World Colonial

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by World Colonial

  1. My assumption is the TPG data represents a low to very low fraction of what currently exists in this quality. There is limited "positive selection bias" for the highest TPG grades but decreasing with the price level. I hold the same opinion for the overwhelming majority of low priced coinage. How much will ever be submitted and when is another thing altogether. I don't believe there are massive hoards either. But I do believe that more of these coins are out there than is evident in your posts and more will be in higher quality than you seem to believe. By higher quality, not re
  2. None that I can identify in advance, especially where it is financially meaningful. Back in 2004, I thought South Africa Union and ZAR were and I was correct but could never buy in volume. I made good money but it wasn't material as an "investment". Most US coins are dependent upon the broader market. I don't consider any series meaningfully "undervalued" where it makes any financial difference. No series to my knowledge has overtaken another in 45+ years since I have been a collector, or even prior. Noticeable movement in specific dates though. As for world and ancients, someon
  3. Look at the TPG data. 4,000+ 1971-D Kennedy's and thousands for many, many other dates. Seriously, do you really believe this is most of the supply in this quality? Who do you think owns most of these coins? Is it really mostly non-collectors buying it from coin TV shows? I understand your point but it's a mistake to conclude that anyone sees is representative. I'm not referring to collections above a certain arbitrary value. Obviously by this metric, there are fewer. There are plenty of active collectors where these sets are a sideline collection. You know some of them from c
  4. Why would anyone want to buy an AU 1973 quarter when better ones are so easy to buy? What you are implying will only be relevant if your assumptions turn out to be correct. There is a difference between "some price increase" and your prior claims.
  5. I agree with this but in constant prices, the difference isn't nearly as large and the sets have more coins now. I agree with this also, with the caveat that the internet also made it a lot less appealing.
  6. I would have to add it up and it's too much trouble. Almost none are below MS and a minority below MS-65 but I agree with cladking these aren't necessarily "gem". The more important point is that the vast majority of this coinage as a date/MM already has hundreds to several thousand in MS-66 with most in MS-65 and MS-66. My position is that 95%+ of these coins even dated prior to SQ are actually a Judd R-1 in MS-66 with 1250+. He has never disputed this to my recollection, only that it is common. Depends upon your definition but it's more relevant by series than in total. More
  7. The point of me citing the population data was to contradict your claim that "few" were saved. Nothing to do with future demand. This coinage is more "widely" collected than both IHC and Bust halves, unless of course, you are now going to use another definition of "collector". What exactly is this supposed to mean? Totally and blatantly false. I buy somewhat more expensive coins now versus the past but nothing to do with your claim. I have bought and own many low priced coins. I just disagree with you that it should be worth a lot more later. Well, it would
  8. You chose to infer this because you dislike my opinions. In the past, I have repeatedly estimated a US "collector" base of 2MM, you have seen this in our post exchanges, and yet you write this anyway. There isn't a single post where I either stated or implied this claim. There is no absolute significance, just as there isn't for scarcity. I disagree with your inference due to your prior inflated exaggeration. It's also evident you don't read or ignore my posts when it has nothing to do with the coinage you like or it suits you. On numerous occasions, I have discussed any number o
  9. I don't define collector by amount spent. It's subjective but to me it's "active recurring interest", basically like you said. We don't know who buys the (relatively) large volume of US Mint products every year or who owns the TPG populations. I merely reasonably infer that, aside from where it's apparently evident it isn't, it's usually collectors. With US mint and proof sets, I do assume there is some buying by non-collectors but the collapse in sales volume versus prior decades leads me to believe it's more reflective of actual collector demand.
  10. Go look at the TPG population data. Have you ever even done that? The counts in there for any low priced 20th century US coin are by any sensible assumption a low fraction of the number in existence. You mean the TPG population data is fictional and all those "high" quality coins I see on eBay every time I look are just imaginary?
  11. Once again, you are looking for a reason to argue my posts just because you dislike what I write. I already told you I was not specific. This still doesn't contradict what I told you in my subsequent posts. Next
  12. Yes, I agree that the metals do provide a recurring customer base which stamps and other mass produced collectibles do not. The other factor not discussed at all is future economic conditions. With a far above averaged size collector base and very inflated price level, this matter to US coinage a lot from an industry viewpoint. There is a day of reckoning in store for the typical American's living standards. It's been postponed far longer than I ever thought possible but it's coming. When it arrives, there is no possibility the US price level with remain as inflated as it is now.
  13. Yes, as usual when I exchange posts with him, it goes off on a meaningless tangent. I'm equally at fault for that and will admit it now. Yes mostly, except for the cent which is 1959 and later and to me, Jefferson nickels which to me are all "modern".
  14. One other point. You do realize that NGC has graded 1,342 and PCGS 2,690 71-D half dollars, don't you? I also presume by common you actually mean low priced. This is about 4,000 collectors to which must be added an unspecified (almost certainly large) multiple who won't spend the money on grading fees or won't pay for a graded coin. I would hardly call this "few". It's similar with any number of other US moderns. I looked at the PCGS Population Report yesterday (since they have the higher market share) and there are any number of US moderns with thousands. The 71-D Ike has
  15. I never disagreed. I never generally disagreed with this either. Where I specifically disagree with you is that your definition of "scarcity" is meaningful to virtually anyone aside from you since it is blatantly obvious that it is not. I am inventing words? All your primary claims I have disputed in our prior post exchanges have no relation to reality whatsoever yet you tell me this? The primary reason currently high priced moderns are expensive is because the "hobby" has been financialized. These aren't usually viewed as "investment" coinage but few will pay a high pr
  16. Disagreeing with your exaggerated claims isn't "slamming" anything. If anyone has grossly exaggerated anything. it is you. Nothing you wrote contradicts anything I told you in this or any of my replies. I never claimed this coinage was as available as the preceding coinage (your baseline of comparison) yet you keep on writing as if I did. The supply of choice BU rolls is irrelevant. I told you that and you ignored it, again. No one needs a roll for their collection. What exactly did I forget?
  17. Maybe but I would say a big maybe. I believe we have discussed this before, but I'm not sure how much exposure the non-collector gets to coin buying. In another thread, I mentioned the vastly reduced physical footprint, so I definitely don't believe it's from that. I see internet banner adds all the time, but that's because of my internet activity. Do non-collectors see anything? I have no idea. Print media? No idea either but that's mostly a channel to reach older candidates though they do have the buying power. TV or radio? Have not listened to the radio hardly at all going on 2
  18. I have read this and believe you. The point I was trying to make is that, as much as sales of all clad including proof and mint sets have declined, it's still more widely collected than practically any other coinage. I also reasonably infer that those who buy it must like it somewhat, as it makes absolutely no sense that anyone buying it "hates it". Last I checked, clad proof sets had sales of 500K+ and mint sets 200K to 300K. It's a collapse from prior decades but not remotely low. I don't have the data immediately available to me but to my knowledge, sales of these US sets have
  19. We are in close agreement, again. Your description is another of my primary reasons why I believe the price level will decline. It has been substantially displaced by other recreational activities. In the US, the collector base since the 70's has consisted of a higher proportion of financially motivated buyers, either partially or fully. Since the internet, I believe (though cannot prove) that this has only increased. This matters because ultimately, collecting is a hobby, not a replacement for other forms of "investment". It was first currency debasement which changed this cultu
  20. I know that inventory for the coins I track most closely and collect is really low to non-existent. There isn't much to buy at all. Previously, Heritage had a good selection of quality Latin America coinage (though still not for my series) but now there is very little of anything. As for eBay, I have not sold anything in years. I have multiple saved searches and still look at others from time to time but I predominantly still see fixed price listings. If the liquidity were really a lot better, I'd expect a higher proportion of actual auctions. However, this only anecdotal and many no
  21. I understand your sentiments and I infer most collectors share it but it's not the one I have in mind. I am aware most collectors don't like losing money. Concurrently, it should be evident that a price level isn't sustainable which prices out most collectors out of most of the coins they want to buy. Going back to posts earlier in this thread, that's almost certainly what happened in mass in the early to mid 70's. Much or most of it was collectors quitting because they refused to pay more than face value or nominal premiums. But a minority would also have been those buying older clas
  22. Agree with your general sentiments but commenting on this extract. It depends upon the time horizon and expectations. COVID might have been the trigger for any recent improvement but don't believe it has any longer term relevance. If people are really spending more because of it, first, it's likely to be predominantly existing collectors who temporarily have more discretionary income that they can't spend somewhere else. If it isn't, most of the new buyers (whoever and however many) will likely abandon it as life returns to "normality". As for demographics, the longer term negati
  23. The no premium to melt isn't correct now. Premiums for silver generally are the highest in my entire life. This is a non-issue. No one needs a roll for their collection and this coin isn't hard to find or buy at all, except under your quality criteria which you won't pay any meaningful premium for anyway. This isn't completely true either, as is evident from the TPG population data for some though currently not a large number of moderns. I'd also like to know your definition of "store properly". Sure, storing coins in OGP is often poor storage but this wasn't unique to
  24. Totally false. There is a difference between "uncollectible" and the outlandish price forecasts you have made. This is another amusing post of yours. In the PCGS "Raw Moderns" thread, you were the one telling everyone that collectors are "shunning" or "avoiding" this coinage. I'm the one who had to present evidence from US Mint sales demonstrating it is obvious that this isn't remotely the reality.