World Colonial

I get along fine with cladking. Nothing personal. Sometimes my comments seem harsh, but I don't post on coin forums to participate in a mutual admiration society or with a group of conformists. I'm also not here to talk about CAC, GTG, how much someone's coin is worth or similar mundane subjects.

This is amusing. Your prior posts indicated that this coinage is hard to find because it cannot be found in circulation in some arbitrary quality since your observation and dealer experience leads you to conclude it's scarce. Considering what I have written on coin forums and the replies you have received from me, this attribution to my posts is absurd. I never make such absurd claims. No, of course, it can't be found in "high " quality in circulation after 30 or 60 years, any more than 60's circulating coinage of the same age could be found then or any older coinage could either. However many remain, it's in someone's collection or "change jar", same place as all other coins. That's why no one (including you) can see it and we have to use other methods other than observation to estimate remaining survivors, which is why I replied with the 12 factors in my prior post.

I never specifically commented on this part of your post. It's an example of your inaccurate assumptions which you do not even recognize. The response you received from these dealers wasn’t due to any scarcity. It was entirely economic. There is no basis to believe this coinage was hard to find within 15 years of issuance. It’s a total absurdity. It makes even less sense than your prior claim that 70’s Soviet 15K were “rare” within 15 years of striking. Why would dealers bother selling it with any frequency when collectors could acquire the one coin needed for their set, either out of circulation or at most a nominal premium to FV, like 50c? How much did these rolls sell for, even in the late seventies? $12? Barely more? How much different was it in the 80’s when you asked? It couldn’t have been much different, considering that I see “BU” rolls on eBay starting from $20+ and this is in 2024, decades later. Your anecdote isn’t a “trump card” supporting your claim as you infer. Contrary to what you imply, the only thing this example demonstrates is that coin dealers cannot be bothered to sell common low-priced coins in volume when they can’t make sufficient profit doing it. It’s not really that different today, regardless of the relative scarcity with 50’s and 60’s silver coinage. There is limited demand for US modern rolls because buyers (not just collectors) do have a silver preference, virtually no one has an interest in buying dozens to thousands of duplicates of any coin as a collectible at virtually any premium, and almost no one hoards base metal coinage as a store of value.

Your response has nothing to do with my post to which you replied. The point I made is that since your assumptions essentially have nothing to do with collective perception toward coin collecting or even US moderns, that's why your claims in this discussion will only be correct by coincidence. You can't find a single collector or even person who views coin collecting as you claim. Your claims don't even apply to your own collecting in some instances, starting with your "hate" claim". The common theme in your posts on these topics is your dislike of collective perception toward US moderns. That’s it and nothing more. This makes a lot more sense than you believing a combination of inaccurate and contradictory assumptions which have virtually nothing to do with virtually anything in coin collecting. This is why I disagree with you on practically everything on these topics.

What do you not understand from what I have told you? Everything you write is based upon your personal experience. What makes you think you know more about this subject than everyone else combined, because that's exactly what you are claiming? Your posts don't demonstrate any knowledge about the availability of coinage generally. Do you understand that? In my last post above, I provided you with 12 factors which have a demonstrated correlation to survivability, much better than what anyone sees including you. You completely disregard it and proceed to tell me exactly the same thing you told me before. That's what you do in all our conversations, ignore independently verifiable evidence in favor of your erroneous assumptions of collective perception and your unrepresentative experience. So, I ask you again, why would I accept your claims over everything collectively known on this subject? You think that because you know the collecting characteristics makes you knowledgeable on the context of this discussion? Read what I just wrote. Your posts demonstrate no knowledge in estimating populations. You're not even familiar with the TPG data which is the starting point. No one who is familiar with the subject will ever make the claims you make, starting with your inaccurate claims on statistical methods. You either don't understand statistics or still believe your erroneous assumptions make your observations accurate. I've never claimed this coinage is "uncollectible". You can't find a single post where I stated or implied it. Disagreeing with your exaggerated claims doesn't mean I don't think it's collectible. It's another example where you just "make things up" in this instance because you dislike what I tell you.

Yes, and I have also explained to you why personal experience is never representative, no matter how many people you know or how many coins you see. In the active PCGS thread, I read one of your responses as indicating you haven't been a CRH. But whether you are or are not, doesn't change anything I told you. It's not a matter of certainties but probabilities. That's why I use the list of factors I mentioned previously, posted below. I don't claim to know what you claim to know because no one can know it. You're almost always comparing US moderns to 1933-1964 US coinage. Yes, it's presumably almost always scarce versus that. I haven't read your last replies on PCGS, but you have no basis for claiming that the supply of pre-1933 US coinage is much higher than consensus, except maybe where there is specific evidence to indicate it, like capped bust halves where I would agree that Coin Facts estimates are far too low. Look at the list below. Now compare how it applies to actually older world coinage or ancients with supply most presumably consider "high" for this type of coin. It should be evident that if this coinage exists in the confirmed number and quality, there is no basis to claim US moderns should hardly ever have anywhere near the survival rates you imply, except in the TPG condition census grade and occasionally one below it. *Mintage (Not low, not even for mint or proof sets.) *Extent of organized local collecting. (By far the largest collector base in the world.) *Coin age combined with length of circulation. (The coins are not old and have been – not maybe - saved in volume in “high” quality from “day one” within the lifetime of just those reading this thread. We know this from mint sets alone.) *FV affordability (This wasn’t a constraint, proportionately or absolutely.) *Melting, where it happened. (No relevance for the quality we’re discussing.) *Market value which if “low”, reduces the number for sale and probability potential buyers will be aware of it. (Nominal value; limited motivation to sell, except to someone like you.) *Random preservation; yes, it’s possible for some centuries old coin to sit in a “change jar”, just like ancient and medieval hoards. (Applies even more to US moderns.) *Comparison to known scarcer coins in the context of the TPG populations. (Since these coins survive in current number, it’s a virtual certainty US moderns exist in multiples of dozens, hundreds, thousands, and sometimes more. Compare just to China PRC.) *Hoards (Yes, some exist of varying size. If hoards exist for much older, much scarcer coins, it certainly exists for US moderns. That’s what rolls represent.) *Geographic access, extent of travel, and ease of communication. (Not a limitation, not since the internet, and not since 1965. The coins circulated widely throughout the US.) *Local circulation, as opposed to other geographic locations with more collecting. (Not relevant, it’s intended to explain trade coinage availability.) *Quality when included in prominent collections of the series. If a coin is missing from a prominent collection or is of low quality, it’s usually at least somewhat scarce. (Not applicable; we know this from registry sets alone.)

I've never disagreed with you with this type of claim. You're now shifting from "gems" or some narrow quality from the prior criteria.

Look, not trying to be difficult but your claims have no merit. I'm going to tell you the same thing on the PCGS forum later. There are only two possibilities for you to be correct and only two. The first is a drastic cultural change which completely alters collective perception toward coin collecting, going back centuries. The second is temporary speculation which will “flame out”, just like the 1950-D nickel bubble. Absent that, there is no possibility any of these claims you have bene making for years will ever happen because practically everything you claim or infer is contrary to aggregate collector behavior. Collectors and the public do not have the motives you believe.

By definition, remaining survivors has some correlation to the mintage. Not just for US moderns, for all coins. I've explained to you that there is no basis to claim the survival rates on US moderns are lower than the world coin examples I gave you. In the PCGS thread, I used the example of the 1864 Bolivia centavo. Yes, this one is likely a random event unlike US moderns or if you want to claim both are, a vastly lower probability random event. No one can rationally dispute it. Since I haven't read your replies to the PCGS thread (yet), I'll add that if you tell me US moderns are "scarce" or "supply constrained" again, virtually no one cares about the relative scarcity between US moderns and 1933-1964 US classics. It's completely irrelevant, because both can be bought at any time except as I told you. It doesn't matter if some silver quarter (like the 1964) is 1000X more common than any clad quarter, or more. No one cares, except for you.

Most coins are in someone's collection or "change jar", not any local dealer or even the internet. You can also only be in one place at one time. Do you understand that? Did you read vKurt's post above here? Well, if you didn't, he contradicted you but then, earlier in this thread you called his experience and Zadoks "hearsay" since apparently only yours is representative. You know what you are actually claiming? You are claiming that your unrepresentative experience is more accurate than the collective knowledge base on this subject. That of all collectors in history, you know something no one else can know. So no, of course I do not believe you.

No, I'm not amazed, because I know you are just "making it up". I've already told you cannot possibly know what you claim to know and that's a fact. Your posts demonstrate you don't understand statistics and that's a fact too. You start with a false premise (that collectors "hate" this coinage) and then when you don't see it as often as you think you should because you're looking in the wrong place (your local dealer instead of the internet), you claim it's "scarce". "Scarce" meaning less available versus 1933-1964 US coinage which is the most common coinage on the planet. Your premises are false. All estimates are based upon the observer's assumptions. Therefore, your estimates cannot possibly be accurate other than by coincidence.

Total BS. I haven't responded to your post(s) on the PCGS forum (yet), but your posting pattern is to disregard the evidence I use against your claims where you either rely on your unrepresentative experience or use irrelevant evidence. I already told you in the other thread that if the world coinage I used as examples has the numbers and apparent survival rates it does, this coinage is almost certainly a lot more common than you claim. There is absolutely no basis to claim that the survival rates on US moderns is lower or even approaches the examples I gave you. It's utterly absurd.

Yes, in this case I'd attribute it to buying for "investment": I presume the data is somewhere though I cannot find it, but it's my inference that there are some coins that were previously too scarce to be collected by a large enough collector base which became more valuable even as the supply increased. Outside of "investment coinage" like your example, it appears only the most preferred coins (disproportionately from US coinage) have a deep demand base when "excessively" scarce.

You could start with the internet which is what 21st century coin collecting revolves around instead of your outdated model where you think it is your local dealer. No one needs to leave their house to buy this coinage, not even once. A collector only needs one coin for their set. This coinage can be bought on demand, all the time, in practically any quality, only exception being arbitrary criteria or in some specialization mostly invented (as in "made up") by US collecting. It's a non-problem, except for someone who theorizes in the abstract about how the world might "run out" of this coinage because collectors will find it so interesting they will either never sell it or sell it in such low proportion it won't be available. Look on the internet, something your posts indicate you virtually never do. I've looked intermittently or regularly for a wide variety of coinage: US, world, ancient. Interestingly, I find the coins I'm looking for much, most, or all of the time and it's anywhere from dozens, hundreds, to even thousands of times scarcer than any US modern as a date/MM in all but the highest TPG eligible quality. If the world hasn't run out of draped bust/small eagle half dollars (I see it every time I look) with something like 275-350 known for both dates in total (not a specific quality), there won't be any "shortage" for any of this coinage either.

Not necessarily, because the remaining supply is not low, and collectors don't collect in a vacuum where they will ignore the price of competing alternatives at similar prices. It also depends upon your definition of "big rise". All circulating coins start at FV and under overmarketed and over-financialized US collecting combined with currency debasement since 1965 increase in value by large percentages routinely.

There are no accurate estimates of survivors or survival rates, even for most actually scarce coins, much less post-1933 US coinage with large to absolutely huge mintages. Mintage, that's the starting point for determining scarcity on any coin. If anyone thinks mintages on any post-1933 US circulating coin are "low", try counting to these numbers and they will find out it isn't. Proof and mint set mintages for the last 60+ plus years aren't, even for a circulating coin. The 1950-D nickel or a "W quarter"? It will only take you about one month without eating, sleeping, or doing anything else to count to 2+MM. No, that's not a small number. From this starting point, you then need to apply common behavioral factors known to correlate to attrition, which has limited to virtually nothing to do with what anyone sees or doesn't see by personal observation. I've encountered numerous collectors on coin forums who claim or imply a coin is "scarce", or "rare", or "hard to find" or whatever because they didn't see as many as they think they should or supposedly couldn't find it. That's what I attempt to do in applying my claims, including comparing coins with better known estimates to those without it. The only thing personal observation will confirm for anyone is that a coin is common. A coin might be scarce if you don't see it (often), but in and of itself isn't the reason. Some experience is more representative than others, but no one's experience is actually representative of hardly any coin, certainly not common coins. P.S. Been gone for a long time and still owe you a response on the other thread.

One other point. I know that most of these markets are higher now, after 15+ to 20+ years. That's not the point. The point is that if "fundamentals" really explained market prices, obviously these indexes should be noticeably higher than now. I don't have earnings data but given whatever growth has occurred locally and globally where the largest companies operate, I can infer the stocks comprising these indexes are making (a lot) more now vs. previously where this performance doesn't correlate. The prices then (at any of these points in time) weren't based upon "fundamentals", then or now. If you don't like these indexes, take a look at the Korea ETF. It's lower now vs. 16 years ago and yes obviously, I know it's paid some dividends. Since Korea earnings are higher now versus then, why is this ETF lower?

Pure rationalization. This doesn't explain anything. What you described (without admitting or maybe even knowing it) is psychological. China's Shanghai index hit 1400 in 1992 when GDP (yes, probably not accurate) was about 2% to 3% of today's reported level. The index is around 2900 now. The "fundamentals" do not explain this performance.

I've watched it in the past. It's not that I don't know anything you are telling me. I disagree with your premises because it's not valid.

No one can quantify the price from what you wrote. Interest rates usually correlate to stock prices, but it's not mechanical. I'm aware starting valuations are relevant. I never claimed otherwise.

Really, where is the evidence for this? What is the obvious reason for China and Hong Kong? Because it doesn't fit your claims?

Belief in "fundamentals" is a form of EMH. There is no evidence that stocks or any financial assets are valued from "fundamentals". Everyone just assumes it.

Why would I make an exception for recessions? If earnings are a legitimate metric to value stocks, then the P/E ratio should be valid in all market environments. This is another rationalization. Yes, there is change, a psychological change. I've told you that to 99%+ of shareholders, there is a difference between the company and the stock certificate. Yes, I agree it's an unorthodox view, but that's what practically everyone actually buys, a stock certificate. They own a piece of paper whose value isn't contingent upon what most believe. Look at the examples I gave you in my above post, especially the foreign markets. I didn't include those examples to get an answer from you, because the "fundamentals" don't and can't explain this performance. The purpose is to demonstrate that this belief is invalid. If "fundamentals" actually explain prices, there is no possibility for these results. I already know you are going to disagree, because you're going to reply with some other supposed reason to explain it which doesn't have anything to do with anything. The price is what it is, regardless of what it is. It isn't because of "fundamentals".

I absolutely can dispute this claim, because neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate otherwise. It's not incumbent upon me or anyone else to disprove this conventional belief. You actually believe in a form of EMH without admitting it. EMH is nonsense. Academics never demonstrated EMH. They just couldn't explain prices by supposed causal events, so they just made this theory up. I explained to you the implied concensus agreement on the impact of psychology on various "bubble" stocks: serial money losers, "disruptors", "meme stocks", "unicorns". So, am I supposed to believe these are valued on "fundamentals" too? If not, based exactly on what? How about CSCO? How does its performance explain the stock price? It's 35% lower today versus 2001 even as it's a much larger far more profitable company. Or how about these markets? How do you explain this? You're going to tell me that this price performance is explained by earnings and GDP? Index 12/23 COVID low GFC peak dot.com peak Other S&P 500 4559 2191 1555 1553 442 (10/1994) Stoxx600 459 306 400 407 125 (10/1994) Switzerland 10879 9036 9548 7938 2675 (10/1994) ASX 200 7040 5022 6851 3386 1857 (10/1994) Shanghai 3040 2646 5560 1953 794 (10/1994) Hong Kong 17559 22519 27254 18397 16820 (7/1997) Singapore 3094 2381 3726 2528 Not available Korea 2496 1439 2085 1066 1145 (10/1994) Taiwan 17287 8523 9807 10393 10512 (1/1990) Thailand 1397 1105 924 499 1695 (10/1993) Dot.com peak = late 1999. early 2000 GFC peak = mid-2007 to mid-2008 Stoxx600 is Europe’s S&P 500 All indices in local currency Source: CNBC.com

I already explained your objection. There is a difference between the company and the stock certificate. You're also still assuming that prices are contingent upon "fundamentals", implicitly a belief in the Efficient Market Hypothesis. It's complete bunk. No one can explain prices from "fundamentals". It's accepted as a truism.