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

[World Colonial]

On 7/19/2023 at 10:44 AM, cladking said:

So people call clad debased garbage that are like Chuck-ee-Cheeze tokens and that are more common than grains of sands on the beach in every grade because they just like the coins and don't want competition collecting them all!!!  \

You can't imagine the level of hatred for these coins in 1965 and they killed coin collecting and replaced every coin in circulation with coins that each looked alike.  It was so bad that by 1995 after decades of gaining new collectors the hobby nearly died almost altogether.  It nearly came to look like you believe it should with a few gentleman collectors in their study looking at financially significant coins.  

 

The sources I provided selling US moderns and world “moderns”, these sales either occurred or didn’t.  Are you claiming these sales are inflated or fictional?  If so, what evidence do you have for that?

If people bought these coins, then they either wanted it or they didn’t.  Are you claiming these people didn’t want what they bought or it’s not relevant?  If so, based upon what?

Are you claiming enough people have to buy these coins at the prices you think it should be worth?  If yes, who has to buy it and how much do they have to pay?   Do I have to buy these coins at the inflated prices you infer or claim it should be worth to prove I don't "hate" it?  Does anyone else? 

In the Swiss “moderns” thread, you wrote of your international trips, claiming it as evidence for your observations. You have and had the money, so why didn’t and don’t you buy coins you never collected?  If others have to buy coins they don’t want to disprove your claim, then so do you.  If others “hate” coins they don’t buy, then so do you.  If you claim you don’t, then neither does anyone else. 

Whatever your answer (pro or con), there is nothing unusual about it and therefore, collector behavior since the transition to base metal coinage is entirely “natural”.

[World Colonial]

On 7/19/2023 at 11:08 AM, VKurtB said:

I kinda understand why someone MIGHT want to "draw a line under" 1964. Some people don't want ANYTHING not a precious metal. Hey, it's not MY trick, but I at least understand it. What I will NEVER understand is why collectors "end" their nickel collections at 1964. I've known quite a few who have. Hey,.. guys,.. the nickel's composition DID NOT CHANGE! What's with the 1964 line, anyway? Maybe it'll change to Stainless Steel some year soon. But it hasn't yet.

No, dividing the series arbitrarily at 1964 makes no sense at all.  I pointed this out to CK during our first discussion on these topics back in 2013.

It's existed for decades, but in 2013 he told me he was looking for a radical change in collector preferences in 20 years.  

This is one of the best pieces of evidence against his claims.  

[World Colonial]

On 7/19/2023 at 4:43 PM, VKurtB said:

I recognize MOST collectors don't care about clad series, but I do. I keep all current series up to date with superior coins cut from Uncirculated Sets and Proof Sets. Some pieces are tougher, such as P and D Innovation dollars; finding truly prime examples of those takes some digging. Only available in rolls. 

There is a difference between caring about a clad series and paying the prices CK thinks it should be worth, as in light years apart.  He finally admitted it on the PCGS forum a few years ago, telling me that US moderns with 20,000 should each be worth hundreds though he didn't say when.  He also implied that the 70-D Kennedy half (a common coin) in MS-66 should be worth a lot more than the $200-$300 it sold for at the time.

It's as if collectors have (virtually) no other choices and the internet doesn't exist.

[World Colonial]

On 7/20/2023 at 10:58 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think there are lots more than "a few thousand" advanced collectors -- I think the Baby Boomers and the generation before them is why prices were in  the toilet for 2010-2020.  Too many sellers...not enough buyers.  How many people wanted to unload Liberty Seated or Walking sets or Franklin Halfs -- and how many were starting to collect them ?  Total imbalance, IMO.

I hope you are right on demographics (again, hate to sound like a broken record, but the trade groups and professional associations should have the data on this) and no doubt Covid and the Internet have spiked interest in our little niche.  We'll see if it has staying power.

If it has...then a rising tide should lift ALL boats and we should see some substantial new collectors for both Saints and Morgans and rising prices there for more common coins let alone scarce and rare ones, too.  Heck, the country has 1/3rd more population today than in 1980 so there's that alone. 

We'll have to let the market tell us.  Dealers should be able to give us indications of interest and traffic to their websites and B&M stores, too. 

The only change in demographics that is likely to matter is ethnicity.  That's what the evidence shows.

In the US, that's an increasing proportion of non-Europeans and especially non-Anglos who by any sensible expectation will collect US coinage in (much) lower proportion versus now, even more so versus the 60's with the internet.  This is at least equally true for US moderns.

Demographic turnover has a minimal to nonexistent impact on collector preferences.  There is no evidence of this anywhere.  Collectors essentially have the same preferences now which they had in 1965.

There is also a big difference between "investor" coins and all others.

[World Colonial]

On 7/21/2023 at 9:03 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Another important indicator of coin collector interest or at least general Type Collecing.......the admittedly high (said here numerous times ) price of an MCMVII High Relief Saint....there's 8,000 of these coins available but as I've been told repeatedly here, they sell at a relatively high price for one that is readily available.

But that demand is almost all certainly from coin collectors, if not strictly Saint or DE collectors.  I doubt artistic non-coin collectors are tracking the price and supply availability of High Reliefs.  As with special modern new Mint offerings, if you create something worth buying, they will come.  Whether modern ASEs or classic High Reliefs.

The internet is going to reduce set collecting of common coins even more in the future than it has now, at "meaningful" prices. 

Yes, that's practically all 20th century to date US series.  Excludes gold, Morgan and maybe Peace dollars.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/22/2023 at 4:56 PM, World Colonial said:

No, dividing the series arbitrarily at 1964 makes no sense at all.  I pointed this out to CK during our first discussion on these topics back in 2013.

Wow, were we discussing/debating that 10 years ago ?  I need to get a life....

On 7/22/2023 at 4:56 PM, World Colonial said:

It's existed for decades, but in 2013 he told me he was looking for a radical change in collector preferences in 20 years.  This is one of the best pieces of evidence against his claims.  

Not my claim, but I do think we've seen SOME changes to an extent.  There's greater INTEREST in collecting, spurred on by stay-at-homes during Covid-19.  And I think that the bear market in Small U.S. Coins from 2013-20 validated some of his thesis.  But no great interest in the coins he talks about or collects, though it's only been since 2020.

The coin hobby today is DEFINITELY different than 2013.  Back then, I was eBay 100% of the time for online stuff.  Now it's down to about 5% with HA, GC, and SB the bulk.  The number of online bidders at HA, SB, and newly-created GC has skyrocketed in 10 years, WC.

On 7/22/2023 at 5:00 PM, World Colonial said:

He also implied that the 70-D Kennedy half (a common coin) in MS-66 should be worth a lot more than the $200-$300 it sold for at the time.

What's it sell for now ?

On 7/22/2023 at 5:06 PM, World Colonial said:

The only change in demographics that is likely to matter is ethnicity.  That's what the evidence shows. In the US, that's an increasing proportion of non-Europeans and especially non-Anglos who by any sensible expectation will collect US coinage in (much) lower proportion versus now, even more so versus the 60's with the internet.  This is at least equally true for US moderns.

I do think this is a fair point.  

On 7/22/2023 at 5:06 PM, World Colonial said:

Demographic turnover has a minimal to nonexistent impact on collector preferences.  There is no evidence of this anywhere.  Collectors essentially have the same preferences now which they had in 1965. There is also a big difference between "investor" coins and all others.

Wait...are you saying demographics/ethnicity DOESN'T matter or it does ?  Or are you saying if new ethnic groups collect, they'll collect just like Anglos 50-60 years prior ?

I mention investor coins because for some coins -- gold and silver, notably -- you can collect AND invest in precious metals at the same time.  The "Eliasberg Exception" for the masses !! 

On 7/22/2023 at 5:09 PM, World Colonial said:

The internet is going to reduce set collecting of common coins even more in the future than it has now, at "meaningful" prices. Yes, that's practically all 20th century to date US series.  Excludes gold, Morgan and maybe Peace dollars.

Why do you say that ?  Are you predicting better information transmission about pricing and availability....new hoards....what ?  How would the internet reduce set collecting and also depress prices ? 

Edited July 22, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

On 7/22/2023 at 6:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Wow, were we discussing/debating that 10 years ago ?  I need to get a life....

Not my claim, but I do think we've seen SOME changes to an extent.  There's greater INTEREST in collecting, spurred on by stay-at-homes during Covid-19.  And I think that the bear market in Small U.S. Coins from 2013-20 validated some of his thesis.  But no great interest in the coins he talks about or collects, though it's only been since 2020.

The coin hobby today is DEFINITELY different than 2013.  Back then, I was eBay 100% of the time for online stuff.  Now it's down to about 5% with HA, GC, and SB the bulk.  The number of online bidders at HA, SB, and newly-created GC has skyrocketed in 10 years, WC.

What's it sell for now ?

I do think this is a fair point.  

Wait...are you saying demographics/ethnicity DOESN'T matter or it does ?  Or are you saying if new ethnic groups collect, they'll collect just like Anglos 50-60 years prior ?

I mention investor coins because for some coins -- gold and silver, notably -- you can collect AND invest in precious metals at the same time.  The "Eliasberg Exception" for the masses !! 

Why do you say that ?  Are you predicting better information transmission about pricing and availability....new hoards....what ?  How would the internet reduce set collecting and also depress prices ? 

By eliminating the geographical distance and knowledge between a nearly unlimited supply and VERY limited demand. I am COMPLETELY metal content agnostic, but only a fool would suggest there are lots of us. THERE AREN’T. 
 

I readily admit I have nothing to say about COVID-19. I reached my planned retirement age right smack dab in the middle of COVID. I never got ANY “free COVID money” to not work. I simply retired. Maybe 60-90 days earlier than I might have otherwise, but that’s it. I get a state pension and Social Security. I don’t understand the concept of COVID related changes in behavior. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by VKurtB

[World Colonial]

On 7/22/2023 at 7:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Not my claim, but I do think we've seen SOME changes to an extent.  There's greater INTEREST in collecting, spurred on by stay-at-homes during Covid-19.  And I think that the bear market in Small U.S. Coins from 2013-20 validated some of his thesis.  But no great interest in the coins he talks about or collects, though it's only been since 2020.

The coin hobby today is DEFINITELY different than 2013.  Back then, I was eBay 100% of the time for online stuff.  Now it's down to about 5% with HA, GC, and SB the bulk.  The number of online bidders at HA, SB, and newly-created GC has skyrocketed in 10 years, WC.

I'm referring to the coins collectors prefer.  There is no evidence that collector preferences have changed between US series my entire life.  If it has, it must be where the coins do not directly or virtually never compete. 

Morgan vs. Peace dollars?  WLH vs. Franklin half or Kennedy?  SLQ vs. Washington quarters, silver or clad?  Buffalo vs any other nickels?  IHC vs. Lincoln Wheat or Memorial?

All the same, with some movement between individual date/MM.  Same thing for others.

There have been generic changes I previously listed: buying coins as "investments" starting in the 70's, TPG with PCGS and NGC in the 80's, internet, registry sets, new specializations (new to me anyway), and CAC fro US coinage.  None of this is specific to any coin or series.

On 7/22/2023 at 7:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

What's it sell for now ?

I'd have to look it up, but not for the thousands he was potentially implying it should be worth.

On 7/22/2023 at 7:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Wait...are you saying demographics/ethnicity DOESN'T matter or it does ?  Or are you saying if new ethnic groups collect, they'll collect just like Anglos 50-60 years prior ?

Ethnicity is the one that matters most.  No, other ethnic groups will (on average) definitely not collect like Anglos in the 60's and Latins or Asians (mostly Orientals) do now.  African Americans and any others virtually do not collect at all, and it's not because they can't afford it.  This is all self-evident.

Gender matters second, but I have yet to hear one reason why this will change noticeably either.  I've heard it's changed somewhat in recent decades but not materially.

Age is essentially irrelevant.  It's a non-factor, with no demonstrated causality on aggregate preferences.  Any correlation is actually almost exclusively a budget limitation.  Low budget buying does not = preferred.  It usually means cannot afford something more expensive.

That's demographics.  

On 7/22/2023 at 7:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I mention investor coins because for some coins -- gold and silver, notably -- you can collect AND invest in precious metals at the same time.  The "Eliasberg Exception" for the masses !! 

Yes, that's why I am making an exception for "investment" coinage.  I think these other ethnic groups will still buy this coinage in noticeably higher proportion, though maybe less than European Americans do now.

On 7/22/2023 at 7:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Why do you say that ?  Are you predicting better information transmission about pricing and availability....new hoards....what ?  How would the internet reduce set collecting and also depress prices ? 

No, due to the greater variety made available by the internet. If you started in the internet age, why would you default to collecting predominantly or only US 20th century and later sets, in coin albums or otherwise?  Mostly monotonously long and boring series for average to mediocre designs.

If there is one broad change which is apparently more correlated to age, it's this one.  The second would be the preference for NCLT but this can't be compared to the 60's because modern NCLT didn't exist at the time.

I think registry sets will still be a factor, but also less than now.

Edited July 23, 2023 by World Colonial

[VKurtB]

On 7/22/2023 at 6:58 PM, World Colonial said:

I'm referring to the coins collectors prefer.  There is no evidence that collector preferences have changed between US series my entire life.  If it has, it must be where the coins do not directly or virtually never compete. 

Morgan vs. Peace dollars?  WLH vs. Franklin half or Kennedy?  SLQ vs. Washington quarters, silver or clad?  Buffalo vs any other nickels?  IHC vs. Lincoln Wheat or Memorial?

All the same, with some movement between individual date/MM.  Same thing for others.

There have been generic changes I previously listed: buying coins as "investments" starting in the 70's, TPG with PCGS and NGC in the 80's, internet, registry sets, new specializations (new to me anyway), and CAC fro US coinage.  None of this is specific to any coin or series.

I'd have to look it up, but not for the thousands he was potentially implying it should be worth.

Ethnicity is the one that matters most.  No, other ethnic groups will (on average) definitely not collect like Anglos in the 60's and prior, much less Latins or Asians (mostly Orientals).  African Americans and any others virtually do not collect at all, and it's not because they can't afford it.  This is all self-evident.

Gender matters second, but I have yet to hear one reason why this will change noticeably either.  I've heard it's changed somewhat in recent decades but not materially.

Age is essentially irrelevant.  It's a non-factor, with no demonstrated causality on aggregate preferences.  Any correlation is actually almost exclusively a budget limitation.  Low budget buying does not = preferred.  It usually means cannot afford something more expensive.

That's demographics.  

Yes, that's why I am making an exception for "investment" coinage.  I think these other ethnic groups will still buy this coinage in noticeably higher proportion, though maybe less than European Americans do now.

No, due to the greater variety made available by the internet. If you started in the internet age, why would you default to collecting predominantly or only US 20th century and later sets, in coin albums or otherwise?  Mostly monotonously long and boring series for average to mediocre designs.

If there is one broad change which is apparently more correlated to age, it's this one.  The second would be the preference for NCLT but this can't be compared to the 60's because modern NCLT didn't exist at the time.

I think registry sets will still be a factor, but also less than now.

I believe one thing drives changes in collecting behavior - maturity of the collector. “Kids”, (and I mean that in the most pejorative way possible) are too unsophisticated to understand the incredible breadth of material and collecting options out there. Ditto for those who are Internet-dependent. The Internet is a “pull” medium. You pull up what you think you want to know. That’s far less than what you NEED TO KNOW. Only by exposing oneself to a “push” medium, where the stuff you never knew existed comes roaring right into your stupid face, can you get even a tiny picture of what’s out there. The Internet has NOTHING compared with wandering the aisles of a major “hundreds of dealers plus talks” coin show. 
 

You can pretend and fool yourself all you like. You’re just WRONG if you think Internet collecting is a viable alternative.

Getting to know about what you don’t know exists is not an intuitive thing. You have to go at it with intent and purpose. 

Edited July 23, 2023 by VKurtB

[World Colonial]

On 7/22/2023 at 8:10 PM, VKurtB said:

I believe one thing drives changes in collecting behavior - maturity of the collector. “Kids”, (and I mean that in the most pejorative way possible) are too unsophisticated to understand the incredible breadth of material and collecting options out there. Ditto for those who are Internet-dependent. The Internet is a “pull” medium. You pull up what you think you want to know. That’s far less than what you NEED TO KNOW. Only by exposing oneself to a “push” medium, where the stuff you never knew existed comes roaring right into your stupid face, can you get even a tiny picture of what’s out there. The Internet has NOTHING compared with wandering the aisles of a major “hundreds of dealers plus talks” coin show. 
 

You can pretend and fool yourself all you like. You’re just WRONG if you think Internet collecting is a viable alternative. 

This makes sense.  But this maturity doesn't lead to increased collecting of most US 20th century or world coinage.  

I call your increased maturity collecting upwards, subject to budget.  It's mostly a one-way street, again subject to budget.

There isn't a universal definition of upwards or downwards, but anyone who evaluates the subject impartially knows what it means generically. 

You're not ever going to see anyone collecting ancients switch to modern NCLT as their primary collecting interest, though they may buy it for "investment" or as a "side collection".  No challenge to it, at all.

[VKurtB]

On 7/22/2023 at 7:19 PM, World Colonial said:

But this maturity doesn't lead to increased collecting of most US 20th century or world coinage.  

Doesn't it? It does in my experience. I'm talking about MATURITY, not chronological age. There's "wheat" and "chaff" among the 20th century material. Less wheat than chaff, of course. But even the chaff can and does build skills important for the wheat. 20th century material tells the story of war and political changes and upheavals. Speaking strictly for myself, that is even more interesting than 15th and 16th century European expansion into the Americas. YMMV. Probably does.

Edited July 23, 2023 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 7/22/2023 at 7:19 PM, World Colonial said:

You're not ever going to see anyone collecting ancients switch to modern NCLT as their primary collecting interest, though they may buy it for "investment" or as a "side collection".  No challenge to it, at all.

Agreed, and I am among them. I don't do investment, per se. But side collection? Oh my, yes. Why? Because my core collections have, by necessity, had to slow down due to the costs of pieces I still lack. The side collections prevent sclerotic boredom. It's one reason I miss the Central Pennsylvania market. Faaaar more interesting material there at auction. Here in Alabama, the material is far more pedestrian, unless your thing is O-Mint stuff or Nazi pieces. (Only partly kidding.)

Edited July 23, 2023 by VKurtB

[World Colonial]

On 7/22/2023 at 9:55 PM, VKurtB said:

Doesn't it? It does in my experience. I'm talking about MATURITY, not chronological age. There's "wheat" and "chaff" among the 20th century material. Less wheat than chaff, of course. But even the chaff can and does build skills important for the wheat. 20th century material tells the story of war and political changes and upheavals. Speaking strictly for myself, that is even more interesting than 15th and 16th century European expansion into the Americas. YMMV. Probably does.

I attribute your perception with your examples to a cultural preference.  Most US collectors prefer US coinage over all others, or at least that's where they spend the most budget.  It's also due to marketability but I infer they still prefer US coins anyway.

Within US coins, I consider Territorial gold and colonial more "mature" or collecting upward versus the rest.  I'd throw the few CSA coins and Texas Jolas in there too.  Others might (or probably do) place early US federal at the top and it definitely has a higher preference.  Liberty head gold is harder to complete than the earlier series, but I don't know how collectors view it in this context.

I think of US 20th century coinage totally differently.  Practically all of it can be bought any day of the week.  From the standpoint of studying the contemporary society, any coin can be equally collected in this context.  

For non-US coinage, I'd place ancient or medieval coinage at the top, easily.  

[VKurtB]

On 7/22/2023 at 9:20 PM, World Colonial said:

I attribute your perception with your examples to a cultural preference.  Most US collectors prefer US coinage over all others, or at least that's where they spend the most budget.  It's also due to marketability but I infer they still prefer US coins anyway.

Within US coins, I consider Territorial gold and colonial more "mature" or collecting upward versus the rest.  I'd throw the few CSA coins and Texas Jolas in there too.  Others might (or probably do) place early US federal at the top and it definitely has a higher preference.  Liberty head gold is harder to complete than the earlier series, but I don't know how collectors view it in this context.

I think of US 20th century coinage totally differently.  Practically all of it can be bought any day of the week.  From the standpoint of studying the contemporary society, any coin can be equally collected in this context.  

For non-US coinage, I'd place ancient or medieval coinage at the top, easily.  

Yes, my collecting preferences draw DIRECTLY from my cultural heritage. So do my preferences of what NOT to collect. I am no fan of Latin America generally. When English footballers play ANY CONMEBOL nations, my rooting interest is with England. Maybe it's a Falkland Islands war thing. I dunno. I am a strict Anglophile, despite their predilection to unspeakable cruelty and violence in the 18th century.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/22/2023 at 7:51 PM, VKurtB said:

By eliminating the geographical distance and knowledge between a nearly unlimited supply and VERY limited demand. I am COMPLETELY metal content agnostic, but only a fool would suggest there are lots of us. THERE AREN’T. 

We're not stamp collectors, and we always have the coin investor class (the PM investor class) willing to graduate and segue into pure numismatic collecting.  That's how I got into moderns, Morgans, and Saints. 

I don't think you can say that the Internet and Covid have NOT led to a resurgence somewhat in coin collecting, both numismatics and PM coins.  I see no rebound for stamp collecting in recent years....and sports cards and NFTs have definitely cooled from their bubblicious period in 2020-21...and I don't think 5,00 digital coins and tokens will still be standing in a few years, either.

Dealers say business is good.  Online auction houses are seeing record bidding activity, browsing, and registrations.  Big Coin Shows -- FUN, Long Beach, etc. -- have had great public attendance, great dealer table activity, and folks posting here as collectors or dealers (Charmy) say they were busy and profitable.

I think we're the Tortoise in this race.  Slow and steady....

Edited July 23, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/22/2023 at 10:20 PM, World Colonial said:

I attribute your perception with your examples to a cultural preference.  Most US collectors prefer US coinage over all others, or at least that's where they spend the most budget.  It's also due to marketability but I infer they still prefer US coins anyway.

It's what we/they know.  You buy what you are comfortable with.

On 7/22/2023 at 10:20 PM, World Colonial said:

I think of US 20th century coinage totally differently.  Practically all of it can be bought any day of the week.  From the standpoint of studying the contemporary society, any coin can be equally collected in this context.  For non-US coinage, I'd place ancient or medieval coinage at the top, easily.  

I think being able to buy stuff most of the time is a PLUS.   Let price and condition/grade be the discriminating factor, not type availability.  How fun would this hobby be if most of the coins were unavailable in any grade ?

Look at the availability of Saints vs. Liberty Double Eagles, the latter being much harder to collect in their totality or even in lower grades for a given dollar spend.

Edited July 23, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[World Colonial]

On 7/23/2023 at 1:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It's what we/they know.  You buy what you are comfortable with.

Depends what you mean by "know".  There are enough US collectors who know enough other coins exist.  They just don't want it badly enough.

There is the comfort factor, but I'd attribute it mostly to economics.  US coins are a lot more liquid and marketable than most non-US and there is a wide variation in marketability and liquidity within US coinage too.  If collectors could "rent" coins where they knew in advance they could get enough of their money back at resale (to them), It's evident pricing would differ noticeably.

It's been my claim (for years) that most collectors in the financialized era (last 40 to 50 years) don't actually like what they collect as much as commonly believed, when the price or collective outlay is "material" to them.  It varies by individual but there are plenty of anecdotes that people act this way.  If not treated as a consumption expense, they won't buy a coin at its current market price, unless they believe they can get enough of their money back.

[World Colonial]

On 7/23/2023 at 1:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think being able to buy stuff most of the time is a PLUS.   

I didn't say otherwise.

On 7/23/2023 at 1:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Let price and condition/grade be the discriminating factor, not type availability.  

Except that for most US collectors and most US coins above low to minimal prices, this is really marketability and liquidity, not availability. 

I've looked at the availability of many US coins and series over the years whereas your posts indicate you don't.  Hardly any US Mint coins are hard to buy, except under the narrow and arbitrary criteria invented during recent (post-financialized) US collecting.  I've given numerous examples just in this thread.

As another example, probably every single US half dollar from 1794 onward is available right now, except maybe for a low number of Liberty Seated, if you know where to find it.  In "high" quality, only a few others: 1794, maybe 1796 and 1797, and a few more Liberty outside-affiliatelinksnotallowed  I don't see 1794 dollars or 1802 half dimes most times when I search, but these are exceptions.  

On 7/23/2023 at 1:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

How fun would this hobby be if most of the coins were unavailable in any grade ?

It isn't, and that's one of the reasons why I I've been able to buy what I own in my current collection.  It's also the same reason my current primary interest will never become "popular".

On 7/23/2023 at 1:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Look at the availability of Saints vs. Liberty Double Eagles, the latter being much harder to collect in their totality or even in lower grades for a given dollar spend.

I don't believe very many LH DE are hard to buy.  I've looked at the TPG populations and even accounting for potential duplicates, only a few dates should have fewer than the 1796-1797 half dollars (as a type) which aren't hard to buy either.  I've never failed to see this coin in at least XF every time I have looked.

You're talking about difficulty in the context of a specific TPG label, or with a CAC sticker, or specific "eye appeal".  I get that buyers want better looking coins and are discerning in what they will accept considering the cost, but that's mostly the result of money, not an actual scarcity.

There is also a difference between sufficient availability for everyone who wants a coin at the same time versus being able to buy it.  Many coins lack sufficient supply for everyone who might want it concurrently and can afford it.  Price is always the adjusting factor.  Very few coins have a high enough collector preference where it's still difficult to buy if the price increases enough.  By "enough", I'm not referring to an unlimited price either.

Edited July 23, 2023 by World Colonial

[World Colonial]

On 7/22/2023 at 11:03 PM, VKurtB said:

Yes, my collecting preferences draw DIRECTLY from my cultural heritage. So do my preferences of what NOT to collect. 

This is what is evident in collecting generally, though not universally.

On 7/22/2023 at 11:03 PM, VKurtB said:

 I am no fan of Latin America generally. 

I have a preference for some Bolivian coinage due to my family background, but it's not predominant.  My preference for the pillar coinage has nothing to do with it. 

There are other coins I'll never collect for this reason, like all of Africa (except South Africa where I lived) and most if not all of Asia.  Most of the latter is because I'm not interested in coins without western dates and legends.  I can't interpret what's on the coin, not going to waste my time learning it, and don't like most of the designs anyway.

On 7/22/2023 at 11:03 PM, VKurtB said:

I am a strict Anglophile, despite their predilection to unspeakable cruelty and violence in the 18th century.

Me too, just not in my coin collecting.

[cladking]

On 7/22/2023 at 3:56 PM, World Colonial said:

It's existed for decades, but in 2013 he told me he was looking for a radical change in collector preferences in 20 years.  

Actually what I really said was that there would be a new generation of collectors in 20 years.  Most of the old line collectors are baby boomers and won't be as active in the markets by the early 2030's.  This is already being seen at coin shows.  The new generation will not have learned to hate moderns in 1965 and odds are a larger proportion will want to collect them.  Who knows?  

[World Colonial]

On 7/23/2023 at 9:54 AM, cladking said:

Actually what I really said was that there would be a new generation of collectors in 20 years.  Most of the old line collectors are baby boomers and won't be as active in the markets by the early 2030's.  This is already being seen at coin shows.  The new generation will not have learned to hate moderns in 1965 and odds are a larger proportion will want to collect them.  Who knows?  

Same difference.

Current collectors don't "hate" this coinage now and US Mint sales after 1964 prove prior collectors didn't either. The market price (given your astronomically inflated opinion of the merits) is just a lot lower or a fraction of what you think it should be.

Which is more believable, the US Mint or what you just "make up"?

There have been three generations since the transition to clad in 1965: Gen-X (mine), Millennials, and Gen-Z with a fourth to soon start or already starting.  To the extent there is any visible difference, it's due to generic factors in collecting (those I listed in a prior post here in reply to @GoldFinger1969, nothing to do with any of your claims.

Collector age (yes, your demographic claim) has essentially zero causality on collector preferences.  No one can demonstrate it, as any correlation doesn't demonstrate an actual preference.  It's overwhelmingly a budget limitation.

[cladking]

On 7/22/2023 at 6:58 PM, World Colonial said:

I'm referring to the coins collectors prefer.  There is no evidence that collector preferences have changed between US series my entire life.  If it has, it must be where the coins do not directly or virtually never compete. 

Morgan vs. Peace dollars?  WLH vs. Franklin half or Kennedy?  SLQ vs. Washington quarters, silver or clad?  Buffalo vs any other nickels?  IHC vs. Lincoln Wheat or Memorial?

All the same, with some movement between individual date/MM.  Same thing for others.

There have been generic changes I previously listed: buying coins as "investments" starting in the 70's, TPG with PCGS and NGC in the 80's, internet, registry sets, new specializations (new to me anyway), and CAC fro US coinage.  None of this is specific to any coin or series.

Wow!!!

You can't step into the same river twice but this particular one has changed its course numerous times as well as reversed and flowed as a stream and the mightiest river.  Cities have been left high and dry for decades and then had the river flow around them on both sides.  

This numismatic river is a microcosm of all rivers and has been doing this forever. In the 1890's civil war tokens were all the rage and some of their prices exceeded the old coins in perfect condition and scarcest varieties.  

The human race has existed 40,000 years and coin collecting only 2500 and everything changes continually.  There are very few similarities between the coin market I grew up with and the one that exists today.  There are no similarities between the coins I started with and those that circulate today.  There is no similarity between the 1955 dime that had real value and was hoarded in massive numbers and a 2015 dime that has no real value other than to make change which all circulate.  All similarities are facile and experienced at face value.  The coins are shaped about the same but they weren't even made the same because everything has changed.  There is still a demand for millions of the older coins but the demand for the newer coin is severely limited.  

[cladking]

On 7/22/2023 at 7:10 PM, VKurtB said:

I believe one thing drives changes in collecting behavior - maturity of the collector.

Yes.  Individually this is the biggest driver of change and especially in their individual collections.  

But people are a product of their place and time so there will be little similarity between the goals of a Soviet collector from the 1940's and a British collector from the 21st century.  

New collectors today will not have the same perspective as the baby boomers from the 1950's.  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/23/2023 at 9:54 AM, cladking said:

Actually what I really said was that there would be a new generation of collectors in 20 years.  Most of the old line collectors are baby boomers and won't be as active in the markets by the early 2030's.  This is already being seen at coin shows.  The new generation will not have learned to hate moderns in 1965 and odds are a larger proportion will want to collect them.  Who knows?  

We should be able to get some anectdotal evidence from dealers and Big Coin Show dealers/attendees about the demographic skew of the last year or few years of coin shows.....vs. 10-15-20 years ago.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/23/2023 at 10:20 AM, cladking said:

Yes.  Individually this is the biggest driver of change and especially in their individual collections.  But people are a product of their place and time so there will be little similarity between the goals of a Soviet collector from the 1940's and a British collector from the 21st century.  weNew collectors today will not have the same perspective as the baby boomers from the 1950's.  

We have lots of collectors with expensive sets here.....what are YOU guys (and gals) doing with your collections ?  Is the wife or beneficiaries or estate going to hold it or sell it ?

If all the people who started collecting in the 1940's through 1970's have their sets unloaded it is a big demographic headwind for pricing going forward.

[World Colonial]

On 7/23/2023 at 10:16 AM, cladking said:

Wow!!!

You can't step into the same river twice but this particular one has changed its course numerous times as well as reversed and flowed as a stream and the mightiest river.  Cities have been left high and dry for decades and then had the river flow around them on both sides.  

This numismatic river is a microcosm of all rivers and has been doing this forever. 

What does this post have to do with collecting?  No, it's not a real question.

The point of the extract you quoted is that your claims have nothing to do with demonstrated collector preferences and that's a fact.  Same nonsense where you claim collector preferences are supposedly random.

That's why you told me in the Swiss "moderns" thread (and expressed the same sentiments multiple times previously) that the silver preference appeared suddenly and is subject to disappear as suddenly.  It's a completely baseless claim, as proved by the relative prices in the commodity markets for thousands of years.  That's where collectors get it, from outside of collecting.  As long as this relative price difference exists, collectors will never contradict it in the aggregate, where the metal accounts for most of the relative price difference between different coins.

You also contradict this random claim with your concurrent claims for "trends" and "cycles" which don't and never did exist and your quality criteria.  If preferences are actually random (as opposed to "random" where enough collectors have to agree with you), there can be no cycles, no trends, and quality preference.  

That's what random actually means.

On 7/23/2023 at 10:16 AM, cladking said:

There are very few similarities between the coin market I grew up with and the one that exists today.  

This is obvious, but the differences have essentially nothing to do with your claims.

On 7/23/2023 at 10:16 AM, cladking said:

There are no similarities between the coins I started with and those that circulate today.  There is no similarity between the 1955 dime that had real value and was hoarded in massive numbers and a 2015 dime that has no real value other than to make change which all circulate. 

The coins are identical other than the metal content.  It's one very common coin vs. another very common coin, the only difference being that US collecting invented pretensions of "scarcity" which you exaggerate to an order of magnitude.

On 7/23/2023 at 10:16 AM, cladking said:

All similarities are facile and experienced at face value.  The coins are shaped about the same but they weren't even made the same because everything has changed.  There is still a demand for millions of the older coins but the demand for the newer coin is severely limited.  

The price variances between your example are financially immaterial.  Most of the demand for these "older" coins you keep referencing (almost entirely 1933-1964 US coinage) are substantially due to a preference for the metal content, not as a collectible.  But since you keep writing as if the metal preference should not exist, that's why you claim it's a "surprise".

FDR dimes (silver or clad) have among the lowest collector preference from US coinage.  Definitely the lowest from pre-1999.  Not much dffferent for 1933-1964 US coinage generically.  This is evident from a two-minute review of any 1960's (or earlier) Red Book and it's evident since.  There is a generic preference for a narrow subset form any series since the 70's due to the same factors I provided in my reply to @GoldFinger1969 but this doesn't have anything to do with your claims.

[zadok]

On 7/23/2023 at 11:02 AM, World Colonial said:

What does this post have to do with collecting?  No, it's not a real question.

The point of the extract you quoted is that your claims have nothing to do with demonstrated collector preferences and that's a fact.  Same nonsense where you claim collector preferences are supposedly random.

That's why you told me in the Swiss "moderns" thread (and expressed the same sentiments multiple times previously) that the silver preference appeared suddenly and is subject to disappear as suddenly.  It's a completely baseless claim, as proved by the relative prices in the commodity markets for thousands of years.  That's where collectors get it, from outside of collecting.  As long as this relative price difference exists, collectors will never contradict it in the aggregate, where the metal accounts for most of the relative price difference between different coins.

You also contradict this random claim with your concurrent claims for "trends" and "cycles" which don't and never did exist and your quality criteria.  If preferences are actually random (as opposed to "random" where enough collectors have to agree with you), there can be no cycles, no trends, and quality preference.  

That's what random actually means.

This is obvious, but the differences have essentially nothing to do with your claims.

The coins are identical other than the metal content.  It's one very common coin vs. another very common coin, the only difference being that US collecting invented pretensions of "scarcity" which you exaggerate to an order of magnitude.

The price variances between your example are financially immaterial.  Most of the demand for these "older" coins you keep referencing (almost entirely 1933-1964 US coinage) are substantially due to a preference for the metal content, not as a collectible.  But since you keep writing as if the metal preference should not exist, that's why you claim it's a "surprise".

FDR dimes (silver or clad) have among the lowest collector preference from US coinage.  Definitely the lowest from pre-1999.  Not much dffferent for 1933-1964 US coinage generically.  This is evident from a two-minute review of any 1960's (or earlier) Red Book and it's evident since.  There is a generic preference for a narrow subset form any series since the 70's due to the same factors I provided in my reply to @GoldFinger1969 but this doesn't have anything to do with your claims.

...ur comments on the FDR dimes r very accurate, i go to local estate auctions virtually every week n most have a coins session where estate coins r sold separately from the rest of the estate items, mostly to prevent pilfering n to comply with some probate rules etc...while type coins, gold coins, SAE, morgan dollars generally sell for a premium bank rolls of pre-1964 coinage normally sells for melt value if silver...the most prolific grouping r rolls of FDR dimes n 1964 kennedy halves, the halves will usually bring a $10 over melt price n the FDR dimes beg to get to melt...the bank rolls of clad coinage bring face value which is the minimum the probate will allow for them to be sold...observation of these auctions allow for an accurate window into where collector interests are in todays market....

[zadok]

On 7/23/2023 at 10:58 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

We should be able to get some anectdotal evidence from dealers and Big Coin Show dealers/attendees about the demographic skew of the last year or few years of coin shows.....vs. 10-15-20 years ago.

...all u really have to do is go to any large coin show e.g. FUN n walk the floor n look at the dealers inventories on display...virtually no moderns n even less clads n if u want to really check out the prevailing winds try selling the dealers bank rolls of either....

[VKurtB]

On 7/23/2023 at 11:30 AM, zadok said:

...all u really have to do is go to any large coin show e.g. FUN n walk the floor n look at the dealers inventories on display...virtually no moderns n even less clads n if u want to really check out the prevailing winds try selling the dealers bank rolls of either....

The demographic of show attendees, and of ANA membership generally literally NEVER CHANGES. There is no aging of the demographic. It stays static, year after year, decade after decade. Collectors die. They are replaced almost EXACTLY by middle aged collectors taking collecting more seriously. There are over 28,000 ANA members. That's quite a bit higher than in the "Good old days" of 1964.The zenith was while the ONLY way you could get ANA Certification Service was to be an ANA member.  Again, "It ain't what people don't know; it's what they know fer sure that just ain't so." Think about it. If what I write here were not so, coin prices would collapse, and only the junk material does.

Edited July 23, 2023 by VKurtB

[zadok]

On 7/23/2023 at 12:41 PM, VKurtB said:

The demographic of show attendees, and of ANA membership generally literally NEVER CHANGES. There is no aging of the demographic. It stays static, year after year, decade after decade. Collectors die. They are replaced almost EXACTLY by middle aged collectors taking collecting more seriously. There are over 28,000 ANA members. That's quite a bit higher than in the "Good old days" of 1964.The zenith was while the ONLY way you could get ANA Certification Service was to be an ANA member.  Again, "It ain't what people don't know; it's what they know fer sure that just ain't so." Think about it. If what I write here were not so, coin prices would collapse, and only the junk material does.

...yeah i noticed that i almost always see the same people at all of the larger shows n some r even wearing the same clothes...i have one question for u however, whats ur take on the demographics on the make up of the dealers? particularly , the new dealers coming into the market....