn’t you? You make so many other cogent points and then WHAMMO, you go there, apparently to erode your own credibility. “Artificial prosperity” indeed. Gimme a stinking break!

I know you disagree with me.  I disagree with your economic philosophy as you do with mine.

[J P M]

On 8/12/2022 at 2:02 PM, World Colonial said:

I didn't claim it for US coinage generally, only post 1933.  You can infer my conclusion from my prior replies.

This coinage is extremely common, except as a specialization or some arbitrary number on the TPG label.  In the overwhelming majority of instances, there are likely (far) more currently not in a holder than in one meaning the potential TPG counts are usually a (very large) multiple of the current counts except for the very highest grades.  (Current "top pop" and maybe one grade below it.) 

The only reason the actual counts will almost certainly not approach the potential is because:

1) It's not economical to submit it.  Any large proportional increase in the counts will collapse the market price.

2) Most collectors (especially low budget) prefer to spend their money on coins than grading fees.

However, collectors reasonably still infer the potential supply is much larger than the TPG counts.  Hardly anyone accepts the five premises I included above (#5 excepted), but using these premises, it's easy enough to concurrently conclude that over time, grading fees will increase a lot faster than the prices on this coinage, eventually exceeding the market value on an increasing percentage.  It's not like grading fees are low for most of this coinage now.

I have to say that I picked the Jefferson Nickels because I like them. There are quite a few that are rare, true most are more available and much cheaper than other series coins. Yes a low budget collection. I agree, I would never be able to afford such a large number of coins in a set of graded coins. I do a lot of hard shopping to get the ridicules low prices. I find that way it hurts much less, when I find that one I have to pay half price for..... LoL   

Edited August 12, 2022 by J P Mashoke

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

@World Colonial You have certainly decades more experience in numismatics.  And, I love a healthy intellectual debate.  However, I can no longer continue.  As I stated before, I doubted we could align.  While I am a fan of Newton's work, physics and finance (while it sounds catchy) do not always align.  I cannot align to conspiracy theories of artificial prosperity.  You certainly make some interesting points, but there is too much other "stuff" homogenized throughout.  I simply no longer have the inclination to pick it apart point-by-point.  I already know we will not agree.  Thanks for the comments. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by The Neophyte Numismatist

[VKurtB]

The whole “artificial prosperity” nonsense flows wholesale out of the Von Mises Institute and cockeyed disproven Austrian School nonsense economics. It’s a fricken’ CULT. Yes, Steve Forbes and his minions are part of the cult, but it’s a cult nonetheless. It denies the very EXISTENCE of macroeconomics, claiming that only transactional microeconomics exists as an actual analysis, thereby falling prey to the Fallacy of Composition - that you can infer about the whole by looking at the parts. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by VKurtB

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

On 8/12/2022 at 2:55 PM, World Colonial said:

Coins are "interesting" to collectors at one price but not necessarily a (much) higher one, especially when we're talking about one with such a low general preference.  That's my primary claim behind this concept.

@World Colonial Okay.  I am really trying to understanding of what you mean, keep it numismatically focused, and not make this about my differences of economic opinion:

Are you saying (my numbers below are completely made up):

If a Jefferson is $100 and X collectors like it, and a Buffalo Nickel is $200 and 10X collectors like it, the Jefferson's ability to appreciate will erode as the price point gets closer to the Buffalo?  That breakpoint could be $120 before the collector justifies the overage, but certainly by the time they reach price parity the person buying the Jefferson would convert to the Buffalo.  This makes the assumption (based on historical numismatics) that the Buffalo would be the preferred design tomorrow as has been in the past.  Therefore, the relative differential between the Jefferson and the Buffalo would have to remain constant to prevent the collector from "changing brands" to maintain demand.  Therefore, the Jefferson and Buffalo can only move together.  Furthermore, the only difference in modern Jefferson collecting is the addition if "full steps" designation, however, this is not expected to generate enough interest to be able to compete with the more favored design if price points between the two are comparable?