Once Red-Hot....Now, They're Not: Fallen Stars 1 1

[VKurtB]

On 3/29/2024 at 8:26 AM, cladking said:

Most of the original purchasers of mint sets were in their 20's to 60's.  This would make the youngest of them pushing into their '80's today.  These weren't hobby outsiders they were regular collectors and have long since sold their sets and they were destroyed except a few that did sell to hobby outsiders.  

It's hard to impress on people how few of these sets I believe exist at all among the buyers over the decades.  They just  didn't buy very many.  Sure even Bob Vila was selling mint sets for years, they are bought by jobbers to sell at estate sales, and they are sold on HSN,  but none of these sold by the millions or even the thousands.  They were sold a few here and a few there.  Dealers used to tell me that nearly every single mint set that came in was shipped to wholesalers who cut them up.  This was the old days mind you. Since about the mid-'90's most of these were too cheap to ship so they were cut up by the dealer and put in the cash register.  They said they'd sell a couple every year around Christmastime for gifts.   

The mint sets are virtually gone and the proof sets are decimated.  There is as much as a 75% attrition on mint sets and 50% on proof sets.  

This is PURE BS. Both Uncirculated and Proof sets of virtually all dates still abound at auctions, coin shows, dealers, and flea market stands. 

Edited March 29 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/29/2024 at 9:26 AM, cladking said:

The mint sets are virtually gone and the proof sets are decimated.  There is as much as a 75% attrition on mint sets and 50% on proof sets.  

Where or how did you come up with those figures ? 

I don't doubt that many Proof/Mint sets were opened up and sold piece-mail for key dates or for a certain proof....but I agree with Kurt, I see TONS of these things at shows and many of them (most of them ?) are worth face value or original cost -- no appreciation whatsoever.

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/29/2024 at 9:26 AM, cladking said:

 .... The mint sets are virtually gone and the proof sets are decimated.  There is as much as a 75% attrition on mint sets and 50% on proof sets.  

I do not know the source for those percentages, but I believe the anecdotal evidence suggests as much.  I do not believe cannibalization of U.S. Mint products was as widespread as it is now with the advent of TPG certifications.

[GoldFinger1969]

The annual Doug Winter "What's Hot, What's Not" review is always a good read:

https://raregoldcoins.com/blog/2023/12/29/the-annual-dwn-whats-hot-whats-not-list-2023-edition

The first one deals with the Fairmont Collection.... I found it a bit confusing (will re-read it).....some Liberty Head DE's from Fairmont have outperformed Liberty Head DE commons....but with the expanded supply, you would have expected them to LAG relatively even if they both went up in price. I think this could be a case of the price being higher than a pure bullion coin but still "affordable" to many new collectors who found the rarity factor that Doug highlighted not showing up proportionately in a higher price (the article shows what I mean).

Also:  a case of the expanded supply of Fairmont creating its own demand, much like the 1857-S $20 DEs with the SSCA.

Edited March 30 by GoldFinger1969

[cladking]

On 3/29/2024 at 12:52 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I do not know the source for those percentages, but I believe the anecdotal evidence suggests as much.  I do not believe cannibalization of U.S. Mint products was as widespread as it is now with the advent of TPG certifications.

Perhaps it would be easiest to address this first.

Destruction of mint sets was greater before TPG's.  Nobody wanted them and there were so very many around.  They weren't only being destroyed because someone wanted one or two of the coins in them but because nobody wanted any of the coins in them.  Dealers had to buy them in lots and estates and there were no customers.  Some had a little premium and were shipped but most dates were just a cheap means to fill the cash register with coins.  These sets have been subjected to horrendous storage conditions where they are prone to destruction and degradation.  

I'm not saying only 25% of all mint sets ever made still survive,   I am saying that as few as 25% of many of the early dates survive.  If a real collector wants a nice '68 dime it doesn't matter one whit to him or the market that 80% of 1995 mint sets still exist. His demand is specific and must be met by a coin from a 1968 mint set of which only about 25% survive.  

The coins from these lost sets aren't hiding in the woodwork or still existing in slabs and rolls.  Most of these coins are in circulation or lost in fires and floods.  

[cladking]

On 3/29/2024 at 11:16 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Where or how did you come up with those figures ? 

I don't doubt that many Proof/Mint sets were opened up and sold piece-mail for key dates or for a certain proof....but I agree with Kurt, I see TONS of these things at shows and many of them (most of them ?) are worth face value or original cost -- no appreciation whatsoever.

There are numerous ways to estimate populations of things.  Most of these are statistical and based on relative prices and availability or deduced from interpretation of anecdotal evidence.   

In the old days dealers had these by the box; vast quantities on display or sitting in back.  Of course every single one of them was an early date.  Most of the original buyers still lived.  They were a lot more expensive but there were millions of them everywhere.  Now you go into a coin shop and they have a few on display (maybe) and a small box presented to anyone who expresses an interest.  Of course this small box in mostly later dates because... ...drum roll, please... ...most of the early dates are gone now.  And people still aren't buying them.  

The typical coin shop has gone from having 40 or 50 1968 mint sets to only one or two.  Since the sets still don't sell the wholesalers don't maintain any larger inventories than they ever did and these are not substantial.   Most old time collectors don't have any of these.  If they have a few mint sets they will not be 1968.   So where are you going to look for them?  At flea markets?  Among HSN customers?   How do you supply a mass market?

The sets we see today and seem to be so numerous come on the market just like in the old days; in lots and estate sales.  But few 1968 sets come from the original purchaser any longer and are just those removed from the market in the intervening years as most of the '68's were being destroyed due to lack of demand.  This flow still swamps the demand not because there are so many of them but because there is still almost no demand.  

All of the early dates now wholesale much higher than issue price.  No, they were not a good investment but they are higher.  

 

[cladking]

Very few sets contain even a single coin that is worth the cost of slabbing.  Even if five coins were submitted for every coin worth the cost this would still constitute a very small factor in the drawdown of sets.  

The typical mint set has about a 50: 50 chance of having a Gem but all moderns have to be in higher grade than MS-65 to warrant submission.  Most Gems are common date so finding specific Gems is far far tougher.   Only about 1 set in 100 has a coin worth more slabbed.   1 set in 300 has a "special" coin like a PL or an early strike.  1 in 1000 has a coin that sells for more than a few hundred dollars.  This is as the sets were made.  Yes, that's right; when the sets were new they were this nice.  Now days the few surviving sets are all tarnished and need to be cleaned up just to tell the wheat from the chafe.  The coins that were removed years ago are still pristine but the ones still in the plastic are tarnished.  

The fact such things aren't widely known is just further evidence of how widely neglected these coins have been. With no demand there is no price discovery.  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/30/2024 at 8:09 AM, cladking said:

Perhaps it would be easiest to address this first. Destruction of mint sets was greater before TPG's.  Nobody wanted them and there were so very many around.  They weren't only being destroyed because someone wanted one or two of the coins in them but because nobody wanted any of the coins in them.  Dealers had to buy them in lots and estates and there were no customers.  Some had a little premium and were shipped but most dates were just a cheap means to fill the cash register with coins.  These sets have been subjected to horrendous storage conditions where they are prone to destruction and degradation.   I'm not saying only 25% of all mint sets ever made still survive,   I am saying that as few as 25% of many of the early dates survive.  If a real collector wants a nice '68 dime it doesn't matter one whit to him or the market that 80% of 1995 mint sets still exist. His demand is specific and must be met by a coin from a 1968 mint set of which only about 25% survive.   The coins from these lost sets aren't hiding in the woodwork or still existing in slabs and rolls.  Most of these coins are in circulation or lost in fires  nd floods.  

If this is true, wouldn't this massive destruction of supply be accompanied by a big RISE in the price of specific coins in those sets ?

Edited March 31 by GoldFinger1969

[cladking]

On 3/30/2024 at 8:32 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If this is true, wouldn't this massive destruction of supply be accompanies by a big RISE in the price of specific coins in those sets ?

I believe it hasn't resulted in an increase of price for a very simple reason.  Even though the collector who wants a nice 1968 dime must look through multiple sets to find a suitable specimen there are still many sets for each of these collectors there is still far more supply than demand.  There are several thousand collectors wanting the dime or with one already in their collection and half a million 1968 mint sets.  The hobby has been lulled into this situation like a toad sitting on a warming hot plate.  Mint sets have been ignored and neglected so long that it is natural for the mainstream  hobby.  

.

We have been seeing a rise on the retail side for several years now but it escapes everyone's notice. It's not just anomalies like common 1990's nickel rolls sometimes selling for hundreds of dollars from retail listings but things like nice 'chBU 82-P quarters routinely selling on eBay for $100 which is many multiples of Greysheet. 

The reason this doesn't show up at wholesale is two-fold; There is no wholesale market and the few buyers of this material know that raising offers has no effect on the number of coins they can buy. In a real market buyers compete with one another by raising prices to get more stock but there are few buyers and no market.  This is likely to continue until the supply is completely exhausted and collector demand raises prices like it has for the '82 quarter.   

So long as the demand is so weak or non-specific there will be very little price pressure.  

.

 

 

Edited March 31 by cladking

[World Colonial]

On 3/29/2024 at 12:16 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Where or how did you come up with those figures ? 

I don't doubt that many Proof/Mint sets were opened up and sold piece-mail for key dates or for a certain proof....but I agree with Kurt, I see TONS of these things at shows and many of them (most of them ?) are worth face value or original cost -- no appreciation whatsoever.

There are no accurate estimates of survivors or survival rates, even for most actually scarce coins, much less post-1933 US coinage with large to absolutely huge mintages.  Mintage, that's the starting point for determining scarcity on any coin.

If anyone thinks mintages on any post-1933 US circulating coin are "low", try counting to these numbers and they will find out it isn't.  Proof and mint set mintages for the last 60+ plus years aren't, even for a circulating coin.  The 1950-D nickel or a "W quarter"?  It will only take you about one month without eating, sleeping, or doing anything else to count to 2+MM.  No, that's not a small number.

From this starting point, you then need to apply common behavioral factors known to correlate to attrition, which has limited to virtually nothing to do with what anyone sees or doesn't see by personal observation.  I've encountered numerous collectors on coin forums who claim or imply a coin is "scarce", or "rare", or "hard to find" or whatever because they didn't see as many as they think they should or supposedly couldn't find it. 

That's what I attempt to do in applying my claims, including comparing coins with better known estimates to those without it.

The only thing personal observation will confirm for anyone is that a coin is common.  A coin might be scarce if you don't see it (often), but in and of itself isn't the reason.  Some experience is more representative than others, but no one's experience is actually representative of hardly any coin, certainly not common coins.

P.S. Been gone for a long time and still owe you a response on the other thread.

[World Colonial]

On 3/30/2024 at 9:32 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If this is true, wouldn't this massive destruction of supply be accompanied by a big RISE in the price of specific coins in those sets ?

Not necessarily, because the remaining supply is not low, and collectors don't collect in a vacuum where they will ignore the price of competing alternatives at similar prices.

It also depends upon your definition of "big rise".  All circulating coins start at FV and under overmarketed and over-financialized US collecting combined with currency debasement since 1965 increase in value by large percentages routinely.  

[World Colonial]

On 3/30/2024 at 8:33 AM, cladking said:

The typical coin shop has gone from having 40 or 50 1968 mint sets to only one or two.  Since the sets still don't sell the wholesalers don't maintain any larger inventories than they ever did and these are not substantial.   Most old time collectors don't have any of these.  If they have a few mint sets they will not be 1968.   So where are you going to look for them?  At flea markets?  Among HSN customers?   

You could start with the internet which is what 21st century coin collecting revolves around instead of your outdated model where you think it is your local dealer.  No one needs to leave their house to buy this coinage, not even once.

On 3/30/2024 at 8:33 AM, cladking said:

How do you supply a mass market?

A collector only needs one coin for their set.  This coinage can be bought on demand, all the time, in practically any quality, only exception being arbitrary criteria or in some specialization mostly invented (as in "made up") by US collecting.

It's a non-problem, except for someone who theorizes in the abstract about how the world might "run out" of this coinage because collectors will find it so interesting they will either never sell it or sell it in such low proportion it won't be available.

Look on the internet, something your posts indicate you virtually never do.  I've looked intermittently or regularly for a wide variety of coinage: US, world, ancient.  Interestingly, I find the coins I'm looking for much, most, or all of the time and it's anywhere from dozens, hundreds, to even thousands of times scarcer than any US modern as a date/MM in all but the highest TPG eligible quality.

If the world hasn't run out of draped bust/small eagle half dollars (I see it every time I look) with something like 275-350 known for both dates in total (not a specific quality), there won't be any "shortage" for any of this coinage either.

[cladking]

On 4/2/2024 at 6:52 PM, World Colonial said:

There are no accurate estimates of survivors or survival rates, even for most actually scarce coins, much less post-1933 US coinage with large to absolutely huge mintages.  Mintage, that's the starting point for determining scarcity on any coin.

If anyone thinks mintages on any post-1933 US circulating coin are "low", try counting to these numbers and they will find out it isn't.  Proof and mint set mintages for the last 60+ plus years aren't, even for a circulating coin.  The 1950-D nickel or a "W quarter"?  It will only take you about one month without eating, sleeping, or doing anything else to count to 2+MM.  No, that's not a small number.

From this starting point, you then need to apply common behavioral factors known to correlate to attrition, which has limited to virtually nothing to do with what anyone sees or doesn't see by personal observation.  I've encountered numerous collectors on coin forums who claim or imply a coin is "scarce", or "rare", or "hard to find" or whatever because they didn't see as many as they think they should or supposedly couldn't find it. 

That's what I attempt to do in applying my claims, including comparing coins with better known estimates to those without it.

The only thing personal observation will confirm for anyone is that a coin is common.  A coin might be scarce if you don't see it (often), but in and of itself isn't the reason.  Some experience is more representative than others, but no one's experience is actually representative of hardly any coin, certainly not common coins.

 

No!!!  

Between 1931 and 1965 mintage was the starting point but that was more than half a century ago.  It's no longer 1965.  Nobody set aside coins and this is exactly why you don't see BU rolls of moderns.  

Quote

P.S. Been gone for a long time and still owe you a response on the other thread.

I believe I addressed all your points adequately in other subsequent posts.  If I missed anything I'll look back.  

[World Colonial]

On 3/30/2024 at 1:30 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Also:  a case of the expanded supply of Fairmont creating its own demand, much like the 1857-S $20 DEs with the SSCA.

Yes, in this case I'd attribute it to buying for "investment":

I presume the data is somewhere though I cannot find it, but it's my inference that there are some coins that were previously too scarce to be collected by a large enough collector base which became more valuable even as the supply increased.  Outside of "investment coinage" like your example, it appears only the most preferred coins (disproportionately from US coinage) have a deep demand base when "excessively" scarce.

[cladking]

On 4/2/2024 at 6:52 PM, World Colonial said:

There are no accurate estimates of survivors or survival rates, even for most actually scarce coins, much less post-1933 US coinage with large to absolutely huge mintages.  Mintage, that's the starting point for determining scarcity on any coin.

So because accurate estimates are impossible we're supposed to not do it at all and since they made billions of moderns we're not supposed to do them at all either!  

You'd be amazed how close some of my estimates are.  It comes with experience.  Just because I estimate all coins a little higher than others doesn't make me wrong.  Many of these estimates are simple proportions derived from  a great deal of sampling.  My biggest worry is actually sample bias rather than error.  

[World Colonial]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:17 PM, cladking said:

No!!!  

Between 1931 and 1965 mintage was the starting point but that was more than half a century ago.  It's no longer 1965.  Nobody set aside coins and this is exactly why you don't see BU rolls of moderns.  

I believe I addressed all your points adequately in other subsequent posts.  If I missed anything I'll look back.  

Total BS.

I haven't responded to your post(s) on the PCGS forum (yet), but your posting pattern is to disregard the evidence I use against your claims where you either rely on your unrepresentative experience or use irrelevant evidence.

I already told you in the other thread that if the world coinage I used as examples has the numbers and apparent survival rates it does, this coinage is almost certainly a lot more common than you claim.

There is absolutely no basis to claim that the survival rates on US moderns is lower or even approaches the examples I gave you.

It's utterly absurd.

[cladking]

On 4/2/2024 at 7:12 PM, World Colonial said:

You could start with the internet which is what 21st century coin collecting revolves around instead of your outdated model where you think it is your local dealer.  No one needs to leave their house to buy this coinage, not even once.

[sigh]

Are you really suggesting that just because no one has ever brough aunt Bertha's two rolls of bicentennial quarters to the local coin shop it must mean everyone is instead putting them both on eBay or calling up NGC for guidance?   

NO!  The LCS still absorbs most of the coins, dreck, and minor collections that come in as estates.  There ARE NO BU ROLLS and surprisingly few mint sets.  What does come in usually goes in the cash register.  

So where would you look for all those BU rolls you are so sure exist?   

[World Colonial]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:21 PM, cladking said:

So because accurate estimates are impossible we're supposed to not do it at all and since they made billions of moderns we're not supposed to do them at all either!  

You'd be amazed how close some of my estimates are.  It comes with experience.  Just because I estimate all coins a little higher than others doesn't make me wrong.  Many of these estimates are simple proportions derived from  a great deal of sampling.  My biggest worry is actually sample bias rather than error.  

No, I'm not amazed, because I know you are just "making it up".  I've already told you cannot possibly know what you claim to know and that's a fact.

Your posts demonstrate you don't understand statistics and that's a fact too.  You start with a false premise (that collectors "hate" this coinage) and then when you don't see it as often as you think you should because you're looking in the wrong place (your local dealer instead of the internet), you claim it's "scarce".  "Scarce" meaning less available versus 1933-1964 US coinage which is the most common coinage on the planet.

Your premises are false.  All estimates are based upon the observer's assumptions.  Therefore, your estimates cannot possibly be accurate other than by coincidence.

[World Colonial]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:26 PM, cladking said:

[sigh]

Are you really suggesting that just because no one has ever brough aunt Bertha's two rolls of bicentennial quarters to the local coin shop it must mean everyone is instead putting them both on eBay or calling up NGC for guidance?   

NO!  The LCS still absorbs most of the coins, dreck, and minor collections that come in as estates.  There ARE NO BU ROLLS and surprisingly few mint sets.  What does come in usually goes in the cash register.  

So where would you look for all those BU rolls you are so sure exist?   

Most coins are in someone's collection or "change jar", not any local dealer or even the internet.  You can also only be in one place at one time.

Do you understand that?

Did you read vKurt's post above here?  Well, if you didn't, he contradicted you but then, earlier in this thread you called his experience and Zadoks "hearsay" since apparently only yours is representative.

You know what you are actually claiming?

You are claiming that your unrepresentative experience is more accurate than the collective knowledge base on this subject.  That of all collectors in history, you know something no one else can know.

So no, of course I do not believe you.

[cladking]

On 4/2/2024 at 7:22 PM, World Colonial said:

I haven't responded to your post(s) on the PCGS forum (yet), but your posting pattern is to disregard the evidence I use against your claims where you either rely on your unrepresentative experience or use irrelevant evidence.

What possible evidence do you have that shows modern availability is correlated to mintage?  Might I remind you that all of the key dates are high mintage and some are very high.  

On 4/2/2024 at 7:12 PM, World Colonial said:

A collector only needs one coin for their set.  This coinage can be bought on demand, all the time, in practically any quality, only exception being arbitrary criteria or in some specialization mostly invented (as in "made up") by US collecting.

I don't presume to tell collectors how to collect.  I merely BELIEVE collectors will avoid ugly clad coins but I don't presume to tell them which are ugly and which are collectible.  Those who collect clads will make this decision and this evaluation for themselves.  i also don't presume to tell them how rare a coin has to be before it becomes collectible.  To each his own.  

But if people start collecting moderns AND want nice attractive well made coins there are not enough to supply a mass market. Many collectors would be priced out of nice MS-64 (gemmy) and better coins.  

You simply can't sell 1000 of something where only one exists.  The price goes up to squash the demand.  

[cladking]

On 4/2/2024 at 7:28 PM, World Colonial said:

No, I'm not amazed, because I know you are just "making it up".  I've already told you cannot possibly know what you claim to know and that's a fact.

Yes.  Quite right.  You've told me that.  

But you're wrong I can't make accurate estimates.   There are many ways to do it and I've told you a few of them in the past.  Most of them require experience and ALL of them require knowledge and evidence.  

On 4/2/2024 at 7:28 PM, World Colonial said:

Your posts demonstrate you don't understand statistics and that's a fact too.  You start with a false premise (that collectors "hate" this coinage) and then when you don't see it as often as you think you should because you're looking in the wrong place (your local dealer instead of the internet), you claim it's "scarce". 

I love it when you say this.  Who knew I didn't know how to find mint sets, BU rolls, and moderns.  

Did I ever mention I've talked to all the sellers of BU rolls from the '70's and '80's?   Did I ever mention they told me how many rolls they sold?  I round it off to "zero" because that's all it amounts to; a rounding error.  

 

[World Colonial]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:36 PM, cladking said:

What possible evidence do you have that shows modern availability is correlated to mintage?  Might I remind you that all of the key dates are high mintage and some are very high.  

By definition, remaining survivors has some correlation to the mintage.  Not just for US moderns, for all coins.

I've explained to you that there is no basis to claim the survival rates on US moderns are lower than the world coin examples I gave you.  In the PCGS thread, I used the example of the 1864 Bolivia centavo.  Yes, this one is likely a random event unlike US moderns or if you want to claim both are, a vastly lower probability random event.  No one can rationally dispute it.

Since I haven't read your replies to the PCGS thread (yet), I'll add that if you tell me US moderns are "scarce" or "supply constrained" again, virtually no one cares about the relative scarcity between US moderns and 1933-1964 US classics.  It's completely irrelevant, because both can be bought at any time except as I told you.  It doesn't matter if some silver quarter (like the 1964) is 1000X more common than any clad quarter, or more.

No one cares, except for you.

[cladking]

On 4/2/2024 at 7:36 PM, World Colonial said:

Most coins are in someone's collection or "change jar", not any local dealer or even the internet.  You can also only be in one place at one time.

How many nice pristine 1967 quarters do you think are sitting in someone's change jar.  I'll give you a hint. The very last one was accidently spent or was degraded about 1973.   If they're in a collection where would you find that collection from 1967?   Has it been updated every year since 1967?  If there are billions and billions of these collections why are they not seen?  

[World Colonial]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:36 PM, cladking said:

What possible evidence do you have that shows modern availability is correlated to mintage?  Might I remind you that all of the key dates are high mintage and some are very high.  

I don't presume to tell collectors how to collect.  I merely BELIEVE collectors will avoid ugly clad coins but I don't presume to tell them which are ugly and which are collectible.  Those who collect clads will make this decision and this evaluation for themselves.  i also don't presume to tell them how rare a coin has to be before it becomes collectible.  To each his own.  

But if people start collecting moderns AND want nice attractive well made coins there are not enough to supply a mass market. Many collectors would be priced out of nice MS-64 (gemmy) and better coins.  

You simply can't sell 1000 of something where only one exists.  The price goes up to squash the demand.  

Look, not trying to be difficult but your claims have no merit.

I'm going to tell you the same thing on the PCGS forum later.  There are only two possibilities for you to be correct and only two.

The first is a drastic cultural change which completely alters collective perception toward coin collecting, going back centuries.  The second is temporary speculation which will “flame out”, just like the 1950-D nickel bubble. 

Absent that, there is no possibility any of these claims you have bene making for years will ever happen because practically everything you claim or infer is contrary to aggregate collector behavior.  Collectors and the public do not have the motives you believe.

[World Colonial]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:46 PM, cladking said:

How many nice pristine 1967 quarters do you think are sitting in someone's change jar.  I'll give you a hint. The very last one was accidently spent or was degraded about 1973.   If they're in a collection where would you find that collection from 1967?   Has it been updated every year since 1967?  If there are billions and billions of these collections why are they not seen?  

I've never disagreed with you with this type of claim.

You're now shifting from "gems" or some narrow quality from the prior criteria.

[World Colonial]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:43 PM, cladking said:

Yes.  Quite right.  You've told me that.  

But you're wrong I can't make accurate estimates.   There are many ways to do it and I've told you a few of them in the past.  Most of them require experience and ALL of them require knowledge and evidence.  

I love it when you say this.  Who knew I didn't know how to find mint sets, BU rolls, and moderns.  

Did I ever mention I've talked to all the sellers of BU rolls from the '70's and '80's?   Did I ever mention they told me how many rolls they sold?  I round it off to "zero" because that's all it amounts to; a rounding error.  

 

Yes, and I have also explained to you why personal experience is never representative, no matter how many people you know or how many coins you see.  In the active PCGS thread, I read one of your responses as indicating you haven't been a CRH.  But whether you are or are not, doesn't change anything I told you.

It's not a matter of certainties but probabilities.  That's why I use the list of factors I mentioned previously, posted below.  I don't claim to know what you claim to know because no one can know it.

You're almost always comparing US moderns to 1933-1964 US coinage.  Yes, it's presumably almost always scarce versus that.  I haven't read your last replies on PCGS, but you have no basis for claiming that the supply of pre-1933 US coinage is much higher than consensus, except maybe where there is specific evidence to indicate it, like capped bust halves where I would agree that Coin Facts estimates are far too low.

Look at the list below.  Now compare how it applies to actually older world coinage or ancients with supply most presumably consider "high" for this type of coin.  It should be evident that if this coinage exists in the confirmed number and quality, there is no basis to claim US moderns should hardly ever have anywhere near the survival rates you imply, except in the TPG condition census grade and occasionally one below it.

*Mintage (Not low, not even for mint or proof sets.)

*Extent of organized local collecting.  (By far the largest collector base in the world.)

*Coin age combined with length of circulation.  (The coins are not old and have been – not maybe - saved in volume in “high” quality from “day one” within the lifetime of just those reading this thread.  We know this from mint sets alone.)

 *FV affordability (This wasn’t a constraint, proportionately or absolutely.)

*Melting, where it happened.  (No relevance for the quality we’re discussing.)

*Market value which if “low”, reduces the number for sale and probability potential buyers will be aware of it.  (Nominal value; limited motivation to sell, except to someone like you.)

*Random preservation; yes, it’s possible for some centuries old coin to sit in a “change jar”, just like ancient and medieval hoards.  (Applies even more to US moderns.)

*Comparison to known scarcer coins in the context of the TPG populations.  (Since these coins survive in current number, it’s a virtual certainty US moderns exist in multiples of dozens, hundreds, thousands, and sometimes more.  Compare just to China PRC.)

*Hoards (Yes, some exist of varying size.  If hoards exist for much older, much scarcer coins, it certainly exists for US moderns.  That’s what rolls represent.)

*Geographic access, extent of travel, and ease of communication.  (Not a limitation, not since the internet, and not since 1965. The coins circulated widely throughout the US.)

*Local circulation, as opposed to other geographic locations with more collecting. (Not relevant, it’s intended to explain trade coinage availability.)

*Quality when included in prominent collections of the series.  If a coin is missing from a prominent collection or is of low quality, it’s usually at least somewhat scarce. (Not applicable; we know this from registry sets alone.)

[cladking]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:06 PM, World Colonial said:

Yes, and I have also explained to you why personal experience is never representative, no matter how many people you know or how many coins you see.  In the active PCGS thread, I read one of your responses as indicating you haven't been a CRH.  But whether you are or are not, doesn't change anything I told you.

I've probably seen at last one coin for every die used to make '82-P quarters (for instance).  I drove around the country getting samples of these coins from many sources trying to find Gems.  Of course this was insufficient to see every coin but I've been buying rolls of coins from the bank in the intervening years.  I've had people send me circulated coin from various places (especially Boston). I've seen hundreds of souvenir sets, dozens of Numismatic News sets, and more dozens of Paul and Judy sets not to mention myriad other sets.  I've bought rolls on the market and a bag from a bank.  I've laid eyes on more than 1% of the coins that survive today in BU and seen enough circs (most in XF/ AU) that I've probably seen at least one coin from every die.  I've seen hundreds of coins from some dies.  

I haven't ignored and neglected the coins made in the last 60 years.  This is what the entire market has done.  

I've also sampled many of the coins set aside by the retailers over the years.  They account for the lion's share of existent BU rolls.  

 

Why would you with no knowledge and no experience doubt everything I've seen.  Why would you pronounce all these coins "uncollectible".  

'82-P is just one date: One mint mark. There are many others as well that are also very tough in nice condition for one reason or another.  

If you think you can just find a nice coin of every date in circulation you'll need to rethink this as well.  These coins were designed to last 30 years and we're coming up on 60 years.  Most of the old coins in circulation are in deplorable condition.  Even a nice attractive F can be highly elusive.  

[cladking]

On 4/2/2024 at 7:49 PM, World Colonial said:

The first is a drastic cultural change which completely alters collective perception toward coin collecting, going back centuries. 

People collect rarity, quality, history, and importance.  People collect things they expect to increase in value as well.  I'm actually counting on these things to continue as the world continues shifting through massive changes.  

[Henri Charriere]

🐓:  Whew!  Good thing you took my advice, stayed out of this donnybrook and saved your reputation and credibility.

Q.A.:  You must be new around here!  Reputation? Credibility? Respectability? I lost all that Years ago! W.C. was right about two things, though. I bought every coin I have sitting right here in my chair. 

🐓: And the other?

Q.A.:  I took Statistics six consecutive times in college.

🐓:. And???

Q.A.:  And I walked out of Statistics six times, got an Incomplete six times in a row, and every Inc. I got reverted to an F!  On the plus side, I graduated early.

 

[cladking]

This isn't a donnybrook.  It's barely even a kerfuffle.  

"Statistics" is the belief that the universe is random and physical law causes order.  I took it once but that was half again more than I shouldda.  

 

I don't believe nature is beholden to law or that anything is random.   We merely pretend it is so because there's no viable alternative.