World Colonial

As I wrote in my earlier post, if the collector base is actually as large as some of the numbers stated here, we'd be running into them regularly. This is particularly true since the participation rate among most demographic groups is so much lower than the primary one. approaching zero often and they represent a noticeable proportion of the US population. If five or 10 million "active" collectors, then that's potentially between one in 10 to 20 Caucasian males. That's far too high. Who owns these coins and how many are there? I have no idea. I admit it. Concurrently, it's been my assumption that "investment" type US coinage (the more common Morgan and Peace dollars and pre-1933 US gold) is predominantly bought for financial reasons. There is too much of it and it's too expensive for it to owned by hobbyist collectors in more than low proportion. For the 1916-D dime, my recollection is PCGS Coin Facts estimates 10,000. Even accounting for duplicates, seems far too low. I'd guess 25K minimum which is "low" enough where the vast majority can realistically be owned by collectors. To me, it's coins like common date capped bust halves which are more of a mystery. Coin Facts to my recollection tops out at 8,000 or 10,000 whereas I think a more realistic number is at least 50,000 which is still only about 1%. It's probably higher.

There are also differences by ethnic group and the proportion of the population represented by these groups has increased. It's evident that the participation rate by many currently defined ethnic minorities is effectively zero, unless someone is now going to tell me that there are really large numbers of these people collecting coins from another culture at "meaningful" financial levels which I do not believe.

Yes, that's my assumption but I wasn't asking if you planned to have it graded. Just whether you were looking for the higher TPG equivalent quality.

Because of what I told you. Your collecting parameters have no market relevance. You are describing your preferences, not anyone else's. You should know that price is not primarily driven by scarcity and availability. There are plenty of coins (mostly ancients) which are scarcer than anything you or I collect which sell for low or very low prices. You should also know that virtually no one actually cares about your quality criteria, including you since you won't even pay for it above immaterial prices. The price of the modern may be a small fraction. It's still financially immaterial. The difference is usually equivalent from as little as the price of a pack of chewing gum to the cost of movie ticket, in the quality most collectors will accept. It's not factor because hardly anyone evaluates voluntary consumption expense as you imply. It's a hobby, not an "investment".

What price range applies here? Is your quality criteria "gem", a better UNC, or something else? With your comparison of the George VI and QEII portraits, some of it is presumably the mintage but mostly I think it's collector preference for the Gillick portrait which resulted in a higher survival rate too. The Gillick portrait is one of my 20th century favorites. I find KGVI rather ordinary.

A collector only needs one and most of them don't care if it's UNC either where they will pay meaningful premiums for it. I've also told you most of the price differences are trivial. You're exaggerating trivial price differences which virtually no one cares about, other than you. Price variances from less than a dollar on tow end to somewhat more than nominal low-cost purchases, approaching 95% to 99% of the time. I wasn't referring to mintages or survivors. The sources I listed prove that your claim of this coinage not being collected is wrong, again. Then why are you exaggerating such immaterial price differences? That's the underlying source of every disagreement I have with you on these topics, the price. There is no market significance to the scarcity difference with the coinage we discuss, seldom any market significance with quality differences which you exaggerate even more than US collecting generally, and I don't disagree with your assessment of current demand, only your unrealistic future claims.

On the number of collectors? Even aside from definitional differences, it's not possible.

Where are you looking? Is it mostly at coin shows?

There is no practical difference to most collectors between the scarcity of this coinage. I've told you this before, but you won't accept it. So, eBay sales are imaginary? So are world mint sales? Sales at however many B&M sell it? Franklin Mint didn't sell the hundreds of thousands to millions of "Coin Sets of All Nations"? The scarcity difference is of no relevance to most collectors. It's only relevant to a tiny fraction like you, and you won't even pay the prices you think it should be worth. That's behind your claim that it "isn't collected".

You’re making a generalization which doesn’t describe how most collectors collect non-US coinage. Collectors don't generally make an arbitrary distinction using the metal content. What you describe is an arbitrary “coin dump” you’ve invented, numbering maybe 50,000 in the 70's to over 100,000 now, using an inconsistent and arbitrary cut-off date. You’re thinking in the context of how you collect as a US based collector, from your local dealers ‘bargain bin” which doesn’t reflect most collecting of non-US coinage, either in the US or elsewhere. You're making this distinction because you exaggerate meaningless price differences. The price differences between the vast majority of the world coinage you call “modern” and the vast majority of the immediately preceding “classics” are almost always immaterial. It’s material to you because you're measuring what is actually an alternate low budget consumption expense using percentages. The relative price is the best indication of collector perception, not an arbitrary definition from the metal content. As an example, I just bought one roll each of 60’s Canadian silver dollars, halves and quarters at $4.75, $9.25, and $18 per coin. It’s maybe 2X to 3X an earlier dated base metal coin in comparable quality. That’s a trivial difference and not unusual. Your claim is demonstrably wrong. What you're describing is collectors refusing to pay the price you think this coinage should be worth. That's the real disagreement underlying all our differences of opinion. I've told you this before. You think this coinage should have a higher preference than it does, collectors should assign it higher prices, and since you dislike collective perception, you claim it "wasn't collected", just as you do for US moderns which is equally wrong. National mints sales, eBay, Franklin Mint "Coin Sets of all Nations", and thousands of B&M dealers worldwide factually prove you wrong.

I don't know the current state of the sports card market, but it's not comparable to coins other than both are mass produced objects and subject to financial speculation. I consider modern sports cards a mass-produced piece of cardboard, but the cultural connection is much stronger than coins.

Above I mentioned US Mint customers as one indication. Post above mine mentions registry set members. There are also registered users at Heritage and GC, though Heritage includes more than just coins and some proportion of non-US-based collectors. Then there is eBay which currently has (right now) about 1.7MM US listings, another 1.6MM for world (including Canada), and 175K ancient and medieval. This is an even less precise measure, because it's not all by US based sellers and it contains a lot of overpriced material that will never sell or coins collectors don't actually want, but it is a data point, imprecise as it is. You may know number of coin club members with ANA affiliated clubs. Number of dealers is another indication, but no idea how this compares to the past. My assumption is fewer dealers than previously but if not, definitely B&M. Checked in ATL recently and there seem to be about half a dozen in the metro area that I would describe as traditional hobbyist dealers with a similar number of bullion or "investment" sellers. (World Numismatics, the one with the best inventory here when I was a YN in the 70s, closed about a year ago.) Not counting pawn shops or "We Buy Gold" outlets. Number of coin club members for the metro area from a prior review of the ANA website indicated maybe a few hundred. This is for a population approaching 6MM now. I wouldn't call ATL a numismatic desert, but it's not the NE US either.

I think 5MM is way too many. That would be about one in every 60 to 70 people in the country. This ratio also incorporates demographic groups which have a much lower to non-existent participation rate (women and currently defined minorities), meaning the participation rate of the primary collector demographic will have to be noticeably higher. Are collectors really encountering other collectors that often as this number suggests?

I'm 59, born in 1965 the year clad was first struck. The coins have been collected my entire life, just not as you think it should be. The market is not in any infancy and is already mature. It just hasn't matured to your preference. In the next few decades, 1965-1998 US moderns will mostly disappear from circulation, never mind that your usage of demographics has no demonstrated predictability on collector preferences, and never did. No, this isn't the 1960's when you think US collectors supposedly preferred their circulating change. In the 60's, US collectors mostly collected at FV and where they didn't, there wasn't a large supply of affordable alternatives. Now and recently, there is the internet which makes 95% of all coinage ever made available practically on demand with over half a century of additional coinage previously not available, both circulating and NCLT. Most of this coinage is affordable by US collecting standards while the collector base will never approach your prior claims and inferences because the non-collecting public doesn't find it that interesting. If this were credible, it would have already happened. The reason it hasn't is because you're describing 1960's style collecting at scale, not the future. This type of collecting has virtually no correlation on the price level because it's almost never an actual preference, just as it wasn't in the 60's. I don't know if he watches the forum anymore, but a prior poster (Tom) used to write in great detail about the collecting habits of young(er) collectors. Your description doesn't have any similarity to what he wrote, at all.

The only one I know is Mitch Stevens who posts as "wondercoin" on the PCGS forum though not as often as previously. I understand his son Justin is running their coin business now. He's probably the best source for anyone looking to put together a registry type set of circulating pre-1999 US moderns. Otherwise, eBay is good enough for most everything else.