World Colonial

If it's in a recognized "reference", NGC will be more likely to grade it.  I own two retro dated "British" crowns in NGC holders, which I submitted myself.  I believe are in Krause.

On 4/16/2024 at 12:50 PM, CherryO said:

What makes a coin rare? 
Mintage? Year? # graded? Collector demand? Country of issue? 

Mintage is the starting point for assessing availability (not just rarity which is what actually matters most), always.  Most mintages are not "low", because coins are usually mass-produced objects.  If anyone does not believe me, try counting to most of these numbers.  It's the survival rate, usually across the quality distribution, that matters. 

In the internet age, most (supposedly) low mintage coins aren't hard to buy.  If your coin has a mintage of 2,019 and the holding period averages 10 years (almost certainly on the high-end), it will come up for sale approximately every other day.  Yes, once every two days assuming a survival rate close to 100%.

Year of mintage has nothing to do with rarity.  There seems to be a tendency for collectors to collect more recently dated coins, but that's mostly due to price, availability, and quality preference.  It's not an actual preference.

The number of graded doesn't indicate a thing about rarity because ungraded coins still exist.  The number on the TPG label doesn't have anything to do with rarity either, because it's not an actual coin attribute but an opinion.  It's marketing driven to create an artificial perception of "scarcity" to inflate prices and make people feel better about their own collection, which is invariably disproportionately composed of common coins for obvious reasons.

Demand is demand.  Scarcity is based upon supply.  Demand for actually scarce or rare coins impacts availability making it easier or harder to buy some coins, but whether or not it is available for sale doesn't change the number existing.

Country of issue doesn't change rarity.  It's related to demand.  The vast majority of supposedly "low" mintage US coins aren't actually low mintage.  The demand is just (far) larger due to the much larger collector base.

On 5/4/2024 at 4:08 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The PCGS 3000 Index was in a multi-decade bear market ever since the 1989 bubble peak.

Not sure of your point.

If you are implying it's due to recover "eventually" because of this price performance, no it doesn't have to.  No market actually does, especially one that isn't even a market in the sense you imply which coins aren't.

According to the link below, it's still about 60% below the all-time peak, and that's in nominal dollars.  This shouldn't be surprising, since TPG labels and buying coins as "investments" don't have anything to do with actual coin collecting.  The vast majority of coins in this index have no relevance to how the majority collect, with potentially 80% to 90% never buying a single one in these TPG label numbers. 

I've owned two, the 1883-O and 1884-O Morgan dollars in MS-64. Those most likely to be owned by the "average" collector are the 1883 "No cents" nickel, 1938-D Buffalo, later date Mercury dimes, common Morgan and Peace dollars, and circulated 20th century "key" dates like the 1932-D and 1932-S quarters.

That's roughly 2% of the list.

PCGS Price Guide - PCGS3000® Rare Coin Index

On 5/2/2024 at 10:29 PM, VKurtB said:

I need to thank @GoldFinger1969 for reminding me of something with this thread. I have a presentation on the Bretton Woods system already “in the can” that I have not used at an ANA show. Maybe Atlanta next winter?

I wasn't aware the ANA was coming to ATL in 2025, but that's already five years since 2020.  

I should still be able to suffer the traffic on Day 1 (but probably only Day 1) to make it there.  Likely the only day I might find something I want to buy badly enough.

On 4/29/2024 at 11:05 AM, samclemen3991 said:

Sorry World Colonial but you come off about as cheerful as a Thomas Hardy novel.  Are the skies a perpetual  November gray in your world?

I don't consider myself a pessimist because the price level doesn't have anything to do with actual coin collecting.  This was the context of my post.

On 4/29/2024 at 11:05 AM, samclemen3991 said:

I have to dispute some of your conclusions.  You put the survival of coin collecting on the backs of old white men.  I don't think that is true.  I live in a small midwestern town.  In January I was surprised to see an ad in the local grocery store flyer for a new coin club.  The contact person's name is Jose Guerrero and yes he is Spanish.  They have 14 founding members.  2 white college kids, 2 females and the rest are of various non white backgrounds but all know each other thru working at the same Turkey processing plant.  This may not be the future YOU see for coin collecting, and for all I know this group might be as rare as a sun beam in your world but I wouldn't write the future off.  

My posts are long sometimes, but that's not what I said.  I'm not questioning the future of coin collecting or even collecting of US coinage.  

I'm writing about the price level.  I could be wrong but the reasoning I use isn't unrealistic.  That's about the only reason anyone actually cares how many collectors are in the US.  

On 4/29/2024 at 11:05 AM, samclemen3991 said:

Also, I have yet to get two people give the same definition of woke but that is a different matter.  

For purposes of this thread, it's sufficient to state that it's any movement toward rejection of "traditional" culture however demonstrated.   In the context of coin collecting, it would be where it becomes "politically incorrect" to prefer the culture represented by the coin and therefore own it.

On 4/28/2024 at 6:56 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

But depends on how you DEFINE it.  If they asked some basic questions which fleshed out ACTIVITY and FREQUENCY of buying/selling and/or reading....that's one thing.

You ask "Are you a coin collector ?" and anybody with the Special Quarter collection or a few stray coins is gonna say YES and the total will be 35 million Americans. 

Does the actual number even matter?

I don't think so.  The primary if not only reason this question comes up on coin forums is because of the implications on the future price level.  Whether it's 10MM or somewhere near my prior guesstimate of 2MM isn't likely to impact the future price level materially because the vast majority of collectors (however defined) aren't candidates to buy most of the (somewhat) more expensive (US) coins collectors currently own.

The primary exception to my statement is mostly the coinage you collect: common pre-1933 US gold, Morgan and Peace dollars, and gold and silver NCLT.

On 4/28/2024 at 10:15 AM, samclemen3991 said:

It would be interesting to live long enough to see how this is suppose to eventually work out.  In one thread you have millions of raw rare coins that are just waiting to flood the certified market.  In another you have the total collapse of coin collecting because no one wants them.  Somethings got to give.  James

There are certainly millions of high-grade post-1933 US coins that could be graded.  It's never going to happen because it's economically self-defeating.  Much of this coinage isn't worth the cost of grading now.

If you are referring to US coinage dated prior to 1934, I didn't even hint at millions, but it is my inference that the TPG data isn't reflective of the scarcity much or most of the time.  Why would anyone think that?  There isn't any default reason to believe it for a number of reasons, starting with confirmed small to medium sized hoards of usually much harder to find non-US coinage.

As for the US coin market "collapsing", I'm not expecting it in my lifetime except possibly due to economics.

Longer term, anyone who has read up on US demographic trends will understand my conclusion.  The primary US collector demographic (non-Hispanic Caucasian men) isn't growing or if it is, barely.  It's more likely to shrink.  The demographic groups accounting for all (projected) population growth have a (very) low to non-existent interest in coin collecting (except maybe as "investment") and they certainly have no cultural connection to US coinage.  There is no basis to believe they will later either where they will even come close to collecting US coinage in anywhere near the same proportion.

One other factor which I have never mentioned before is recent "woke" culture.  It's limited to my knowledge and may turn out to be temporary.  US collectors better hope so, because it's potentially disastrous to the economics of collecting US coinage and possibly much of coin collecting generally, including what I primarily collect now.

On 4/28/2024 at 9:47 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Very interesting, thanks for the heads-up, WC. 

But I think this is the proverbial outlier, no ?  I mean...we're talking here someone who worked with famous numismatists who lived over a century ago....who saved GOLD coins....coins in PRISTINE condition....and worth Big $$$.

I don't think there are many entire collections like this just sitting in a vault, a home, or an attic. 

I'd have to find the article so you can read Garrett's comments and Stacks' reply in context.  I tried to do that earlier today but would have to search the articles in the archive and I don't remember the publish date.  It's out there if you want to do it.

Stack wasn't specific.  He didn't mention any specific coin or coins.  I interpreted his comments generically, as I've tried to explain here.

On 4/28/2024 at 10:41 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

JA said you see thise once in a Blue Moon....I think this shows that while there might be more out there (there certainly are)...there aren't DOZENS or HUNDREDS of sets like this or even approximating this set. 

A few raw coins here or there at best, IMO.

It doesn't take sets of this size to impact the price level noticeably.  Numerous individual coins will do it.

For the non-US coinage I've used as a comparison, almost certainly not usually (large) collections.  Outside of "name" collections, the few I've seen for my series have been both incomplete and (mostly) abysmal quality.

On 4/28/2024 at 9:44 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Even this Fairmont Hoard...if it's an amalgamation of various finds and put together as one big one for marketing purposes -- that would kind of prove my point.  If what you guys are saying is true -- and I admit, you COULD be right and you have more experience here than me -- but if right, you are saying lots of Americans have coins worth lots of $$$ and in volumes that can greatly expand the existing population census in the next decade or two.  So what's taking them so long to bring it to market or their heirs or their estates ?  I guess that's what we are all waiting on, right ?

I guess if it IS out there...we should see it in the next 10-20 years.  People like my relatives who are passing on are now in their 80's and 90's...if we don't see it when these people die, then I would think it does NOT exist in any size.  JMHO.

I previously posted a list of about a dozen factors which appear to correlate to survivability.  That's what leads me to my conclusions.

Here is another example.  My avatar coin is an 1813 Mexico PCGS MS-66 1/4R.  Last I checked, 10 in 66, 19 in 65, and 50 total with 45 in an MS grade.  Probably zero duplicates due to the price and frequency of sale.  Mintage unknown but probably several million.  Actual number is potentially several hundred in an MS grade.  This coin should easily be scarcer than the (vast) majority of US coins even of comparable age with a roughly comparable mintage.

Is this a hoard coin?  Maybe, but I've never heard it.  I infer or know of numerous non-US hoards from the TPG data.  Where it isn't a hoard, it should be evident that in at least 9 of 10 instances, the US coin will be (noticeably) more common in comparable quality with a (somewhat) comparable mintage.

To your last comment, I think zadok's point is that we won't necessarily see it.  Generational money doesn't necessarily sell because they don't need the money, as I infer you are in a position to know.  There were also a sufficient number of affluent Americans in the past (probably concentrated in the NE) who could have saved or bought this coinage and still have it.  Post-colonial America wasn't poor by contemporary standards.

That's my inference anyway.

On 4/28/2024 at 9:44 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

For this particular foreign coin, yeah, I see what you are saying.  But for the coins an American kid or adult is likely to collect -- Saints, Morgans, Franklins, SLQ, Walkers, Lincoln Cents, etc. -- have we REALLY just scratched the surface of what is out there in the aggregate ?  And what about in the top condition ?

Not thinking in terms of this coinage because of those you listed, only a few Saints are actually scarce or rare.   The rest of it is really common, except under the US financially motivated contrivance of TPG labels which most collectors don't actually care about in the context of US condition census coins.

The Morgan dollar isn't representative either because of the outsized financially motivated buying.  I'd estimate most of the most common dates even in UNC or "BU" potentially still aren't graded.  For the key and semi-key dates, probably have been but I could still be wrong about that.

For the other series you listed, I absolutely expect that most of the better coins have not been graded, potentially up to condition census grades.  Most of the TPG counts in "high" quality (up to better MS) aren't low even now, but you need to remember that only the earlier WLH and Lincoln cent dates preceded album collecting and not by that long.  It's not like most of this coinage is really worth that much.  It's also not realistic to expect most who own it to be thinking in your context.  

On 4/28/2024 at 9:44 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Well, there's certainly value to lower-rated raw coins....but these won't really change the top pop census or the economics of a particular coin type or year/mintmark.  That was my point.

I'm not referring to average or lower circulated coinage.  I'm referring to "high" quality whether the condition census grade or somewhat below it, regardless of what the TPG label is for the "top pop".  That was my point in using my 1771 Peru 2R as a basis of comparison. 

It doesn't take even as single new "top pop" to noticeably negatively impact the price level, given the actual demand for these labels (not coins).  A proportionately large increase several points below the condition census grade is usually enough to suffice.

On 4/27/2024 at 8:06 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I don't doubt that there is still (lots of) stuff out there that is grade-worthy and worth nice $$$....VKurt has intimated as much with all his auctions finds....Sandon and Zadok, too....but could top-pop, census-altering volumes STILL be out there...preserved pristinely....in high-grade and/or mint condition....by average folks...who know NOTHING about coins and/or PRESERVING coins... .the SAME people who think wiping a coin with a towel keeps it CLEAN and in GOOD condition ???!!! 

I could see top-half or top-quarter condition hoards coming out....but top-pop stuff ?  

I wasn't specifically referring to condition census coins.  It's not as relevant as you consistently claim to very many collectors.  It's a number on a holder label to almost everyone because they aren't ever going to buy it, and it does not even have (hardly) any relevance to what they do buy.

On 4/27/2024 at 8:06 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

But even for the stuff that I track (see above)....hasn't the RATE OF INCREASE slowed ? 

Yes, there are new submittances...new hoards....new SDB finds...new oveseas finds (i.e., Fairmont)....but it can't approximate what came out when the TPGs first came out during the heavy period of 1986-2006, the first 20 years, can it ?  In 2 years, it'll be another 20 years (40 years total since the TPGs came out) and I can't see the split for most coins being greater than 70% the first 20 years....30% the last 20 years...if not closer to 80/20 or even 90/10.

 

Look at the comparison I made in my last post.  Nine 1771 Peru 2R AU-58+ already graded with likely no duplicates. Given the preference among these collectors for TPG (virtually non-existent outside the US), potentially more out of a holder than in one.

The number surviving for a coin like this one is presumably effectively a random event.  But still, ask yourself, how likely is it that so many US coins with current TPG counts lower or near it even with noticeably higher mintages are (almost) as scarce or scarcer than this coin in this quality or otherwise?

The most likely reason most are graded is TPG preference and mostly due to the higher price.  

Previously, I mentioned a Coin Week Article by Jeff Garrett claiming what you do.  Harvey Stack posted a comment directly contradicting him.  I agree with Harvey Stack because I think he was in a much better position to know.  One admittedly anecdotal example is the Chapman collection of gold dollars profiled in Coin Week which actually did include numerous "top pops", up to MS-68.

Previously Unknown Chapman Collection of $1 Gold Now Revealed (coinweek.com)

Remember, post-1776 US metropolitan areas weren't an economic backwater, not like 1770's Lima, Peru.

On 4/27/2024 at 11:05 PM, zadok said:

...perhaps ur choice of "active" is a determinate?...just as a point for consideration, i observe n actively participate in local, regional n occasionally national estate sales n auctions n in the 90 percentile they almost always have coin collections, accumulations or groupings of coins, ditto for unclaimed safe deposit box auctions...once a collector always a collector even after death....

Maybe.

Back in 1998, my former boss told me he had a collection of post-1968 proof sets.  I didn't ask him if he had anything else.  All I remember is that he was disgusted when I informed him that he had been wasting his money on a SDB for decades.  He certainly wasn't "active", whether anyone wants to call him a collector or not.  Not sure how typical this example is of what you see.  I'm aware that given the supply of so many common coins, someone has to own it.

Usually when someone asks this question, it's in the context of future prices presumably including their own collection.  If there really are 10MM US collectors or any number approaching it, the vast majority (probably in the vicinity of at least 70%) have no relevance on future demand, certainly not on the US coinage owned by most US collectors. 

Longer term, I expect demand for practically all post-1933 US coinage to decline noticeably first and then collapse.  Only somewhat better for earlier dates.

On 12/18/2023 at 12:33 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Do you think that the volume of non-modern coinage submitted yearly has increased in recent years vs. 10 or 20 or 30 years ago ?  You would think that most of the coins have already been submitted, right ?  Once the TPGs were established in 1986-87, I would think the initial rush was the highpoint.

This has been discussed before.

No, I don't think the majority of "grade worthy" coins have been submitted, even from those that are financially worth submitting.  It varies by series and coin since some coins and series are far more likely to be submitted due to the probability of fakes and buyer preference.

It's a higher proportion for what you buy, but you don't buy the coins even most buyers spending around the same amount do.  Definitely higher for pre-1933 US gold, Morgan dollars, and classic commemoratives.  Still, there may be more 1881-S Morgan dollars out of a holder than in one, just not in the highest grades.

Look at the TPG counts and estimates in Coin Facts. You can also compare the outdated Coin Facts commentary to the estimates or itemized census.  Right on the same page, it's not unusual to see where (apparently) "new" coins previously not known were "discovered".

Compare it to other presumably expected to be at least somewhat scarce coinage from outside the US with TPG counts in higher grades which exceeds what most expect.  As one example, I own a 1771 Peru 2R NGC MS-62.  Mintage is about 67K with a value around $2K.  So, it's not real valuable but high enough where it makes sense to grade it.

NGC and PCGS list 7 MS and 2 AU-58.  I've seen five of the MS (including mine) and one of the AU-58.  It's not a hoard coin either.  It's an outlier for the series, but if this many exist of this coin, it's entirely believable that the potential number for the vast majority of US coins is also (noticeably) higher than commonly known now, especially where the counts are low in similar quality.  Most collectors seem to assume the opposite, like the TPG pops more often overstate the scarcity due to resubmissions.  They believe this because of their own unrepresentative experience, anecdotes from others, and potentially because they want to believe it.

Compared to the 1771 Peru 2R, only a very low proportion of US coins should be scarcer, approach it in scarcity, or have similar survival rates in similar quality.  It's only not likely or a lot less likely where this type of non-US coin is from a hoard.

On 4/26/2024 at 10:52 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

We'd see more of them posting online, too. 

I don't see much correlation. 

It took me until 2006 to join this forum after "lurking" for a bit.  (I only joined PCGS about five years ago.)  The only reason I knew of it was because I submitted for the first time in October 2005 and that's only because I finally accumulated a decent sized stash that I thought needed to be graded. It's still the largest and most valuable submission I've ever made.

I assume these message boards are more widely known now, somewhat.  You need to remember only a tiny fraction of the collector base ever submits a coin for grading or participates in registry sets.

I'm not sure of the percentage that buys coins in a TPG holder but I'm confident it's quite low too.  The vast majority likely do not collect at a financial level where their budget accommodates it.

I bought the first edition, I think.  I haven't looked at any new ones.

The main critique I had of the one I own is that it has too many die varieties included of expensive coins.  Yes, these are Red Book varieties, but so what?

Narrowing it down to now include condition census coins is an absurdity.

If the authors really need or choose to do that, then it sounds like they are looking for reasons to publish a new edition. Coins don't become "great" from a holder label because it's not an actual attribute of the coin.

On 4/21/2024 at 3:41 PM, powermad5000 said:

I had another thought this morning on this topic. To add twist to attempting to achieve the goal of figuring out this number, I started thinking about some lower mintages of older issues. I'll just use the 1916 D Mercury Dime as an example. With only 264,000 minted, if there were more than 264,000 collectors of older coinage and especially these dimes, none of these would be available for sale as they would all be residing and filling that slot in each collection, yet, there are still many examples available for sale and these come up in AG and G in auctions frequently. That means either collectors don't want it in these grades or that there are not that many collectors to deplete the number for them to be available.

Which led me to think then we have collectors all scattered about all the different issues and some who only collect by specialty such as error collectors. We have collectors who collect only ASE's and nothing else. We have collectors that only collect Lincoln Wheats and nothing else. We have collectors that only collect anything from the Barber series (dimes, quarters, halves) and nothing else. We have collectors that only collect Capped Bust halves and nothing else. This then also adds to the impossibility of trying to pin down the total number of collectors overall.

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.

On 4/19/2024 at 5:45 PM, RWB said:

Here's a simple Census Bureau population diagram as of Dec 31, 2023. Population for age 10 and under is essentially non-involved. Age 10-20 is limited new involvement; from 20 to about 40 is likely limited or intermittent involvement, and 40 to 70 would be primary acquisition & involvement. Above 70 is the deaccession phase. Several generations ago the collector population would have skewed lower largely because of collection from circulation and very low premium on added value. (That is, a coin collection represented limited loss compared to base value of the pieces. This began to change in the 1950s and was declining rapidly in the mid-1960s.)

A situation which has not changed is strong dominance by males in all aspects of coin collecting.

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.

On 4/18/2024 at 9:56 PM, VKurtB said:

Because it is NOT in my plan to get ANY of my shillings handled by a TPGS (heck, I’ve DE-slabbed three), I am not working on gemmy coins, but rather coins as I prefer them, which is long on detail and luster, while tolerating a nick or three. See? My disdain for “technical grading” is complete and utter. 

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.

On 4/18/2024 at 8:47 PM, cladking said:

Even though debased coinage is USUALLY scarcer and often much scarcer than the coins they replace they usually sell for a small fraction of the price.  

Why would you think this is?  

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".

On 4/16/2024 at 9:33 PM, VKurtB said:

Yes, there, plus local shows, auctions, and the odd online auction. The last category is mostly larger lots of coins. I have a healthy sized hoard of replaced upgraded stuff. I am pretty sure that Allen Berman can pretty well wipe out my later shilling “holes” if I send him a need list prior to the next show we both are in attendance. I have bought many of my better pieces from him.

I tend to opt for better examples, very few of which come inexpensive, regardless of alloy. From my experience, the toughest era to find in really nice shape is anything from the beginning of WW2 until the earlier 1950’s.  Almost magically, when Elizabeth II ascended the throne, more shillings tended to be saved. 

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.

On 4/16/2024 at 8:23 PM, cladking said:

Repeating things that aren't true has no effect on anything.  You can find fistfuls of Unc and gemmy British silver for every 500 fine coin you can find yet the sterling sells for more.   Then you can find a lot more of the 500 fine than cu can the cu/ ni yet the 500 sells for more.  

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.

On 4/16/2024 at 8:23 PM, cladking said:

Mintage and sales are irrelevant.  The only things that count are how many survive and how many want one.  

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. 

On 4/16/2024 at 8:23 PM, cladking said:

I'm selling.   Not because I have as much profit as possible but because of my age.  

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 4/16/2024 at 11:43 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Any decent trade organization -- dealers, PNG, ANA, etc. -- should have hard numbers on this as I have said numerous times here.

On the number of collectors?

Even aside from definitional differences, it's not possible.

On 4/16/2024 at 4:50 PM, VKurtB said:

As an ardent collector of British shillings, I can confirm that finding high quality British CuNi pieces is taking some time and checking lots of stock boxes. Luckily there is no shortage of dealers at the bigger shows to check. I filled a lot of holes with a single bulk lot at auction. I am enjoying the hunt for the balance. 

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