Undervalued coins/coin series
3 3

246 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, cladking said:

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.  

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 about 13,000 at both services.  In the instances I reference, the counts are close to or higher than a noticeable minority of 1933-1964 US classics.  

From my limited review, the numbers are lowest for nickels, dimes and quarters but only up to the start of the SQ program.  Cents, halves and dollars are not low.

There are plenty of collectors for this coinage, just at nominal prices which is a different consideration entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the back-and-forth debate informative, if a bit confusing at times to follow since I'm not well-versed in some of the coins you guys are referencing.  But thanks guys ! :)

For those who joined late or those like me who need to stay-on-point....we're mostly talking post-1964 coins here, right (when silver got taken out) ?  Not the stuff from 1900-1950 or so (SLQs, Franklins, Barbers, and other small face value coinage), right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I find the back-and-forth debate informative, if a bit confusing at times to follow since I'm not well-versed in some of the coins you guys are referencing.  But thanks guys ! :)

For those who joined late or those like me who need to stay-on-point....we're mostly talking post-1964 coins here, right (when silver got taken out) ?  Not the stuff from 1900-1950 or so (SLQs, Franklins, Barbers, and other small face value coinage), right ?

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".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks WC. (thumbsu

I still think that overall the coin industry CAN get new followers into this hobby.  Especially because folks who want gold/silver naturally segue into coins (well, at least I did !! :) ).  BitCoin and demographics remain a problem, I admit.

There is something to be said for being able to buy your perfect coin....or something you like.....by clicking on a mouse a few times...never having to leave your living room....using a smartphone even.......instead of running all over to various LCS's......spending hundreds attending a far-away coin show....or calling a dozen dealers or looking at ads.  

That's how it was all done for decades.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2021 at 1:26 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

These commemoratives -- unlike some modern commemoratives that are mostly bullion silver or gold and NOT made by the U.S. Mint -- were struck by the Mint.  They REALLY took off in the past bubbles, I'm not sure why.  

Was it because they were less expensive than Morgans or Saints and the % rise was thus bigger -- and the fall, too ?  Did dealers push them because the mark-ups (profit margins) were higher and there was less competition than with the stuff that everybody (including telemarketers) were selling ?

The Society for U.S. Commemorative Coins was formed in 1983.  They started the Commemorative Trail Newsletter.

All the Heavy Hitters in the Early Commemorative series were part of this Society.

Maybe a good reason prices rose?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I still think that overall the coin industry CAN get new followers into this hobby.  Especially because folks who want gold/silver naturally segue into coins (well, at least I did !! :) ).  BitCoin and demographics remain a problem, I admit.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, leeg said:

The Society for U.S. Commemorative Coins was  formed in 1983.  They started the Commemorative Trail Newsletter.  All the Heavy Hitters in the Early Commemorative series were part of this Society. Maybe a good reason prices rose?

Could be...I wasn't following it in the 1980's (HS, college, job xD ).  But that rise even from the 1980 bubble peak is incredible up to 1989. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

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 about 13,000 at both services.  In the instances I reference, the counts are close to or higher than a noticeable minority of 1933-1964 US classics.  

From my limited review, the numbers are lowest for nickels, dimes and quarters but only up to the start of the SQ program.  Cents, halves and dollars are not low.

There are plenty of collectors for this coinage, just at nominal prices which is a different consideration entirely.

The "hobby" as you define it encompasses only those who collect "significant" coins and is tiny; even tinier than ANA membership or subscribers to the coin papers.  

I'm not talking about this. I'm talking about the entire coin business and aggregate buying and selling of coins at a premium world wide.  Typical 1964 half dollars have no premium except as silver.  There are millions of rolls and many of the buyers have no interest in paying any premium so they end up with rolls of BU '64 halves.  They are not part of the coin business per se because they are only buying silver and when something else comes along they'll sell them at market and buy other silver.  Most people who know nothing about coins right now and walk into a coin shop or jewelry store to buy silver will not buy eagles or bars because of huge premiums or sell outs.  They walk out with things like '64 halfs.  This helps dealers but is not part of the coin market.  People who buy '64 halves for their collections are part of the coin market. 

But still the coin market is huge.  Bob Vila sells mint sets!.  Many estate sales have things like proof sets and buffalo nickels.  There are millions of collectors; hundreds of millions of collectors world wide and the number is growing daily.  The aggregat demand of these collectors is simply staggering and you think a few thousand slabbed '71-D halves are sufficient for the potential demand!!  There is an apparent supply of about 1 3/4 million but many of these don't really exist because they've been spent or otherwise degraded.  Kennedys have never been widely collected before like indian cents of bust halves.  What do you suppose would be the effect of these coins becoming widely collected?   You don't like inexpensive coins but there are hundreds of millions of collectors who can't plop down thousands or even hundreds of dollars for a coin.  Even ten or twenty dollars for a bunch of coins can strain their budgets.  

In light of the simple fact that many coins are already up hundreds fold it seems entirely possible that the roll price of a '71-D half could go $40 or much higher.   We ARE going to go from almost no collectors of '71 Kennedys to a much higher level.  I don't know how much higher but it will be higher.  Your beliefs about value and availability have no bearing on the facts.  Your belief that a 1971 half will never be worth more than $1.15 is simply based on your assumptions.  I believe your assumptions are based not on trends or the way things are unfolding but on historic norms.  And then you seem to forget that historically every dog has its day and even if you think clads are dogs there will come a time (God knows when) that even these mutts will get attention.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

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".

What defines "modern" is nobody saved them.  Millions of '50-D nickels were saved but many modern nickels were saved in much smaller numbers.   All pre-1965 coins were saved but after this savings were very spotty.  Some Jeffersons were saved  in much larger numbers than the '50-D and some were very lightly saved.  

There has been no market for BU rolls so few were saved.  This especially applies to the clads.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

CK, depending on how you define "collector" the variation in demand can be HUGE.  If someone has 1 or 2 mint or proof sets and goes years or decades without even LOOKING at another coin purchase, I wouldn't call them a collector anymore than I am an art collector because I bought a few pieces decades ago.

We want people who are actively buying....spending $$$ yearly......bidding online....attending coin shows....visiting their LCS from time-to-time. 

Ultimately, you, I, and WC can each have different collecting interests and it doesn't matter.  The hobby is big enough to accomodate ALL of us.  And I believe the ease of buying/selling online and the information that is available is a HUGE plus going forward.

Enough to counter high prices in certain areas and demographic headwinds ? 

We shall see.....xD

 

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, World Colonial said:

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?

And you said; "Otherwise though, tons of this coinage dated 1933 and later was saved by the roll in (better) UNC grades;.."

This is just as untrue as when you said it in this thread on 4-5.  

 

Coins between 1933 and 1964 were heavily saved by any measure.  The quality of coinage was higher in this era and few collectors even bothered with getting the nicest coin.  They were all nice and Gems by the standards of the day were common enough.  Modern coinage was not only not saved but most of it is ugly.   Part of the reason it wasn't saved is that it was so ugly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

CK, depending on how you define "collector" the variation in demand can be HUGE.  If someone has 1 or 2 mint or proof sets and goes years or decades without even LOOKING at another coin purchase, I wouldn't call them a collector anymore than I am an art collector because I bought a few pieces decades ago.

We want people who are actively buying....spending $$$ yearly......bidding online....attending coin shows....visiting their LCS from time-to-time. 

Ultimately, you, I, and WC can each have different collecting interests and it doesn't matter.  The hobby is big enough to accomodate ALL of us.  And I believe the ease of buying/selling online and the information that is available is a HUGE plus going forward.

Enough to counter high prices in certain areas and demographic headwinds ? 

We shall see.....xD

 

Obviously there are very unsophisticated, barely active, inexperienced, or have very minor collections.  These collectors might become bigger in the future but I'm talking about active collectors who have spent at least ten or twenty dollars on premiums in the last couple years.  

Yes, we all have our own niche in the hobby.   And that niche changes over time.  

I actually agree with WC on some points but don't want to confuse the issue by saying what.  Besides agreement makes pretty lousy debate. Frankly I think he generally sees the big picture reasonably well but misses all the nuance.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weitzman Auction....It will be interesting to see if the auction of the Weitzman Triple -- the 1933 Saint, the Inverted Jenny, and the British Guina Magenta stamp -- gets alot of online and social media buzz.  If it does, it could lead to some directed interest to our little niche hobby. 

The fact that all three are being auctioned together on the same day is a plus for publicity and news coverage.  Social media didn't exist the last time the 1933 Saint was sold (2002).  Keep an eye on the buzz leading up to the June auction. 

In fact, maybe all those gazillionaires spending big $$$ on NFTs and BitCoin might actually want to buy something that they can HOLD in their hands and is actually REAL STUFF and not digital. xD  So there could be spillover from there, too.

You only need 1 social media king or queen to mention something on Twitter or Instagram or whatever and then you have thousands interested.  Laugh at her, but look at all the folks taking cosmetic advice from Kim Kardashian.   And now she's a billionaire !! (thumbsu

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cladking said:

I actually agree with WC on some points but don't want to confuse the issue by saying what.  Besides agreement makes pretty lousy debate. Frankly I think he generally sees the big picture reasonably well but misses all the nuance.  

If we all agreed with one another 100% of the time here....this place would be pretty boring and uneducational. xD

I could spend my time talking to a mirror !! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cladking said:

And you said; "Otherwise though, tons of this coinage dated 1933 and later was saved by the roll in (better) UNC grades;.."

This is just as untrue as when you said it in this thread on 4-5.  

 

Coins between 1933 and 1964 were heavily saved by any measure.  The quality of coinage was higher in this era and few collectors even bothered with getting the nicest coin.  They were all nice and Gems by the standards of the day were common enough.  Modern coinage was not only not saved but most of it is ugly.   Part of the reason it wasn't saved is that it was so ugly. 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, cladking said:

What defines "modern" is nobody saved them.  Millions of '50-D nickels were saved but many modern nickels were saved in much smaller numbers.   All pre-1965 coins were saved but after this savings were very spotty.  Some Jeffersons were saved  in much larger numbers than the '50-D and some were very lightly saved.  

There has been no market for BU rolls so few were saved.  This especially applies to the clads.  

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

CK, depending on how you define "collector" the variation in demand can be HUGE.  If someone has 1 or 2 mint or proof sets and goes years or decades without even LOOKING at another coin purchase, I wouldn't call them a collector anymore than I am an art collector because I bought a few pieces decades ago.

We want people who are actively buying....spending $$$ yearly......bidding online....attending coin shows....visiting their LCS from time-to-time. 

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cladking said:

The "hobby" as you define it encompasses only those who collect "significant" coins and is tiny; even tinier than ANA membership or subscribers to the coin papers.  

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 of coins where I disagree with consensus perception.  My posts where I did so are not hard to find, as I have commented on "classics" far more often than US moderns or the world coinage you call "modern".  Some of these posts are in this thread.

Edited by World Colonial
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of me citing the population data was to contradict your claim that "few" were saved.  Nothing to do with future demand.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Kennedys have never been widely collected before like indian cents of bust halves.   

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".

1 hour ago, cladking said:

What do you suppose would be the effect of these coins becoming widely collected?   

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

1 hour ago, cladking said:

You don't like inexpensive coins but there are hundreds of millions of collectors who can't plop down thousands or even hundreds of dollars for a coin. 

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.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

IWe ARE going to go from almost no collectors of '71 Kennedys to a much higher level.  I don't know how much higher but it will be higher.  Your beliefs about value and availability have no bearing on the facts.  

Well, it would be one thing if I actually claimed what you said, but I did not.  You just made it up, again.

Your claim of almost no collectors is also ridiculous.  Why do you think I bothered to comment on the TPG data?

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Your belief that a 1971 half will never be worth more than $1.15 is simply based on your assumptions.  I believe your assumptions are based not on trends or the way things are unfolding but on historic norms.  And then you seem to forget that historically every dog has its day and even if you think clads are dogs there will come a time (God knows when) that even these mutts will get attention.  

There you go making things up again.  I never claimed or implied what you wrote, ever.

Where I disagree is with your verbal gymnastics in this extract where you are implying the same ridiculous premises that will lead to your outlandish price forecasts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, World Colonial said:

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?

What are we talking about for these coins in the pop census:  what's the TOTAL number of coins available and what is available in MINT STATE (MS60 and up) and also GEM MS (65 and up) ?

I know for some of the ultra-rare Saints....we're talking under 200 totally available and maybe 1-2 dozen (or less) in all Mint States and maybe 10 at Gem or higher.  For commons or semi-commons, we're talking thousands or tens of thousands in total (or higher).....and easily a few hundred in all MS conditions.

So that is enough to satisfy maybe 500 hard-core Saint/registry collectors and a larger base of maybe 25,000 who collect via type or partial Saint collections.   By that I mean probably half the series of 53 coins can be collected at a premium under 100-300% of the underlying bullion price of gold.  Only a few coins are 5-figures or more even if you go down into the low-AU's (or below).  Forget the investor class (HSN, QVC, Rick's Coin infomercials) who go after the 1924's and other generics, etc. -- that's hundreds of thousands perhaps.

How many collectors do you guys think we are talking about for these "moderns' ?  Thousands....tens of thousands ?  More ?

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

What are we talking about for these coins in the pop census:  what's the TOTAL number of coins available and what is available in MINT STATE (MS60 and up) and also GEM MS (65 and up) ?

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.

12 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

How many collectors do you guys think we are talking about for these "moderns' ?  Thousands....tens of thousands ?  More ?

Depends upon your definition but it's more relevant by series than in total.  More for Lincoln cents and Ike dollars than most or all others pre-1999.

By my definition of "collector", if the US has 2MM, it has to be tens of thousands at least for each series but only a (very) low percentage pay any noticeable premium.

If my assumption that the (vast) majority have an annual budget less than $500 is reasonable and my 2MM is somewhat accurate, then most are buying low priced Mint products, low priced US classics, world coinage and this coinage.  That's all they can afford, exists in quantity, and it's possibly viewed as an alternate consumption expense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

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.

 

I believe this collapse is caused by two primary factors.  One is that prices have increased substantially.  It was one thing to buy a 1971 proof  set for $2.10 but it's entirely different to pay $32 for a 2021 half a century later.  The second factor is probably even more important and that is few people really wanted the sets back in the old days.  They were purchased to stay current with collections they weren't even working and because they were the o0nly coins available from the mint.  Many people wanted a set but they bought five to flip for a quick profit.  Most of these extra sets just languished after they were a couple years old and everyone who wanted one had one.  The sets often sold for less than face value so many ended up in cash registers or hauled off to the bank.  Millions have been busted up to make date and mint mark sets for the public.   

But there are very few serious collectors or even active collectors and this is still true.  A hundred wheat cent collections walk into the coin shops for every memorial set and memorial sets tend to be haphazard and low grade.  Nickel folders and albums end at 1961 or 1965.   On the rare occasion a 1965 to date collection appears it will be very typical with very low quality coins for key dates.  Indeed, the '82 and '83 issues will usually be a nice shiny AU.  There is an active wholesale market for AU coins of these dates but there are no AU's of any other dates available!!!   You can buy a roll of nice AU '82-P 5c for as little as $100 but neither love nor money will get you an AU roll of 1981 coins.  

 

Most collectors are just taking all these markets for granted because there are those like you telling them everything is "common".  1976 BU quarters are common.  AU 1973 quarters are unavailable at virtually any price and this wouldn't change even the price went up many fold.  They are all gone just like many other moderns that were never set aside because no one wanted them and everyone assumed they were too common.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cladking said:

I believe this collapse is caused by two primary factors.  One is that prices have increased substantially.  It was one thing to buy a 1971 proof  set for $2.10 but it's entirely different to pay $32 for a 2021 half a century later.  

I agree with this but in constant prices, the difference isn't nearly as large and the sets have more coins now.

5 minutes ago, cladking said:

The second factor is probably even more important and that is few people really wanted the sets back in the old days.  They were purchased to stay current with collections they weren't even working and because they were the o0nly coins available from the mint.  Many people wanted a set but they bought five to flip for a quick profit.  Most of these extra sets just languished after they were a couple years old and everyone who wanted one had one.  The sets often sold for less than face value so many ended up in cash registers or hauled off to the bank.  Millions have been busted up to make date and mint mark sets for the public.   

I agree with this also, with the caveat that the internet also made it a lot less appealing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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".

No.  The definition stays the same.  Most modern coins that aren't degraded or traded principally wholesale are in collections assembled wholesale over many years.  Most of the owners of these sets are inactive.  and often were never very serious collectors.  Paying $9.99 for a tubed set of BU memorials back in the '80's hardly makes one a "collector".  Setting aside a few rolls of 1976 bicentennial halves and never looking at them does not define a collector.   

In the many years at a coin shop I don't recall ever seeing a set of Kennedys come in.    I saw some rolls and very few accumulations but no sets either incomplete or complete.  I saw lots of silver sets.   Hundreds of indians.  

 

Where are all these sets you believe exist hiding?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cladking said:

Most collectors are just taking all these markets for granted because there are those like you telling them everything is "common".  1976 BU quarters are common.  AU 1973 quarters are unavailable at virtually any price and this wouldn't change even the price went up many fold.  They are all gone just like many other moderns that were never set aside because no one wanted them and everyone assumed they were too common.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[In the absence of the OP, I wonder if it would be bad form for a spectator to jump in, and say:  Back on Track...

I do not wish to be presumptuous, but what interested observers would really like to know is what each of the primary combatants here, World Colonial and CladKing (as of late) would offer as an example of a specific coin or coin series he regards as notably undervalued, in the usual ordinary sense of the word as reflected in the earliest posts on this thread.]

Edited by Quintus Arrius
Missing closing bracket
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

What are we talking about for these coins in the pop census:  what's the TOTAL number of coins available and what is available in MINT STATE (MS60 and up) and also GEM MS (65 and up) ?

I know for some of the ultra-rare Saints....we're talking under 200 totally available and maybe 1-2 dozen (or less) in all Mint States and maybe 10 at Gem or higher.  For commons or semi-commons, we're talking thousands or tens of thousands in total (or higher).....and easily a few hundred in all MS conditions.

So that is enough to satisfy maybe 500 hard-core Saint/registry collectors and a larger base of maybe 25,000 who collect via type or partial Saint collections.   By that I mean probably half the series of 53 coins can be collected at a premium under 100-300% of the underlying bullion price of gold.  Only a few coins are 5-figures or more even if you go down into the low-AU's (or below).  Forget the investor class (HSN, QVC, Rick's Coin infomercials) who go after the 1924's and other generics, etc. -- that's hundreds of thousands perhaps.

How many collectors do you guys think we are talking about for these "moderns' ?  Thousands....tens of thousands ?  More ?

Most moderns will never be graded because they'll never be worth the grading fee.  You don't grade a '38-D buffalo in F and you don't grade a 1971-D half in MS-60.   Pop reports only have validity when the coins actually trade AND trade at prices in excess of about $100.  

I'd say there are 25,000, 000 collectors in the US.  75% collect moderns but this often includes only states or park quarters and the like.  I'd guess a couple million are formally or informally collecting the older clad quarters but most of these folks are younger and are relative neophytes.  I'd guess there are about 8,000 serious collectors of Kennedys and 4,000 for old clad quarters.   

All over the world there are far fewer collectors for moderns EXCEPT for younger and less sophisticated collectors.   In places like Guatemala most collect moderns but it's mostly only what's available and moderns in BU tend to be unavailable.  I believe that going forward less sophisticated collectors will become increasingly savvy.  They'll know what's available and what it takes to acquire it.   They will learn the hobby just as my generation learned it; one coin at a time.  

 

There are lots of collectors for older coins.  Some people can't afford a complete set of XF/ AU bust half dollars but they'll pick one up as a type coin.  Most older collectors would know a valuable '71-D half if it bit them on the nose.  I've seen dealers glance at rolls of moderns and tell the owner to just "spend them".  I've actually found rolls1969 BU quarters in the till at coin shops.  I've been looking since 1972 fore a roll of these and they were the only rolls I ever saw!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cladking said:

No.  The definition stays the same.  Most modern coins that aren't degraded or traded principally wholesale are in collections assembled wholesale over many years.  Most of the owners of these sets are inactive.  and often were never very serious collectors.  Paying $9.99 for a tubed set of BU memorials back in the '80's hardly makes one a "collector".  Setting aside a few rolls of 1976 bicentennial halves and never looking at them does not define a collector.   

In the many years at a coin shop I don't recall ever seeing a set of Kennedys come in.    I saw some rolls and very few accumulations but no sets either incomplete or complete.  I saw lots of silver sets.   Hundreds of indians.  

 

Where are all these sets you believe exist hiding?  

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 coin forums.

Depending upon the criteria, there may be more IHC collectors but not Bust Half.  As a series, it's far too expensive for the vast majority of the collector base even in lower grades.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[In the absence of the OP, I wonder if it would be bad form for a spectator to jump in, and say:  Back on Track...

I do not wish to be presumptuous, but what interested observers would really like to know is what each of the primary combatants here, World Colonial and CladKing (as of late) would offer as an example of a specific coin or coin series he regards as notably undervalued, in the usual ordinary sense of the word as reflected in the earliest posts on this thread.]

I believe the 1969 quarter in chBU or better is the most undervalued US coin.  By "chBU" I mean a nice attractive, well centered, and well stuck coin with no chicken scratching around the periphery and still lustrous.   Marking should be at least as minimal as what the services call MS-63.   A typical BU roll of this date would contain no such coin but that doesn't matter because there are no BU rolls anyway.   The coins looked like junk and were deemed worthless so they were not saved.   Almost all examples come from mint sets but most of the mint sets have been destroyed and the few survivors usually have tarnished quarters.   

The coin is hardly "rare" by any measure and wholesales for less than $2 each.   But people don't have them, nobody has noticed, and the demand could increase explosively.  

There are many other moderns that are grossly undervalued that could increase at a substantially higher percentage.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[In the absence of the OP, I wonder if it would be bad form for a spectator to jump in, and say:  Back on Track...

I do not wish to be presumptuous, but what interested observers would really like to know is what each of the primary combatants here, World Colonial and CladKing (as of late) would offer as an example of a specific coin or coin series he regards as notably undervalued, in the usual ordinary sense of the word as reflected in the earliest posts on this thread.]

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, someone can luck out like I did but the demand for most is too shallow to have any predictable pricing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3