Why Someday Moderns Will be Hot. 0

[World Colonial]

On 9/22/2024 at 8:43 AM, cladking said:

Before 1964 metal wasn't an important factor but even then collectors preferred larger coins and these tended to be silver.  

The coins by denomination dated post-1933 and post-1964 are the same size, with the exception of the last Peace dollars.

On 9/22/2024 at 8:43 AM, cladking said:

In the last 50 years most collectors have cared a great deal about whether a coin is precious metal or not.

That's because you're making a big deal of low budget collecting where the metal content accounts for a noticeable to majority of the market value and price difference.  You don't think this preference should exist, but it does and will anyway as long silver has a much higher spot price in the commodity markets.

That's where collectors get this preference, from outside collecting.  It's not random and not going to disappear as you have claimed.

[World Colonial]

On 9/22/2024 at 8:47 AM, cladking said:

At the current time it has no share of the market to lose.  Almost all collecting of moderns is by registry set collectors who seek only the finest.

Small as the "share of wallet" is now, there is plenty that can be lost proportionally. 

Most of the market value is in the TPG label if graded or where it isn't, the buyer's assessment of the future number on the TPG label.  This is true for most US coinage generically, especially "top pops" and usually applies more to post-1933 US coinage versus earlier.

Virtually no one discusses it on coin forums because it's contrary to their personal preference or worse, the thought never even occurred to them, but it's not a given that a marketing competition (registry sets) or marketing generally (higher numbers on TPG labels) will maintain the current price structure (spreads between one or now half-point increments on labels).

There is no practical difference between these coins and most of these coins are common, not "scarce" or "rare".  The label may be scarce or rare, but hardly ever the coin in it, even in "high" quality.

[World Colonial]

On 9/22/2024 at 10:01 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Here's where you lose me.  You (correctly) say (IMO) that you doubt registry set collectors can move the price of moderns.  But you then say you expect the general population to gravitage towards this niche sector.

If collectors themselves ignore this area, why should the general public discover them ?  And part with their own $$$ to buy ?

As a starting point, his prior posts indicate at least two assumptions which aren't even close to accurate.

First, he assumes that the general public finds coin collecting a lot more interesting that the evidence indicates they actually do.

Second, he assumes the public and collectors both have a predisposition to prefer their circulating change which they don't and never did.  That's also the source of his age-related demographic claim which he has claimed isn't age related. This assumption is also connected to his claim that both previously "hated" clad and to some extent still do.

He's also using other assumptions which I have refuted previously, but without these two premises, his claims in this thread have no feasibility, unless he's referring to appreciation on a very low proportion of essentially random coins which doesn't indicate much of anything.

Lastly, he's usually not even writing in the context of a cumulative "investment" that hardly anyone else considers "meaningful", unless of course we're going "Back to the Future" to the 1960's instead of 2024 economics.  Appreciation from a few cents to a few dollars or a few dollars to tens of dollars isn't meaningful under 2024 economics because the scale of collecting will never reach what he infers. 

He's got (or had) a huge stash of this coinage and a low number of others do or did too, but the demand is never going to materialize at his implied prices where someone can monetize it.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 9/22/2024 at 10:26 AM, World Colonial said:

He's got (or had) a huge stash of this coinage and a low number of others do or did too, but the demand is never going to materialize at his implied prices where someone can monetize it.

Sort of like me collecting large numbers of NHL cards in the early-1990's and the demand never materialized for those, either. 

[GoldFinger1969]

Let's not also forget: there are lots of DUMB people in this country.  They may be a small % of the overall population, but the same people who don't invest in stocks or bonds or mutual funds (just CDs or Treasuries) will also invest in gold schemes or buy these coins you see on late-night infomercials at a 30-50% premium to the FMV.

Tens of thousands of these people exist...otherwise, the scammers and infomercials wouldn't be there.  And these people could be potential demand for overpriced coins:  moderns, classic, clad, NCLT, whatever.

[datordw]

On 9/22/2024 at 11:02 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Let's not also forget: there are lots of DUMB people in this country.  They may be a small % of the overall population, but the same people who don't invest in stocks or bonds or mutual funds (just CDs or Treasuries) will also invest in gold schemes or buy these coins you see on late-night infomercials at a 30-50% premium to the FMV.

Tens of thousands of these people exist...otherwise, the scammers and infomercials wouldn't be there.  And these people could be potential demand for overpriced coins:  moderns, classic, clad, NCLT, whatever.

I think you are giving people in this country too much credit. There are a lot of dumb people not some. A hefty amount of people don’t have investments of any sort. They prefer to be in debt with flashy cars, clothing, overpriced homes etc. 

As George Carlin once said, ‘think of how stupid the average American is and realize that 50% of them are dumber than that’

Edited Sunday at 03:44 PM by datordw

[World Colonial]

On 9/22/2024 at 11:00 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Sort of like me collecting large numbers of NHL cards in the early-1990's and the demand never materialized for those, either. 

Somewhat different but not materially.

The supply of US moderns is not low as a date/MM combination, even measured by higher number TPG labels.  If you are familiar with the Judd scale (from the Judd pattern book), a rarity-1 or R-1 is 1250+.  That's somewhat scarce in the context of a circulating coin generically in any condition.

An R-1 is not scarce for specialization (die variety, errors, or strike designations such as Full Step Jefferson nickels) because it's the norm.  There must be millions of varieties for all coins combined and up to thousands if not tens of thousands for single US moderns given the stupendous mintages on most.  I'd guess the typical variety is an R-4 on the Judd scale with 76-200 or if not, somewhat above or even below it.  That's "scarce" but of no relevance to hardly anyone, almost always or only on varieties included in reference guides, price lists, or registry sets.

For coins in a TPG holder, the label number isn't even an actual coin attribute and it's only because of marketing and financialization that the highest label numbers or coins eligible for the highest label numbers sell for such inflated premiums.

For an MS-66 which currently represents the highest grade for a potential "mass market" in post 1933 US coinage, going by the current TPG counts, the market value, and what's known of collecting generally, I'd guestimate at least 95% of 1965-1998 US moderns are a Judd R-1 with 1250+.

That's not a low number, only "low" compared to many (maybe not even all) 1933-1964 US coins which are about the most common coins on the planet in this quality or otherwise.

The relative preference on most of this coinage (post-1933 US) is simply too low for "meaningful" price appreciation, other than for the same reason some of these coins sell for high(er) prices now, but not for any reason the OP has given.

To give you one example, the 70-D Kennedy half sells for $200-$300 (or did) in MS-66.  That's probably about the same value as the two 1758 Mexico pillar 1/2R I own in AU-55 and AU-58 which are both really nice coins and thousands of times scarcer in anything close to comparable quality.  It's also about the same price or even higher versus later dated LWH or Franklin halves in the same TPG grade where the scarcity difference isn't meaningful. I understand the reason for the relative price, but it's another thing entirely to claim that this coin or more than a very low proportion of US moderns are destined to increase "materially".

[GoldFinger1969]

WC, it's one reason when I spend what for me is Big $$$...I do it on coins and years and grades that I know have some element of rarity after decades of census population and survival rates being known (DEs and MSDs my biggest groups).  Barring a mystery hoard like the 1962 Treasury Hoard or a Fairmont-type Hoard of Saints....I should be OK. 

Rising gold and silver prices aren't hurting, either. 

[World Colonial]

On 9/22/2024 at 2:30 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

WC, it's one reason when I spend what for me is Big $$$...I do it on coins and years and grades that I know have some element of rarity after decades of census population and survival rates being known (DEs and MSDs my biggest groups).  Barring a mystery hoard like the 1962 Treasury Hoard or a Fairmont-type Hoard of Saints....I should be OK. 

Rising gold and silver prices aren't hurting, either. 

I agree with you to a point.

Generic US gold doesn't sell for substantial premiums to the metals content, relative to other coins and only for the highest TPG grades.

Morgan dollars I see differently.  The premiums aren't low even on lower MS coins. $100 for an 1881-S MS-63 or MS-64 with about $20 of melt is really inflated.  I expect these coins to eventually lose most of this premium though depending upon the timeframe, the price may not change much or increase. 

It's only somewhat different for key and semi-key dates.  These coins weren't cheap by contemporary standards prior to financialization (pre-mid 70s) but have been really inflated for decades.

I expect these coins to lose more of the value too, adjusted for price changes.

Look at the price structure prior to financialization.  I don't expect a complete reversion, but more resembling then than now.

[cladking]

On 9/22/2024 at 9:11 AM, World Colonial said:

Small as the "share of wallet" is now, there is plenty that can be lost proportionally. 

No.   An 1804 dollar contains $25 worth of silver.  or .00062% of market value.  A 1982 quarter contains about 4c worth of cu ni or about .33% of market value which is more than 500 times as much value as the old dollar.  

[cladking]

On 9/22/2024 at 9:11 AM, World Colonial said:

There is no practical difference between these coins and most of these coins are common, not "scarce" or "rare".  The label may be scarce or rare, but hardly ever the coin in it, even in "high" quality.

People can collect beat up coins from circulation but they don't.  

[cladking]

On 9/22/2024 at 9:26 AM, World Colonial said:

Second, he assumes the public and collectors both have a predisposition to prefer their circulating change which they don't and never did. 

I never made such an assumption.
 

New collectors are more likely to collect circulating coinage.

[cladking]

On 9/22/2024 at 9:26 AM, World Colonial said:

He's got (or had) a huge stash of this coinage and a low number of others do or did too, but the demand is never going to materialize at his implied prices where someone can monetize it.

I've sold almost all of it into strength.

This strength exists because people don't have the coins.

[World Colonial]

On 9/22/2024 at 5:07 PM, cladking said:

No.   An 1804 dollar contains $25 worth of silver.  or .00062% of market value.  A 1982 quarter contains about 4c worth of cu ni or about .33% of market value which is more than 500 times as much value as the old dollar.  

I'm not comparing US moderns to other coins.  I'm telling you that since most of the value in the higher priced coins is in the label number, there is plenty of relative downside left.

[World Colonial]

On 9/22/2024 at 5:11 PM, cladking said:

I never made such an assumption.
 

New collectors are more likely to collect circulating coinage.

The only reason newer collectors are more likely to collect circulating coinage is due to budget constraints, not because they actually prefer it.  I've never seen market data by age group, but to the extent there is any variation at all, it has limited to no market relevance.  It's a rounding error.

Like now, in the past you've claimed you're not claiming it, but my inference of your claims makes a lot more sense than anything else or what you've written.  

[World Colonial]

On 9/22/2024 at 5:09 PM, cladking said:

People can collect beat up coins from circulation but they don't.  

Totally irrelevant to my post.

My point is that the pricing structure existing between one-half point, one point, and even several points on TPG labels is entirely due to marketing and financialization.  That's the difference between collecting post-TPG and previously with this type of coinage. 

It's not because collectors collectively experienced an epiphany to miraculously discover the coins with higher TPG label numbers are so much better or more interesting than perceived by prior collectors.  

That's absurd.  It's also a pure contrivance, but US collecting doesn't want to admit it because there is a collective industry motivation to inflate the price level as much as possible while concurrently exaggerating the appeal for the coinage most collectors buy or can afford.

[World Colonial]

On 9/22/2024 at 5:13 PM, cladking said:

I've sold almost all of it into strength.

This strength exists because people don't have the coins.

Not the point I was making.

In the past, you've claimed you aren't that interested in the monetary aspects of collecting.  You've repeated it many times.

For someone who isn't, you sure write a lot about it and in over 15 years on coin forums, I've never encountered anyone else who exaggerates the appeal of the coins they like or collect more than you. It's not even close.  You're doing the same thing in this thread now. 

There are only two conclusions from your posts and threads on these topics:

1) You're writing about potential economically immaterial price increases, as I've never encountered anyone else who measures it using percentages in this context.  This is 2024, not the 60's or 70's when the amounts you've used might have been or were somewhat meaningful.

2) You're exaggerating the scale implying that it's feasible to make actually meaningful profits on volume.  That's the most logical explanation for your exaggerated future collector base.

Basing your claims using price increases from a few cents to a few dollars or a few dollars to tens of dollars only makes sense in the context of your exaggerated future collector base. 

Otherwise, it's equivalent to routine low budget consumption expenses which practically any collector makes without giving it much if any thought.  There is also an opportunity cost in the time commitment to acquire and sell a large volume of low value coins which most collectors and dealers find unappealing.  It's called time preference, someone else you ignore entirely in your posts.  Economically, most could also make more money working at a low paying part time job.  

[cladking]

On 9/22/2024 at 5:45 PM, World Colonial said:

Totally irrelevant to my post.

You suggested that people can't get the best because it can't be identified.  This is nonsense. Sure the services make a lot of mistakes but they still get it right sometimes.  

On 9/22/2024 at 5:45 PM, World Colonial said:

My point is that the pricing structure existing between one-half point, one point, and even several points on TPG labels is entirely due to marketing and financialization.

And you are repeating it.

On 9/22/2024 at 5:45 PM, World Colonial said:

That's the difference between collecting post-TPG and previously with this type of coinage. 

Nobody has to buy graded coinage.

On 9/22/2024 at 6:13 PM, World Colonial said:

1) You're writing about potential economically immaterial price increases, as I've never encountered anyone else who measures it using percentages in this context.  This is 2024, not the 60's or 70's when the amounts you've used might have been or were somewhat meaningful.

Not everybody invests in coins.

 

[World Colonial]

On 9/22/2024 at 8:14 PM, cladking said:

You suggested that people can't get the best because it can't be identified.  This is nonsense. Sure the services make a lot of mistakes but they still get it right sometimes.  

No, I'm claiming the differences are predominantly motivated by money.  Yes, I know you disagree with me and so does US collecting collectively...  

On 9/22/2024 at 8:14 PM, cladking said:

Nobody has to buy graded coinage.

That's not my point.  The point is that without TPG, the current price level and price structure would differ noticeably, more so on post-1933 US coinage.

On 9/22/2024 at 8:14 PM, cladking said:

Not everybody invests in coins.

Then what is the purpose of this thread?  Yes, your thread.

Why would anyone other than you care whether US moderns will one day be "hot", especially since this theme has limited to no plausibility, depending upon the context of your posts which isn't always clear?

You're marketing this coinage not educating, as your claims are a complete exaggeration.  

[VKurtB]

On 9/22/2024 at 7:31 PM, World Colonial said:

You're marketing this coinage not educating, as your claims are a complete exaggeration

It does have the fetid stench of “pump and dump”, doesn’t it? I collect very high end modern coins, but I don’t care if no one else cares. They’re going to be my son’s when I check out. He knows that condition is king, and as far as he is concerned, metal content is a court jester, or a “foole”, complete with the ostentatious trailing ‘e’.

Edited Monday at 03:00 AM by VKurtB

[cladking]

On 9/22/2024 at 7:31 PM, World Colonial said:

That's not my point.  The point is that without TPG, the current price level and price structure would differ noticeably, more so on post-1933 US coinage.

You keep lumping 1933 to 1964 coinage in with moderns. Moderns are distinct from that 1933 to 64 coinage.

On 9/22/2024 at 7:31 PM, World Colonial said:

No, I'm claiming the differences are predominantly motivated by money.  Yes, I know you disagree with me and so does US collecting collectively...  

To the degree someone is a real coin collector money is immaterial. Money merely represents  how much a coin costs.

On 9/22/2024 at 7:31 PM, World Colonial said:

Then what is the purpose of this thread?  Yes, your thread.

Why would anyone other than you care whether US moderns will one day be "hot", especially since this theme has limited to no plausibility, depending upon the context of your posts which isn't always clear?

You're marketing this coinage not educating, as your claims are a complete exaggeration.  

Yes I still have a financial interest in the coins.  The point of the thread was that I continue to believe that moderns will be hot one day.  

Those who wait too long to buy moderns are going to be priced out this is the point of the thread.

 

[VKurtB]

On 9/22/2024 at 10:00 PM, cladking said:

You keep lumping 1933 to 1964 coinage in with moderns. Moderns are distinct from that 1933 to 64 coinage.

To the degree someone is a real coin collector money is immaterial. Money merely represents  how much a coin costs.

Yes I still have a financial interest in the coins.  The point of the thread was that I continue to believe that moderns will be hot one day.  

Those who wait too long to buy moderns are going to be priced out this is the point of the thread.

 

…so in order to not get left behind, send your check or money order today to cladking at…

It’s just like the pumpers and dumpers on cable TV. 

Edited Monday at 03:53 AM by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 9/22/2024 at 3:42 PM, World Colonial said:

Morgan dollars I see differently.  The premiums aren't low even on lower MS coins. $100 for an 1881-S MS-63 or MS-64 with about $20 of melt is really inflated.  I expect these coins to eventually lose most of this premium though depending upon the timeframe, the price may not change much or increase. It's only somewhat different for key and semi-key dates.  These coins weren't cheap by contemporary standards prior to financialization (pre-mid 70s) but have been really inflated for decades.  I expect these coins to lose more of the value too, adjusted for price changes.Look at the price structure prior to financialization.  I don't expect a complete reversion, but more resembling then than now.

You have to keep in mind 2 key items:

(1)  Lots of people would rather spend $100 on a MSD that is worth closer to $30 because it's still cheaper than buying pre-1933 gold or even BitCoin.

(2)  There's tons more information today and lots of resources (like these Forums) to get information compared to 25 or 50 years ago.  In the financial markets, stocks were historically lower in P/E terms because of elevated risks from lack of information.  Similarly, many gold coins traded "cheap" in the past compared to their price today.

[cladking]

On 9/22/2024 at 10:52 PM, VKurtB said:

It’s just like the pumpers and dumpers on cable TV. 

I don't think you're paying attention.  The shysters on TV can't promote anything they can't lay in in quantity and you can't acquire clad in quantity.  You could acquire a bag of this or that and promote it but then you have the problem that people don't collect clad and they also don't care.  If you could trick enough people into paying $100 per roll on a bag of bicentennial it's still only a $9000 profit before expenses. 

There is no market and no supply. This can't be emphasized sufficiently.   I've been trying to get '83-D quarters in quality and quantity since they brand new.  By luck of the draw I have failed utterly.  Despite extensive searching I never found a source for these even back when they still cost 25c each.  It would hardly be easier to obtain these today!  Keep in mind I'm the expert and know where to look for most of these coins but I never found this one.  I have a few pretty nice examples but never found a single nice roll or bag so I have only a few coins.  

The shysters don't care if their customers get burned when they go to sell the coins and they know they will be because their pricing is far over market.  I have absolutely no desire to sell anything over market.  I'm selling into strength, not stupidity and most of the sales are wholesale.    

 

I have a lot more respect for inertia and the status quo than when I started this thread only six months ago.  It now seems entirely possible these markets will never develop.  The demand for graded coins could continue to increase without collectors ever seeking ordinary Gems.  

Just keep the belief these coins are all common because I really don't care any longer.  

[samclemen3991]

@cladking.  I certainly hope you mean the endless argument with World Colonial and not modern coins.  I may not always agree and or understand everything you post but I tend to learn a great deal in general about modern issues from you.  anybody can hold whatever position then want on a topic but I think you and a fellow called wondercoin seem to do a lot of detailed research.  which I appreciate.   James

 

[cladking]

On 9/23/2024 at 1:38 PM, samclemen3991 said:

I certainly hope you mean the endless argument with World Colonial and not modern coins.  I may not always agree and or understand everything you post but I tend to learn a great deal in general about modern issues from you.  anybody can hold whatever position then want on a topic but I think you and a fellow called wondercoin seem to do a lot of detailed research.  which I appreciate.   

Thank you.  Wondercoin is great but there are a lot of really smart and very knowledgeable people working on, dealing in, and collecting modern coins now days.  Maybe I'm just a little grumpy because in addition to selling into strength I'm also having to take a large number of coins to the bank because they aren't worth the large cost of shipping.  It breaks my heart to hold onto coins for generations so I can provide them and then have to spend them because of my age.  And, of course, I was expecting some compensation for holding onto nice choice examples of all these coins and then losing most of my money to inflation caused by a government that thinks wasting resources a little at a time (like making pennies) or by the truckload is OK so long as there are more taxpayers.  

Most of the coins are gone now and all I have left is several safety deposit boxes with Gems. Of course most of these could end up in circulation as well making me grumpy allover again.

 

No, World Colonial is just wrong.  I never understood why he can be so wrong but the bottomline is moderns are collectable no matter what anyone says.  They are also tough And it doesn't matter to any market participants or collectors that when something doubles it goes only from $100 to $200 or $1 to $2.  It's all the same thing no matter what anyone thinks.  Nor does it matter to the potential future market if someone understands why demographics affect the propensity to collect moderns.  It's pretty unlikely at this juncture that old timers are going to move these markets.  Indeed, I've always said if and when the markets move it will be caused by younger people who don't hate clads or modern coins. 

I'll get over the grumpies.  I'm still having a lot of fun and still trying to make the world a better place.  

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/23/2024 at 10:11 AM, cladking said:

.... Keep in mind I'm the expert and know where to look for most of these coins ....

I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but I would just like to compliment you and WC both on your dignified good-natured jousting.  This is what we've been missing from this Forum. Carry on, gentlemen!  And may the best man win!  🏆 

P.S. Re above snippet... In the few years I have been on or about this Forum, never have I heard a member go head-to-head with another member and make this boastful, gutsy claim!  I think I am going to pay more attention to this molasses-ized Hatfield and McCoy skirmishing. Very informative and entertaining!  🤣

Edited Tuesday at 02:10 AM by Henri Charriere
mid-course correction.