World Colonial

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

    4,358
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by World Colonial

  1. I think you might be onto something but just a guess.
  2. It's not that no one could collect from change anymore, it's that whoever no longer did so chose it. I am quibbling with your post but actually agree with your sentiments. Why did it happen? Well, shocking and dismaying as it may seem, people actually disliked having their currency debased. They didn't like it then and they still don't usually like it now. It's no different than having your pocket picked or being victimized by burglar. That's why gold and silver still sell for far more in the commodity markets and why coin collectors still overwhelmingly prefer both over curr
  3. What dates do you think are cheap? I'd describe it as a series with a not particularly high collector preference predominantly bought for type sets. If this is true, the comments I previously made for Barber proofs earlier in this thread apply to it also.
  4. Never commented on this but I agree with you. I do believe that coins are "fairly valued" or "under valued" in the aggregate versus other mass produced collectible segments. I don't extend this though to unique or near unique objects as I occasionally read on coin forums, auctions descriptions, or the numismatic press. Claiming some high profile rare coin is "under valued" versus nine figure paintings or another prominent art object is illogical. The most expensive coins aren't remotely "undervalued" but "over valued", as art or as a collectible. That's why I have used Faberge egg
  5. The ASE is an entirely different situation from contemporary US circulating coinage. The series as a whole is at least much bought for "investment" as collecting.
  6. He's referring to the late 60's when most collectors used to collect out of circulation. He is correct that many did, though I was not around to have any idea of the proportion.
  7. I sure missed a lot here. I am replying to this extract but it's to your entire post. There is nothing in your claims I "fail to grasp". I disagree with you, period. Where I have primarily disagreed with you is that this coinage will ever attain the preference and prices you claim. My perception isn't just based on the current size of the collector base and I have never said more won't collect it or it won't be worth somewhat more. Do you remember our last exchange on the PCGS Forum in the thread "Raw Moderns"? Do you remember the one post where you replied to my request for
  8. I have seen the data before and I agree with you. One of the points I was making with this series is that it is an artificial one. It's "hole filling" at its finest. What reason is there to buy so many disparate coins other than because someone else arbitrarily defined this grouping as a "collection"? Just buy the ones you like and forget the rest which is what most collectors already do. I was using the Hawaii as an example. Collectors like it a lot, but I see no basis to claim it is "undervalued" other than because it's so much cheaper than the prior bubble price. It's hard to
  9. Coins are an entirely discretionary purchase. No one needs any coin. In today's environment, dealers still function as a type of "market maker" to a point and provide price support by holding inventory but no one needs to buy from them or sell to them either.
  10. Numerous threads on the PCGS forum sharing this opinion. This coinage is cheap compared to the 1989 bubble peak but then, so are many other US series too. Besides, this occurred pre-internet. This claim is based upon the fallacy that most who will buy this coinage actually want to collect the entire series (when they don't) and that the coins are at least somewhat "scarce" due to the low mintage when it isn't. The coins collectors like most from this series are below the peak but hardly cheap. Hawaii is a four figure coin and it's one of the most common four figure coins on the en
  11. There is no validity to technical analysis in coin prices if that's what this person you refer to thinks. There isn't a fixed outcome other than collector's ability and willingness to pay. Concurrently, coins are still collectibles, not hardly ever "widgets". Most coins are effectively pure consumption alternatives, others are hybrid consumption-"investment", and those tied to bullion are "investment". The types of coins in the PCGS 3000 index are mostly the first two. Considering the reckless and unprecedented speculation in every asset class and a few masquerading as one, nothin
  12. As I explained to you, the term "modern" is a US centric term which US collectors (and maybe really you) have applied arbitrarily to non-US base metal coinage covering an arbitrary time period. The only country I can immediately think of where it legitimately applies is Canada because the change over to base metal mirrored the US and presumably collectors in both countries collected both at the time. As I also told you, considering that there are at least 50,000 and possibly over 100,000 coins meeting your definition of "modern", neither you nor anyone else can possibly know what you cla
  13. Some of the coins you listed are available "nice" for $25 to $50, in better circulated to low MS grades. Common Lincoln cents higher. Barbers not the half.
  14. Which ones are you specifically referring to? If the classics in this post, the 1916 SLQ is one of the common 20th century key dates which I claim is one of the most overpriced coins in the world for it's actual numismatic attributes. Mintage is 52,000. I forgot the survival estimate or current TPG counts but neither are low. There is just huge demand. In G-4, last time I checked, it listed for $3500 though the actual current price might be somewhat less. It's another coin (like the 01-S quarter) which would be viewed as "dreck" in this quality if it were practically any other. In M
  15. You probably aren't familiar with the past post exchanges I have had with him. You are actually making part of his point. Your view is the consensus which is why pre-1999 clad coinage (before SQ which were saved in huge numbers) was saved in lower numbers than 1933-1964 US silver in better quality. My point is that any "scarcity" based upon the TPG label (the "hobby" marketing angle since the 80's), strike quality (cladking's view) or specialization (also cladking's view) is a pure contrivance. It's an imaginary scarcity predominantly used to exaggerate the significance and inflate the
  16. Does MAC have standing bids on their stickered coins like CAC? If not, I don't see why anyone would care, as it adds nothing to the coin's marketability. I have seen MAC stickered South African coins listed at huge premiums to the actual value on eBay. What I see MAC attempting to do is get US level prices even on non-US coins. I doubt they have a clue about South African coinage and the coins are never going to sell.
  17. It was about five years ago I pointed this out to the South African collectors I know who were under the impression that coins are such fantastic "investments". I noticed it's the only sub-index that had held up at the time. The rest, not so much.
  18. I am not missing anything. So what if there isn't a single original roll? I just told you that only a low proportion have any. How exactly is that of any significance and how does it change anything I told you? Should I be making a big deal that there aren't any for 18th century Peru pillar coinage? Why would I think there is any significance to the scarcity of any coin (US circulating moderns collectively) which are more common than 99% of all circulating coins ever struck in equivalent quality? That's the reality, whether you will admit it or not. The reason I disagree with yo
  19. You are funny. Like I have told you multiple times, this coinage is more common than 99% of all coinage ever struck, except I told you previously: NCLT, more recent proof sets, and maybe world coinage from the last 10 to 20 years. Measuring the scarcity by availability of original rolls is a farce. Outside of the coins I specifically listed above, maybe another few percent have one.
  20. I understand your point. Concurrently, the example I gave (Bust Half) is a "collector" coin that is relatively common even in high grades and isn't even close to being rare except as a die variety or due to the TPG label. It's only in US collecting that such a common coin sells for such inflated prices since the mid to late 1970's. From any other developed country, a comparable coin (if one was issued) even with a much lower survival would sell for a fraction of the price. The key in the last 50 years was mostly paying "reasonable" prices for quality. The US price level has stagnat
  21. No, I wasn't clear. But once again, I wasn't specifically referring to the coinage you claim and no, none of it are even close to being scarce, except in some arbitrary quality and as a specialization..
  22. 1) Beginning of coins being widely bought as "investments". Maybe coins were actually bought as an inflation hedge at the time? Someone else here can probably answer this better than me. 2) If #1 is correct, the coins were very affordable (initially) to a larger more affluent collector base, more resembling the one we have now versus the 60's. I will also have to correct my earlier estimate on Barber halves, as my cost to complete the series was too high. In VF, it's probably more like $10K to $20K, XF $20K to $30K, and MS $50K+. It's a lot cheaper than I previously wrote but don
  23. No disagreement here. I presume you have looked at it but look again at the PCGS 3000. It took off starting around 50 years ago. I started collecting in 1975 at age 10 but by 1977, many US coins had already appreciated substantially and these weren't "investment" coins either. As an example, I know the common Capped Bust halves (I believe 1823 onward) listed for $450 in UNC in the '77 edition but were something like $75 in 1970. I might be off a little on the date for the second price because I don't have my old editions with me but not that far off. I know many of the '77 prices by
  24. Two different markets in my opinion, at minimum. The generic market is mostly correlated to bullion but I expect the premiums to decline, especially for Morgan dollars. I don't know what these actually cost now but given how common the common dates actually are, don't see why any which have .72oz should sell for more than the spot price for an ounce at most. That's already almost a 40% premium which I still think is too high. The other segment of (somewhat) scarcer or rarer dates (for Saints) is more dependent upon the asset mania. If the mania ends, there is no way this coinage c