World Colonial

Like practically every other hobbyist collector (as opposed to "investor"), I'll buy any metal if I like the other coin attributes. I only own one gold coin, so I must hate gold too. With the Bolivia coinage, silver and copper-nickel were issued simultaneously in the 1890's for the 5C and 10C and then in copper-nickel until 1909. I prefer the copper nickel because it's scarcer. I haven't been able to find all of it in good enough quality.

I buy base metal coins too. I just bought a 1918 Bolivia 10C, first "BU" I've seen since 2006, though I haven't looked hard. I also own these:

What are you talking about? Are you referring to my claims about the supply again? I look at the TPG data, but it isn't just for US moderns. It's across all types of coinage. I've already told you about the supply of other coinage in the TPG data, the TPG data you know nothing about. Collectors outside the US disproportionately don't even like TPG, so I conclude from this that the supply of this coinage too is proportionately or absolutely a lot higher than what's visibly evident. Am I supposed to believe that the examples of the non-US coinage I used exist in this supply and probably higher, but of all the coins in the world, it's only those you collect that are an outlier? Why would I believe anything so absurd as that just because you do? This nonsense is at the root of your error. Do you hate your collection? If you don't, then no one does either. Do you hate coins you don't buy? If you don't, no one does either. You keep on repeating the same ridiculous fallacies which are contrary to how collectors actually collect. No one has to agree with you, on anything. If every collector literally disagrees with you, there is nothing unusual about it. That's all this "hate claim is, collective perception disagreeing with you.

The price level doesn't change the actual merits of any coin as a collectible, though it is somewhat (at least) of a reflection of relative collective perception. Most of the money going into modern coins is NCLT, not circulating coinage (including proofs). I know you know that but just clarifying. If you are referring to US classics, it's got the advantage of collectively being more liquid than all but NCLT but it's also very overpriced relatively for the collectible attributes in the higher TPG labels. Classic US coinage is a broad field, so some are and some aren't and varies too, but it's not competitive vs. non-US coinage. Biggest risks I see are longer term finance and economics (not getting into that again here) and demographic trends. Population composition is changing, native born birth rate among the primary collector demographic is below replacement, and forecasted population increases are by groups who have either no cultural tradition of collecting or a much weaker one. Where they have a propensity to collect, it's going to be in (far) lower proportion for most US coinage, especially post-1933 circulating coinage which has been the primary focus of US collecting over the life of everyone reading this thread. Demographics alone might not have a noticeable impact for the duration of my collecting due to my age, but it's likely to for those who are much younger.

I don't disagree that much with the price claims you made above. It's that your claims don't take into consideration how collectors or even people generally perceive coin collecting. That's what I am always telling you. Since all prices are set by the marginal buyer and we're talking about "inefficient" markets, it doesn't take that much incremental buying to result in disproportionate price increases. I get that. This still doesn't mean that enough collectors are going to completely disregard the existing alternatives in the same price range because that's the only way most of your prior price claims and inferences are going to happen. There won't be a multiple of collectors to US moderns in the quality we're discussing because 1) The coins are almost certainly (a lot) more common than you claim or imply. 2) It's never happened before even once for such common coins, including with 1933-1964 US coinage. 3) Due to the minimal market size, the collector base you are inferring would send the prices into the stratosphere because that's the result of so many buyers in such a limited and illiquid market. I used to tell South African based collectors the same thing repeatedly and that's when it was my primary collecting interest.

Apparently not

No, nothing I write is only from what others have told me. That's more BS. For these topics, I'm looking at prices, the TPG data, auction results, and yes, the behavior of collectors from coin forum posts. So, I'm supposed to believe that "mass market" roll "collecting" is believable because of what you've told me? This even though your assumptions don't have virtually anything in common with how virtually anyone collects? What's next, that some or all of your prior claims on aggregate collecting are feasible too? No, I do not believe any of it, because it's contrary to aggregate collector behavior and public perception. You've never provided a single believable reason for the changes you claim. There are no cycles as you have claimed either. I told you that earlier in this thread and previously. There are numerous examples of coins that have "soared" initially and then "crashed", but no evidence that coins or series regularly go in and out of favor as you infer. There has been movement for individual coins generally or in specific quality but no change in the order of collector preference between US series at least since the beginning of modern collecting (1930s). It's not an accident or a coincidence. It's the cultural view toward the coin attributes. I can compare the coin attributes between any two series where the two compete as alternatives and its usually plainly evident why collectors prefer one over the other.

It mostly depends upon the cost of competing alternatives because virtually no one collects in a vacuum. In the past, you've posted all kinds of prices where it often would make the coin completely uncompetitive with the likely alternatives. 1969-P in MS-66 I consider feasible @$100 because it's considered somewhat of a semi-key date. Or some other coin in isolation. The price forecasts you provided in one prior PCGS thread will never happen because it would make far too many US moderns completely uncompetitive.

No, there aren't. There isn't a single coin outside of bullion NCLT bought at this price by anywhere near this number of collectors and then only ASE. The collector base will never come close to your inference or what you have claimed/inferred in the past because there is no evidence that the public finds collecting that interesting. Collecting in the 60's certainly doesn't fit this profile, as it was overwhelmingly at FV or near it. If the MS-68 doesn't meet your criteria, one doesn't exist.

If you are actually interested in this topic, look at the collecting culture. I've read many times from numerous sources (coin forums, coin articles, and probably books too) that future collector preferences are supposedly a mystery. You know what these claims have in common? Every claim or inference is always abstract. I've never read even one believable explanation supporting anything of the sort. I've never actually read one at all, only that it's "possible". Collector preferences aren't a mystery. It's mostly the coin attributes: origin, design, coin size, scarcity and availability, metal content, quality preference, relative marketability, and how if at all it fits into collections.

The ones I have checked (mid-60's to mid-70's) sell for a (low) fraction of Krause list.

This is feasible, if in future dollars. If in 2024 dollars, maybe in MS-66. It all depends upon your timeframe too. What's the TPG grade equivalent to your MS-65? There are already about 2000 right now in MS-66 graded by NGC and PCGS and the MS-67 count isn't low either. About half are the DDO. The non-DDO recently sold on eBay for at or below the cost of grading ($15). That's not a low price for most coins with this TPG count. If a TPG MS-63 really sells for $10 now, I doubt it. PCGS has graded 3600+ in MS-64 or better, not even close to a low number and there certainly plenty more. If an MS-67 doesn't meet your criteria for "gem", PCGS has graded two MS-68 and NGC has graded one. These three coins are already worth over $1000. There is no such thing as world "moderns" but even if there was, your posts demonstrate you don't know how much the coins you consider "scarce" are actually worth, previously or now.

There is no purpose and yes, I'm equally at fault (again) for going down this rabbit hole from which there is no return. The off-topic direction this thread has taken might be entertaining, but it has nothing to do with actual collecting, at least on this planet.

Still owe you a response to your last PM, I think. Don't bother. I've told him the same thing before, over and over. If he didn't experience it first-hand, apparently it didn't happen and doesn't exist. A well-known dealer of US moderns on the PCGS forum claimed a similar thing for himself to your post and stated he knew of others too. He wasn't specific but the numbers involved aren't low but large, except to someone who insists that "large" must be roughly equivalent to 1933-1964 US coinage.

Silver or also clad? Nickels too? These coins aren't even close to scarce, but cents are common as dirt. If clad, apparently you actually don't actually own it because clad "wasn't collected".

Totally irrelevant, still writing as if your personal experience is representative when it isn't. I've already told you dealers not selling coins in volume they can't make hardly any money on doesn't indicate a thing about the scarcity. So, now we're moving on to box "rarity"? Roll "rarity" isn't enough? So what? If it ever happens at scale, it's only going to be due to temporary speculation. You can't provide any believable scenario where it will happen more than temporarily. No one needs a roll for their collection. Yes, a relatively low number "collect" rolls but it's almost entirely at immaterial prices because virtually no one finds owning dozens to thousands of duplicates as a collectible of any interest. Most roll buying at anything above immaterial prices is for financial reasons. This describes virtually all buying of 1933-1964 US silver coinage + Morgan and Peace dollars too. That's most of it financially. You repeatedly attribute imaginary behavior to collectors who don't exist when going by your posts, you've never paid a meaningful premium for any roll either.

I'm not imagining anything of the sort. You used your dealer experience as supposed evidence that rolls were/'are scarce when it doesn't prove anything. I've never claimed that millions of collectors did what you are attributing to my comments. You can't find a single post where I either stated or implied it. Earlier in this thread, I told you that if only 10% of mint sets remain in the quality we've mostly been discussing (TPG MS-64) which is unreasonably low, that's in the vicinity of 200,000. You didn't even answer and it's probably due to one of two reasons. First, you don't believe this supply exists which makes no sense given the availability of the other coinage I used as examples. Two, you infer or claim 200,000 is "scarce" because 1933-1964 US silver coinage probably exists in comparable TPG (not your) quality in multiples up to 1000. No one cares other than you. If anyone else does, it has no market relevance. This coinage (1965-1998 US moderns) is more common than 99% of all coinage dated prior to 2000 in equivalent market (TPG) quality and that's a fact. US collectors misjudging the relative scarcity vs.1933-1964 US coinage has no market relevance, except in the context of TPG labels and specialization, most of it invented by US collecting.

Yes, I also infer some dates are noticeably more common or "scarce" than others, but the scarcity difference is of no practical difference to anyone but you because none will be difficult to buy in any timeframe meaningful to anyone reading our comments, except in the context of TPG labels or mostly US invented specialization. Counter what? Your perpetual exaggeration? I keep telling you your reference point (1933-1964 US coinage) has no relevance. If it does to anyone other than you, it's still of no relevance to the market price or anyone's ability to collect it, except in the context I told you which only exists in US collecting to market the idea that common coins are scarce. I've never heard anyone but you claim US moderns are scarce, once again other than in the fabricated context of US collecting. I've read from plenty of other collectors claiming common coins are scarce too, but never coins as common as US moderns. I don't base my claims exclusively or even primarily on my personal observation.

Yes, I realize it. I understand statistical methods even if you don't. That's why I don't rely on my personal experience alone. If I had looked where you have your entire collecting career, I'd own virtually none of the coins I've bought since 1998, especially those in my primary collection now. I own 88 pillars (1732-1772) in NGC and PCGS holders mostly from Peru but also from Bolivia, Guatemala and Mexico. 63 from Peru with 25 in an MS holder and 10 more in either AU-55 or AU-58. Almost half of my 88 are in these grades. None of these coins show up at hardly any coin shop ever, in these grades or otherwise. Thanks to the internet, I own coins missing from the few best-known collections of this segment and many of mine are of better quality too. Anyone can easily find one million or more 1965-1998 clad quarters in MS-64ish or whatever denomination you want to use vs. my collection. Similar concept for more series than I care to name, which is which is why I referenced the TPG data. That's why I came up with that list of 12 "factors" in my post. I use these factors from which I concluded that the best point of comparison is equivalent Liberty Seated denominations because the larger collector base and higher price level makes the supply better known and the two share some commonality. I don't know how scarce pillars are, but I reasonably conclude it's usually noticeably scarcer across the quality distribution, subject to the mintage.

Utterly ridiculous. This claim proves yet again you don't understand statistical methods. No one has access to the full or even a representative population, because regardless of the actual supply, the better coins have disproportionately been removed from the observable population and no one has access to it. Like everyone else, you apply your assumptions to your observations, when your premises have essentially nothing to do with how anyone collects starting with your "hate" claim. You can't sample what's in someone's collection or "change jar" but due to your erroneous premises and bias, you conclude your observations are reflective of the scarcity when it almost certainly isn't.

There is a difference between observation having some relevance and what you claim. Do you understand that? Notice I have never claimed my experience is representative, even of the coins I collect? It's certainly at least as representative as yours is for US moderns or the world coinage you call "modern". The reason I disagree with you on this aspect is because you don't recognize the limitations on your experience. That's what I have been trying to explain to you, including in my list of factors which you called "claptrap". If I had a reason to believe you, I would admit it. The reason I have not is because I'm not going to believe you over the collective knowledge base on this subject, especially when your assumptions contradict practically everything evident in collecting.

You mean "errors" where I contradict your outlandish unsubstantiated claims and it's contrary to your personal preference? Here is a partial list of the nonsensical premises from your prior posts which apply to this conversation: One: No one’s personal experience is representative of availability, unless the coin is known to be (very) common. You are not an exception. You don't know more than the collective knowledge base on this subject. Two: It’s nonsense to believe hundreds of thousands to millions buy coins they don’t like. That’s your “hate” claim. If your claim is true, it’s equally valid to claim hundreds of millions (at least) are also spending billions if not far more on goods and services they do not want either. It’s absurd. Three: No society or its collectors have any predisposition to prefer currently circulating change. New collectors do not equal new preferences. That’s your demographic claim. Four: Collector preferences aren’t and never were random or unpredictable. In the aggregate, It’s cultural. This includes metal content. Five: Virtually no one cares about your quality criteria to pay “material” premiums for it. Six: There is no reason to believe people generally or collectors specifically have the financial motivation or exhibit the financial behavior you imply. You ignore time preference. That's the primary reason dealers didn't sell this coinage outside of Mint sets in the 70's and 80's and only limited now. It's economics.

No, you ignored it because what I wrote contradicts you and is contrary to your personal preference. It's the same thing you did in our initial discussion years ago. I made notations of how my list applies to US moderns. Every notation I made is accurate. Now of course, under your exaggeration, using the one you quoted, the volume saved isn't large, but that's because your basis of comparison is 1933-1964 US coinage which is common as dirt. The world coinage examples I gave you with their confirmed supply, you ignored it completely. You can't refute it, so you ignore it. As I told you, there is no basis to claim that US moderns are anything other than dozens, hundreds, thousands and even more common than these examples I gave you. I'm not claiming clad dimes are common vs. silver FDR dimes. This has nothing to do with what I told you since I've specifically told you that this comparison doesn't indicate a thing about an actual scarcity. The US Mint sold millions of sets every year for decades after 1964. If only 10% survive in the quality standard I told you above (TPG MS-64ish) which is hardly unreasonable, that's in the vicinity of 200,000 or more. I think it's higher but let's assume it's no more than that. This isn't a low number or scarce. It's only scarce versus 1933-1964 US coinage as I told you. I also disagree with your assumption that the coins were otherwise not saved "in volume" out of circulation because your assumptions of aggregate behavior are "claptrap", starting with your "hate claim". Not a single assumption of yours where I disagree with you is accurate and if you tell me otherwise again, then this means you "hate" your collection too. If your assumptions apply to anyone else, it applies to you.

You have presented zero evidence other than your unrepresentative experience supported by your baseless premises which have nothing to do with how anyone collects, not even you. In a prior reply, I refuted your ridiculous inference that dealers not selling clad rolls in the 70's or 80's indicated anything about the scarcity. It's a completely absurd claim. As usual, you didn't even try to answer it, presumably because I'm supposed to believe you over common sense. Your definition of "large volume" for "scarcity" is anything scarcer than 1933-1964 US coinage, another absurd standard. This coinage (US moderns) is more common than 99% of all coinage ever struck in equivalent market (not your) quality dated prior to 2000. Claiming it doesn't exist in "large volume" in "high" quality is nonsensical. I'm not referring to your "gems" or the TPG condition census equivalent quality. You know that. I'm referring to MS-64ish, the context of our discussion in the PCGS thread, not the standard you routinely arbitrarily change. What you see or saw in a coin shop doesn't prove much of anything. It's primarily dealer economics, not what you claim. You can't see what's in someone's collection or "change jar". What do you not understand about that? If your claim was true, then there is no possibility the coinage in the TPG data would exist either. This includes practically everything I've collected since 1998. I've already told you that I know your dealer(s) never sold this type of coin either at all, or in the quality recorded in the TPG data. So, how does it exist? (No, this isn't a real question.) What is this supposed to mean? That there aren't collectors still left who could have acquired this coinage directly form circulation or from someone who did? And it doesn't exist because you didn't see it in your local dealer?

You can still learn a lot sitting in front of your computer. No, not as much as inspecting coins in person but still more than previously. Depends on what you are interested in learning and which coins. The subject of this current discussion, I'm interested in it because of the actual difficulty in acquiring the coins I have collected since I resumed in 1998, especially now with my current primary interest. That's why I became interested in attempting to understand the survivability and quality distribution of coins I don't collect, to use as a reference point and basis of comparison to those I do. Yes, my personal observation is an input into my estimates, but I also know from prior experience (from overpaying for coins which turned out to be more common than I initially thought) that what I see isn't reflective of the supply because it isn't representative, and neither is anyone else's with hardly any coin, especially any common coin.