Undervalued coins/coin series 3 3

[GoldFinger1969]

32 minutes ago, cladking said:

Many people find some or all moderns to be exciting and significant.  

Hey, if you or anybody else likes a particular coin set....that is ALL that matters.   

Sure it's nice if our coins appreciate down the line but we have to recognize that historical appreciation for American coinage with silver/gold and other metals may have been a confluence of 1-time factors:  demographics, U.S. economic supremacy after WW II, not much else to do from 1945-1980 for American kids relative to today (no video games, internet, smartphones etc.), fear of investing in stocks from the 1929 Crash, great returns on famous coin collections sold from 1930-1950, etc.

So you had fantastic returns from 1950 onward for decades for many/most U.S. coins.  The monetary and financial turbulence of the 1970's just added to the chaos -- and coins like chaos. 

32 minutes ago, cladking said:

If I were a young man I'd be buying instead of selling. If my heirs knew how to liquidate them I'd leave the coins for them.   It's a far better time to buy than sell.   Such is life.  

I'm agnostic if coins can go up here appreciably, but down 85% from 1980 peak levels and less from recent peaks (as I've posted links to the PCGS 3000 indices), I do agree that the coins have a much better risk-return profile.  There probably isn't much downside.  But not having downside isn't the same thing as ready to move up, especially since coins don't have the levers that stocks do to move up after bottoming.

We shall see.  

Edited April 9, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

46 minutes ago, cladking said:

 There was even a bill (Bible bill) before Congress that would effectively illegalize all coin collecting other than valuable old US coins and foreign coins.   

Huh ?  How could such a law be proposed or passed or enforced ?

[Alex in PA.]

8 hours ago, cladking said:

These laws crashed the coin hobby in 1965 and drove millions away from coin collecting. 

Don't know about "millions" but 1965 was a sad year for coins.  The Dime and Quarter no longer had a Silver content and the Kennedy went to 40%.  I remember there was a coin shortage during that time.  

[cladking]

On 4/6/2021 at 5:57 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

I can understand the hoopla if a claim were made that not a single original roll of '64 Kennedy halves remain.  They were 90% silver.  But a roll of clad quarters?  I never those things had any value beyond face.  This hobby sure has changed.

Millions of rolls of 1964 silver half dollars were set aside by collectors and the general public.  Most of the coins in them still survive with many in pristine condition.  You can find BU rolls all day long with no premium to melt.  

Far fewer 1971 half dollars were produced.  The coins were struck to a far lower standard and were far harder to coin because the metal is hard.  Most of them looked like garbage and nobody cared about clads anyway.  Today there is 100 times more demand for the silver but finding nice attractive rolls of pristine 1971 halfs is an oddity.  Despite the lack of demand they wholesale at $23.  

The hobby hasn't changed that much; people still don't want clad which works out well because there isn't much to be had.  '64 Kennedys were common in 1972 and they are still common.  Nice rolls of '71 Kennedys were uncommon in 1n 1972 and they are even less common now.  

 

At the current time there is only enough demand to support large premiums on the finest couple hundred '71's.  What most people don't realize is that by the time you get down to about the 40,000th finest it will look like garbage because there is no depth to the supply.  As long as people aren't collecting these the coins in the mint sets are simply corroding away.  Low prices do not induce people to store coins properly or to remove them from sets and clean them.  WC is certainly right that a coin with a population of 40,000 is unlikely to have a huge premium but there are far scarcer moderns than this.  It's also true that collectors might not care if the coin looks nice meaning there are millions and millions of '71 halfs from which to choose.  I think collectors do care most of the time.  

[cladking]

On 4/7/2021 at 5:59 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

[Aside:  Is it just me, or is anyone else aware these two members have been at each other's throats -- for nearly 12 years!  I wish I could say more but the very last exchange between CladKing and World Colonial was so incendiary its intensity scalded my left palm and scrolling right thumb. Hard to believe there are animated emojis waving to viewers since 2008. More later, after I treat my injured member. Almost forgot, anyone see the OP, lately?  Great thread!]

We've boiled our differences down to just a couple points.  If WC would just quit saying that moderns are common and were set aside in huge numbers we'd have nothing to talk about other than his belief they will forever be ":uncollectible".  

 

[cladking]

On 4/7/2021 at 6:44 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Why do you say that the Mint hated coin collectors ?  They sure wanted to sell them lots of high-priced product, that's for sure.

I never heard about coin collectors leaving the hobby once the government phased out precious metals backing our coinage -- but maybe it's true to a small extent.  Anybody got more stories to tell of the 1960's and 1970's, when the metal compositions were changed ?

The mint had no products at all for collectors between about may 1964 and October of 1965.  

And they had wrecked the products being put into circulation with a date freeze that would give us 1964 coins forever until it was superseded by a new date freeze that would give us 1965 coins forever and no mint marks.  They also eliminated proof AND mint sets to discourage collecting but there was a clamor so they invented the hybridized Special Mint Set which almost no one liked.  Silver was flying out of circulation and a coin shortage affected all coins but especially silver.  Many steps were taken to discourage collectors but most weren't necessary because collectors hated the new coins and the markets had collapsed with the loss of so many collectors and the pall that descended on the entire hobby.  Most of these collectors were young so it just sucked the life blood out of the hobby even though more established markets (bust coins) remained relatively unaffected.  The price devastation was largely confined to moderns (1934 to 1964) and especially BU rolls and mint sets.  

There was almost no collecting from circulation between 1964 and 1999.  This is the chief route for new collectors to enter the hobby so it languished.  By 1995 it looked like the hobby was going the way of stamp collecting.  You could buy almost anything except major rarities for a song.  This was a dreadful time in the hobby and far worse than even 1965 but it was pulled out by the states quarters.  First moderns improved in '96 and then the rest of the market started doing better.  

These vibrant time now are the result of millions of young people entering the hobby.  I expect that over the coming years that many of them will collect the older coins in circulation now.  There are no "old collections" of this material so the effects of demand should be most interesting and quite predictable.  

[cladking]

23 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I will never bad-mouth a clad coin again.  Now, any positive things to say about today's Lincolns with their copper mascara smiling faces?  Or are these pathetic excuses for coins above reproach?  Which of the billions made thus far in the 21st Century are undervalued? (Har har hardy har har.)

Try finding a 1984 cent in MS-65 or better with nice attractive pleasing surfaces.  

I've looked at thousands including dozens of rolls and have seen  "2".   

Try finding a nice Gem 67 '68 cent.  Most have carbon spots.  

 

A lot of the zincolns are hard to find nice but come in very very high grade.   Some also come so highly PL they are nearly indistinguishable from a proof except for their mint mark.   These coins are just evaporating in circulation because they are made of junk metal.   Three or four million per day are lost to the ravages of circulation and their remarkable lack of any monetary value.  

[cladking]

21 hours ago, VKurtB said:

A couple of random observations. Is anyone surprised that a guy who goes by the handle “CladKing” has a thing for clad coins? I’ll wait here whilst you consider that one. Yes, clad coins have become painfully easy to deal with, but one needs to wonder why so few nations went the clad approach, and instead went with plating, often over steel, rather than messing with cladding. Canada, U.K., call your office. 

 

Mebbe I'm just mummifying or am the pretender to the throne.  

In this country only money talks and the vending machine industry was powerful in 1964 back when you could pump a few coins in a machine and buy just about anything.  Now days you'll need a fistful of quarters to buy a candy bar or do a load of laundry so the vending industry is nearly dead.  

The vending industry insisted that the new coins have the same electronic signature as the silver and the FED was scared of inflation if people perceived the money being debased.  cu/ ni clad cu fulfilled both requirements.  

[cladking]

10 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Huh ?  How could such a law be proposed or passed or enforced ?

It's a wonder it was proposed but may have been crafted primarily to scarce collectors. Enforcement is easy when you have the law on your side.  Right now the FED won't allow you to melt your own pennies and nickels with the force of law.  They could just as easily force you to dishoard them.  Many wouldn't do it but it would drive the markets underground and big players would get charged.  They don't need to catch minnows when there are whales and sharks.  The effect is the same.  

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Mebbe I'm just mummifying or am the pretender to the throne.  

In this country only money talks and the vending machine industry was powerful in 1964 back when you could pump a few coins in a machine and buy just about anything.  Now days you'll need a fistful of quarters to buy a candy bar or do a load of laundry so the vending industry is nearly dead.  

The vending industry insisted that the new coins have the same electronic signature as the silver and the FED was scared of inflation if people perceived the money being debased.  cu/ ni clad cu fulfilled both requirements.  

Well at least Goodman Vending of Reading, PA still has some power. They were the sole contractor used by the mint to be sure the golden colored small dollars had the same electronic signature as the SBA’s. The vending machines in the courthouse in that town, where I worked for four years, live on small dollars. Same for the CalTrans system. 
 

And now all the work on what will replace 75/25 Cu/Ni is also being done by another company in Reading, Carpenter Technologies. Reading is up to its armpits in Mint contractors. 

Edited April 9, 2021 by VKurtB

[World Colonial]

11 hours ago, cladking said:

I don't have time now to address everyone's points but;

It always comes full circle; you start and stop by saying all moderns are common and were saved in large numbers.  Neither statement is true.   Even if either were true in point of fact quality tends to be horrendous so high grades would still be elusive.  You believe moderns are unimportant and insignificant but you don't speak for every coin buyer.   Many people find some or all moderns to be exciting and significant.  If I were a young man I'd be buying instead of selling. If my heirs knew how to liquidate them I'd leave the coins for them.   It's a far better time to buy than sell.   Such is life.  

I was explicit in describing my scarcity claims.  Your baseline for large numbers is 1933-1964 US coinage.  None of this coinage is even close to being scarce, just like US moderns.  I can literally buy every single one of both groups as a date/MM in multiple at any time in practically any quality measured by the TPG label.  I'm not evaluating it by your arbitrary quality criteria as it's exactly that, yours.

If the criteria (yours) is arbitrary and narrow enough, practically any coin can be claimed "scarce" or "rare".  I told you this coinage is relatively very common and that's a fact.  It's more common than over 99% of all circulating coinage ever struck in equivalent quality and you know this is true.

On the price prospects, yet another exaggeration.  But then, since you previously told me that you think US moderns with 20,000 survivors should be worth hundreds now, it's entirely predictable you made this claim.

Even if you were much younger, you wouldn't be a buyer, except at the nominal or cherry picking prices you have paid your entire collecting career by your own admission.  As I have told you repeatedly, you think this coinage should be worth a lot more, yet your posting history proves you won't pay an amount which hardly anyone considers a meaningful price.

Virtually no one likes this coinage anywhere near as much as you do.  Equally, no post you have ever written provides any believeable reason more than a minimal number will later.

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

We've boiled our differences down to just a couple points.  If WC would just quit saying that moderns are common and were set aside in huge numbers we'd have nothing to talk about other than his belief they will forever be ":uncollectible".  

 

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.

[GoldFinger1969]

4 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

If the criteria (yours) is arbitrary and narrow enough, practically any coin can be claimed "scarce" or "rare".  I told you this coinage is relatively very common and that's a fact.  It's more common than over 99% of all circulating coinage ever struck in equivalent quality and you know this is true.  On the price prospects, yet another exaggeration.  But then, since you previously told me that you think US moderns with 20,000 survivors should be worth hundreds now, it's entirely predictable you made this claim.  Even if you were much younger, you wouldn't be a buyer, except at the nominal or cherry picking prices you have paid your entire collecting career by your own admission.  As I have told you repeatedly, you think this coinage should be worth a lot more, yet your posting history proves you won't pay an amount which hardly anyone considers a meaningful price.  Virtually no one likes this coinage anywhere near as much as you do.  Equally, no post you have ever written provides any believeable reason more than a minimal number will later.

And yet, I am reading ATS that some think that these coins have bottomed AND are poised to turn up.  An 85% decline in that PCGS 3000 sub-index will do that, I guess.  I hope these veteran coin collectors are right -- it will be good for the hobby.

Ultimately, however, this hobby and pricing boils down to Supply & Demand.  Demographics -- in my opinion -- remain a headwind.  Numismatic values across the board are highly volatile, but as I spend most of my $$$ on moderns, bullion, Morgans, and Saints....I have (sort of) a floor, especially with stuff that tracks bullion even if it is also partly numismatic.

And like you and I agree on, WC.....enjoy the damn coins and don't worry about if they appreciate in price. 

Although it's always nicer if stuff goes up in price.   Unless you are 100% into collecting and don't care about what you paid and what the stuff is worth, in which case it's the opposite of long-term IRA investing:  you want lower prices continually since that means the cost of your collection keeps getting cheaper. 

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Millions of rolls of 1964 silver half dollars were set aside by collectors and the general public.  Most of the coins in them still survive with many in pristine condition.  You can find BU rolls all day long with no premium to melt.  

The no premium to melt isn't correct now.  Premiums for silver generally are the highest in my entire life.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Today there is 100 times more demand for the silver but finding nice attractive rolls of pristine 1971 halfs is an oddity.  Despite the lack of demand they wholesale at $23.  

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.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Low prices do not induce people to store coins properly or to remove them from sets and clean them.  

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 moderns in mint or proof sets.  It happened a lot with prior classics too.  Coin storage at room temperature in a (relatively) dry environment is often good enough to avoid degradation.  The coins might not be "pristine" but hardly any were when the owner acquired it anyway.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

WC is certainly right that a coin with a population of 40,000 is unlikely to have a huge premium but there are far scarcer moderns than this.  It's also true that collectors might not care if the coin looks nice meaning there are millions and millions of '71 halfs from which to choose.  I think collectors do care most of the time.  

It all comes down to price.  Of course collectors always prefer a "better" coin (by their criteria) but this is entirely different than your claim.

The overwhelming evidence proves they don't care enough to pay meaningful prices hardly ever.  You are one of these people, though you imply many others should and will do so when you won't.

[World Colonial]

11 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Ultimately, however, this hobby and pricing boils down to Supply & Demand.  Demographics -- in my opinion -- remain a headwind.  Numismatic values across the board are highly volatile, but as I spend most of my $$$ on moderns, bullion, Morgans, and Saints....I have (sort of) a floor, especially with stuff that tracks bullion even if it is also partly numismatic.

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 negative for collecting isn't just collectors aging though maybe that might be part of it.  It's where the population shift and growth is occurring which isn't the traditional collector demographic.  According to US census forecasts, the growth is mostly or exclusively in currently defined minorities who either have a lower propensity or no propensity at all to collect.  And where they do, the overwhelming evidence demonstrates they are going to collect something other than US coinage, either mostly or exclusively. 

My prediction is both.  This doesn't mean there will be fewer collectors in the future but whether there are or not, it's going to be a big negative for most US coin prices across the board, though I think those you collect will be impacted the least.

[GoldFinger1969]

21 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

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".

I believe Ebay plus the regular coin sites (HA, GC, SB) have all seen more bidding, more registrations, and new clients at an acclerated pace since last March.  Certainly, the articles I've seen from dealers has been nothing less than thumbs-up:  more business and revenues, lower expenses (no travelling).  They're in Nirvana. 

We have to see how many of the newcomers are like me who get pulled in and STAY (12 years ago) as opposed to past times when I drifted away.

23 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

As for demographics, the longer term negative for collecting isn't just collectors aging though maybe that might be part of it.  It's where the population shift and growth is occurring which isn't the traditional collector demographic.  According to US census forecasts, the growth is mostly or exclusively in currently defined minorities who either have a lower propensity or no propensity at all to collect.  And where they do, the overwhelming evidence demonstrates they are going to collect something other than US coinage, either mostly or exclusively. 

Unfortunately, I think you are spot-on here. 

24 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

My prediction is both.  This doesn't mean there will be fewer collectors in the future but whether there are or not, it's going to be a big negative for most US coin prices across the board, though I think those you collect will be impacted the least.

Yeah, if you've seen that Armen Ketayan video on baseball cards ("Tuesday In Parsippany", I think I posted it here or in another thread) or seen the trend in stamps, that would be my ultimate worry.
 

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yeah, if you've seen that Armen Ketayan video on baseball cards ("Tuesday In Parsippany", I think I posted it here or in another thread) or seen the trend in stamps, that would be my ultimate worry.
 

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 classics who were outbid by the more affluent "investor" buyer or could not afford higher metal prices.

For a variety of reasons which I have previously explained, I believe most of the run-up since 1970 (on the PCGS 3000 index) is destined to be reversed (at minimum adjusted for price changes) but this doesn't automatically mean the hobby is dead or that there will be that many fewer collectors.  Someone owned this coinage before the price run-up and someone will later too.

Edited April 9, 2021 by World Colonial

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I believe Ebay plus the regular coin sites (HA, GC, SB) have all seen more bidding, more registrations, and new clients at an acclerated pace since last March.  Certainly, the articles I've seen from dealers has been nothing less than thumbs-up:  more business and revenues, lower expenses (no travelling).  They're in Nirvana. 

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 not be representative.  That's what I used to see up to maybe 10 years ago.

[GoldFinger1969]

23 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

Someone owned this coinage before the price run-up and someone will later too.

Yes, but at what price ?  I fear dealer-to-dealer only trades in the future for some of the coin types

In the 1950's and 1960's and to an extent in the 1970's, all you could do was coin collecting if you were a kid to occupy your time (that and go outside and play with your friends ).  No video games, no Internet, no smartphone, no 150 channels of cable and/or streaming.  3 networks to watch from, plus PBS.  Baseball was the national pasttime, everybody played it and watched it and read about it.

As our society balkanizes, you wonder.

Edited April 9, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, World Colonial said:

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.

At current prices, sales of clad Commems are truly suffering. And for solid historical reasons, too. They are no more fundamentally expensive to make than they were when they were sold cheap, but the cost accounting rules have changed. More huge imputed costs for otherwise cheap coins create nasty looking issue prices. 

[GoldFinger1969]

Silver & Gold Commemoratives have done horribly the last 10 years and also since the 1989 bubble peak. 

It's amazing really.....the commemorative index went up 6-fold from the 1980 coin bubble peak up to 1989, they were a fantastic performer in the 1980's.  No wonder they sucked in alot of people/investors.

Click on the 10- and 50-year charts to see what I am talking about:

https://www.pcgs.com/prices/coin-index/silver-and-gold-commemorative

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[World Colonial]

53 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yes, but at what price ?  I fear dealer-to-dealer only trades in the future for some of the coin types

In the 1950's and 1960's and to an extent in the 1970's, all you could do was coin collecting if you were a kid to occupy your time (that and go outside and play with your friends ).  No video games, no Internet, no smartphone, no 150 channels of cable and/or streaming.  3 networks to watch from, plus PBS.  Baseball was the national pasttime, everybody played it and watched it and read about it.

As our society balkanizes, you wonder.

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 culture and more recently, the asset mania.  Fact is, most coins priced above a nominal level aren't remotely interesting enough to maintain their current "popularity" based upon the collectible merits alone.

[World Colonial]

35 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

At current prices, sales of clad Commems are truly suffering. And for solid historical reasons, too. They are no more fundamentally expensive to make than they were when they were sold cheap, but the cost accounting rules have changed. More huge imputed costs for otherwise cheap coins create nasty looking issue prices. 

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 exceeded those from elsewhere by a lopsided margin even considering any probable difference in the collector base and where it does not, it's almost certainly US based buyers making up the difference.

[GoldFinger1969]

WC, if coin shows and dealers and auction sites use the Internet and social media correctly and to its full potentiial, I believe they can grab lots of newcomers to the hobby.   I believe the online auction sites have done great in grabbing new bidders and customers (I'm one of them; been on Ebay for 20 years, 10 years for coins, but only joined HA and GC in the last 2-3 years).

The key is to NOT oversell or maybe even mention any financial gains.  That will only breed disappointment if something none of us can control -- prices -- moves against us.

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

WC, if coin shows and dealers and auction sites use the Internet and social media correctly and to its full potentiial, I believe they can grab lots of newcomers to the hobby.   I believe the online auction sites have done great in grabbing new bidders and customers (I'm one of them; been on Ebay for 20 years, 10 years for coins, but only joined HA and GC in the last 2-3 years).

The key is to NOT oversell or maybe even mention any financial gains.  That will only breed disappointment if something none of us can control -- prices -- moves against us.

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 20 years and virtually never watch TV anymore.  (There is virtually nothing I want to watch outside of college football.)  Years ago when I did, I used to watch one of those TV coin shows (Coin Country) for sport but don't know how effective this reach is anymore.  I'd never watch it now.

The other problem with relying on this to reach the hobbyist (not "investor") is that these collectors overwhelmingly aren't the type of collector many dealers and auction firms want to bother with, despite pretenses to the contrary.  If my estimate is correct, 80% of collectors don't buy coins valued over $300 and probably at least half (if not noticeably more) have annual budgets of $500 or less.  That's ok for the typical local coin shop but not the target customer for auction firms and coin shows of any size, maybe local ones.

With the bigger budget buyers, a noticeable proportion (at minimum) are concentrated in the same types of coins you buy.  There is $$$ there for the business side of the hobby but I don't believe it's remotely enough to grow the hobby the way the financial promoters claim they are trying to do.  It doesn't generate enough interest in the vast majority of coinage out there.  And besides, there is also direct competition from the US and other world mints.

[cladking]

21 hours ago, World Colonial said:

The no premium to melt isn't correct now.  Premiums for silver generally are the highest in my entire life.

You're just clouding the issue.  The point is the old silver coins are worth their silver value and the clad despite the lack of demand is wholesaling at more than double face value which is many multiples of their metal value.  The silver despite huge demand has no value beyond the composition and the cu/ n brings a large premium.  

 

My forecasts of future value are as irrelevant to the current and future price of any coin as yours are.  I am merely saying that in the long run coins of similar scarcity and demand will have similar prices.  Old classic coins have far far higher premiums than equally scarce moderns and this is a simple fact.  Many can be worth 100X as much or much more.  I don't have a problem with this but there is only ONE CAUSE of it; moderns have far far less demand.  You can invent words to describe or name anything but the fact is many moderns are going up thousands fold not because they are "popular" like most old coins, but because they are very scarce and are getting attention for the very first time.  These are all simple facts, and you can't just destroy facts by taking a different perspective or assigning new words to describe them.  

[cladking]

Quote

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.

1971 half dollars in chBU are common.  By your standards exceedingly common.  

But the chief reason they are common is that very few people collect clad half dollars.  

 

If these were tied up in "old collections" there would be a lot fewer rolls and in 50 years these old collections would be walking into coin shop and constitute "supply" for the markets.  Since there are currently no old collections the available supply is chBU rolls.  You seem to forget that coin collecting isn't only a hobby it is also a business dependent on both supply and demand.  Try to remember this when you slam moderns and grossly exaggerate their availability.  

 

[World Colonial]

45 minutes ago, cladking said:

If these were tied up in "old collections" there would be a lot fewer rolls and in 50 years these old collections would be walking into coin shop and constitute "supply" for the markets.  Since there are currently no old collections the available supply is chBU rolls.  You seem to forget that coin collecting isn't only a hobby it is also a business dependent on both supply and demand.  Try to remember this when you slam moderns and grossly exaggerate their availability.  

 

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?

Edited April 10, 2021 by World Colonial

[World Colonial]

double post

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by World Colonial

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I am merely saying that in the long run coins of similar scarcity and demand will have similar prices.  

I never disagreed.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

 Old classic coins have far far higher premiums than equally scarce moderns and this is a simple fact.  Many can be worth 100X as much or much more.  I don't have a problem with this but there is only ONE CAUSE of it; moderns have far far less demand.  

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.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

 You can invent words to describe or name anything but the fact is many moderns are going up thousands fold not because they are "popular" like most old coins, but because they are very scarce and are getting attention for the very first time.  These are all simple facts, and you can't just destroy facts by taking a different perspective or assigning new words to describe them.  

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 price without the expectation of getting most of their money back.  Financialization gives buyers a reason to believe they will, in the aggregate.  This also applies to common classics outside of the key dates which sold for high prices in the 60's. 

Collectors didn't suddenly wake up when TPG was introduced and experience a collective epiphany.  Without financialization, very few if any coins selling for "high" prices now which did not before would be worth anything close to current value.

The examples you are using are either condition census coins or specialization which are not the focus of my posts.  My posts have nothing to do with condition census coins, you know it doesn't, and yet you use this as a "rebuttal" anyway.

For specialization, I'm not referring to the coins which sell for high prices now, like the 1969-S/S cent.  There are very few of these but it has nothing to do with what I told you. I'm referring to the tens of thousands of others which are "rare" but sell for irrelevant prices because no one cares about this minutia. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by World Colonial