World Colonial

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.

What coins are you comparing now? The market does not need any more time. Relative preference between series is and has been established longer than practically most reading this thread have been alive and definitely collecting. For any series collectively, it's entirely due to cultural perception from the coin attributes. The US moderns which have high prices currently are due to similar reasons as older coinage. Coins like the FDR "no S" proofs, 1969-S DDO and 1972 DDO cent, and 1982 with NMM dime. It's more than just some narrow rarity, since the last two in my list aren't even scarce. Other US moderns you have claimed as "rare" or "scarce" which most US collectors consider as having (somewhat) higher prices are almost entirely due to the TPG label.

Modern applies to US coinage because it's distinctly part of the collecting culture. It doesn't apply in anything close to the same context elsewhere.

Using the metal content as the defining factor is nonsensical.

"Modern" in the context of non-US collecting is a US centric term. There is no such thing as world "moderns" and it has zero relevance to how most collectors collect. US collectors don't even make that distinction either, except maybe in the context of "bargain bin" B&M inventory which isn't necessarily tied to the metal content. I've never heard a single person use this term or make this distinction other than you. It's not used outside the US that I know and if it is, they got it from here, not locally. It's meaningless in Europe or Asia with up to thousands of years to collect. In Europe, "modern" is anything after 1500. In Latin America, the native population never struck their own coinage and in most of it, there is limited if any organized collecting. In Africa, same thing but not what US collectors would consider organized collecting except in South Africa, where I know as fact their collector base had never heard of the US definition until I mentioned it. Maybe a very few countries have coinage that can legitimately be considered to have a distinct separation between series to meet the US definition of "modern" but it's no more than that. The primary one is Canada, and I can see China PRC as a second. I can't think of a single other one.

Most of these coins currently sell for somewhat above or below the cost of grading in MS-66. My prediction remains the same as before. Decades from now, the majority of post 1933 US coinage should sell for nominal premiums to silver spot or near or below the cost of grading in grades up to MS-66.

It's financially immaterial and no reason to believe this will ever change. The coin market isn't about to grow exponentially and the collector preference for this coinage isn't about to increase sufficiently to result in another outcome.

I agree with your general theme. There isn't any basis to claim that this segment consisting of hundreds of coins is going to experience a future leap in collector preference (not popularity). The price estimates provided near the top of this thread aren't financially meaningful either and the market will never be large enough where more than a very low number or proportion of the collector base will make it up by volume. Totally different kind of buyer. Given how common many Morgan and Peace dollars are, my assumption is that most of the (most) common dates are owned for financial reasons. There are very unlikely enough collectors buying it for sets or as type coins. eBay has tons of it. This isn't ever going to happen with a base metal coin in volume because "investors" don't buy this type of coin.

You can interpret my reply as you wish, even telling me the coins don’t actually exist if that's what you want to do I’m not interested in getting into another pointless debate with you to experience Ground Hog Day, so don’t even start that. It’s not even entertaining. So, carry on financially promoting this coinage.

There isn't a reliable number. It's also substantially dependent upon definition of "collector". The starting point to me is the number of mint and proof sets sold by the US Mint but it isn't a one-to-one ratio. Same idea for US Mint NCLT sales.

1969 UNCIRCULATED Genuine U.S. MINT SET ISSUED BY U.S. MINT | eBay 572 sold so far by this seller with more than 10 still available. 1969 U.S. MINT SET. ISSUED BY US MINT. Envelope Sealed / Unopened | eBay Another 170 sold by the same seller, also with more than 10 still available. No, I don't know what these sets look like. It's good enough for whoever bought it.

Obviously

No, that would end US coin collecting as we know it.

Collectors don't collect in a vacuum. The idea that collectors will suddenly find a series so interesting to leave all others which compete with it in the dust price wise isn't plausible. We're not talking about crypto or some share of stock. It's a collectible. This isn't just true of US moderns, but practically all coins. It happens with the most expensive highest preferred coinage because the few buyers are more prone to ignore the prices of other coins. Also for specific dates or segments for the same reason. Generally though, if the price increases by a "meaningful" multiple, it will be priced to compete with coinage with a much higher collector preference where it isn't competitive because preferences aren't an accident.

So VKurt's and zadok's observations aren't evidence but yours is, right? Are you going to call their experience "hearsay" again like you did earlier in this thread? What about wondercoin's in the "raw moderns" thread on PCGS? Why is your experience any better than theirs? Am I supposed to believe you over them? Am I supposed to believe it's only them and no one else who has this experience? Out of all the collectors in the world, your experience is uniquely representative? Ever heard of comparative analysis? Read up on it. Throughout this thread, I've been using criteria which accounts for the survival and quality distribution for coinage generally, not using premises like yours which have nothing to do with anything in coin collecting. That's how I conclude this coinage is more common than you infer, since you haven't even given an estimate. I already gave you mine, likely 200,000 minimum for any date in TPG MS-64 or better. Why would I believe this is either scarce or it's less than that? It's possible (key word) the survival rates are lower on US moderns than one or more examples I gave earlier in low or very low proportion. As a general principle, there isn't any reason to believe it's more than that, regardless of what you saw.