• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What do you think of KP's World catalogues??

281 posts in this topic

This is my reply to your second post.

 

The lack of a numismatic infrastructure is exactly why I believe a collecting is going to go absolutely nowhere in a disproportionate number of countries.

 

I cannot disprove your claims because no one has a crystal ball to the future. When I read your posts, I see a description of a prospective macro trend change in collecting habits and practices that supposedly is going to create a big shift favoring moderns. You may not mean this but this is what you imply. I see absolutely no reason to believe this outcome whatsoever; only in isolation and selectively.

 

Most of your examples I have read both now and in the past are better described (to the extent you will be correct) as the result of random collecting by a small group of unassociated collectors (potentially as few as a handful for any particular coin) who are geographically dispersed all over the planet. I see no common theme or pattern to it at all.

 

In taking the opposite position, I believe I can make a (much) better case against any generic claim that moderns will experience a surge in popularity in practically any country’s coinage than you or anyone else can make for them. Out of the approximately 50,000 to 100,000 moderns available, maybe 500 (likely at most) might increase from $2 to $800 and a slightly higher percentage from less than $1 to $60. These amounts per the examples you used in your recent posts.

 

You happen to know better than most which ones are actually scarce but predicting which ones will become financial winners I see as a “crapshoot”. Moreover, since neither of us actually know how many of these exist or in what quality, I suspect that most of them are not as scarce as you believe or the current availability appears to imply. Compared to the coins I collect now, I suspect that the lopsided percentage are more common or the difference in scarcity will not remotely compensate for their relative numismatic merits. And in making this claim, the coins I collect are hardly “mainstream” today.

 

However scarce these moderns, there are probably today and are going to be for the indefinite future (as in for a LONG time) more specimens available (maybe a lot more) than buyers who actually want them at the above prices, much less higher ones. If even only 25 of a specific coin exists in any grade (much less in “high” quality), that could easily be far more than the number of collectors who are going to pay this type of price.

 

To support my position, let me describe the numismatic landscape in South Africa today and then anyone can compare it to any other country of their choice. The reason for this approach is that South Africa has a much more developed numismatic infrastructure and tradition of collecting than most, yet the pricing on the lopsided proportion of moderns can only be described as weak.

 

Here is what exists in South Africa today and the recent past. There is a preference for TPG which has dramatically impacted pricing as it has in the US. They also have their own grading service (SANGS) though I am dubious of its longer term economic viability. They have their own version of Ebay (BidOrBuy) though no auction houses. They have their equivalent of the “Red Book” (Hern now, previously RandCoin and before that Kaplan) dating back to 1950. They have their own version of the PNG (SAANDS). CoinGuideSA.com is an online pricing service. They do or at least did have a weekly (or monthly) general purpose magazine (Bickels). There are at least several dozen dealers in the country and several “investment” brokers.

 

Now, with this description as a point of comparison, how do most other countries compare to it? Without being provided a specific one and without specific knowledge of it, I cannot elaborate now but any impartial observer will readily admit that MOST others contain either few or even none of these attributes and where they do, even less than South Africa which is still much less than the United States. So the question then becomes, except for the random collecting I believe will be the source of future price increases for most of the examples you used, why exactly would any substantial number of collectors anywhere else either show any outsized preference for or shift towards moderns and pay “high” prices for them?

 

The logical answer to this question Is that except selectively, the lopsided majority within any particular country will not, especially given the lack of collecting. Selectively only, I can see an argument that expats or collectors in other countries will favor specific individual coins from “home” but nothing more. For example, since the US has a much higher propensity to pay high prices than all others, maybe Americans of Jewish, Irish, Mexican or Italian decent will prefer moderns in those countries over other coins. It certainly has not happened yet except maybe selectively, but it could. But regardless, even if this does happen, this still equates to a limited versus a broad change.

 

The fact of the matter is that if any “explosion” occurs in world coin collecting, the lopsided evidence better supports it is going to be in the “classic” equivalents and NOT moderns just as it has been to this point. The problem of course is that in many instances, the supply does not exist to accommodate such an outcome. The combination of everything I have described in this series of posts and previously is why I believe the financial prospects of world coins will NOT replicate US pricing except selectively and why most over rate their prospects.

 

I also do not see the speculative aspect of your viewpoint as very compelling either. In theory, buyers who are interested in the rarest world moderns for their financial potential (assuming they actually know which ones they are which is hardly a given) could push prices up, but this is disproportionately speculation and not real collecting. There has been more than enough of that in South Africa as well during the last 5+ years and anyone can see the obvious result. Many prices have collapsed. When prices stopped rising in late 2011, these speculators apparently dumped their coins and it is obvious that there were not enough real collectors available to buy them at prior prices.

 

Lastly, another thing I do not recall you ever addressing is how many collectors are actually willing to pay “full freight” today, even among specialists of US moderns. As a modern collector, it is one thing to show the enthusiasm for these coins when you are acquiring them for a pittance by finding them in bank rolls, pocket change or paying nominal premiums above face value.

 

It is another entirely to buy these coins at prices that a disinterested party can only call relatively high if not absolutely astronomical. How many of these more expensive coins have YOU actually bought at market prices, even among US coins? And if the answer is either few or none, then what makes you think that any significant number of collectors have any interest in doing so if you don’t do it yourself?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joesabet,

 

You are bringing up an entirely different angle on collecting but I agree with you. I expect the majority of people in both the United States and elsewhere to become poorer or a lot poorer over the indefinite future. I have covered some of the reasons in prior posts since I started posting here five years ago.

 

It is impossible to follow all coins prices but from what I understand, even as the most desirable US coins (whether moderns or classics) have increased or exploded in price, most have either declined or gone nowhere. In my opinion, this is a negative for all coin prices and I see it as equally true elsewhere. Personally, I expect most coin prices to be much lower even in nominal terms years from now but if not, absolutely in real purchasing power.

 

Even if by some miracle, the world economy manages to prosper or stumble along indefinitely as it has for the last five years, I still do not see an explosion in collecting in my lifetime as some seem to have implied.

 

I reject any claims that tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of Chinese, Indians or Mexicans will become collectors as they are in the US today. I do not believe it and consider it nonsensical unless you are talking about casual collecting out of pocket change. There will never be these numbers paying substantial premiums over face value because the coins most collectors actually want do not exist in any quantity to be bought. So what exactly are they going to buy? And since they are not, any concurrent idea that ten million Chinese or half a million Mexicans will find their moderns so compelling that they will pay exorbitant premiums as US collectors selectively do today is equally absurd. It is absurd because as I explained before, this would result in the prices of these coins exceeding those that preceded them and almost certainly by a substantial margin.

 

For countries like Fiji, it isn't a "maybe" that their collector base is weak, it is weak. There isn't any question about it. The same is true of most countries which I describe as numismatic zombies or the walking dead. The overwhelming evidence is that collecting in these countries is going absolutely nowhere and so are the prices of their coins, except selectively.

 

I know South Africa numismatics probably as well as anyone who does not live there. As a guess, I would say that maybe 100 or slightly more are ":serious" collectors of Union and maybe 300 to 500 for ZAR. This in the sense that they are willing to spend any "real money" to buy the better coins. To this, probably as many as a few thousand collectors who buy the lower priced coins mostly in circulated grades.

 

These numbers are trivial in the bigger picture, as in the same or less than a single US series. ZAR might be as widely collected as one or all Barber denominations combined. With Union, there is more money (probably a lot more) spent even on a series like the Franklin half in a single year. And no, a substantial number of additional collectors spending a lot more money to pay much higher prices isn't a realistic option either because the coins do not exist to be bought. I can provide a link to the BoB posts where I covered this in great detail if I need to support this assertion.

 

Given what I just described, yes obviously a small amount of money could push the prices of the examples Cladking used much higher but this assumes that there are enough real collectors who actually want them over time to make it happen. I do not believe and do not believe that anyone can make any compelling case to support it. I believe it will occur in isolation but not otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZAR, I presume, refers to the South African Rand or the Republic of South Africa. Some years after the Boer War, South Africa became the Union of South Africa. It later left the Commonwealth and became the Republic of South Africa, or in Afrikaans, Republiek van Suid-Afrika. Their domain suffix is .za, and I have never quite grasped how Suid-Afrika translated to ZA, unless referring to the Xhosa name: iRiphabliki yomZantsi Afrika.

 

ZAR is the short hand for the South African Rand today. The ZAR is the South African Republic (Zuid Afrika Repub) which was annexed after the Boer War as you state. It existed from 1852-1902 in the province which later became the Transvaal. Coinage was issued primarily from 1892-1902.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderns series (excluding temporary recent changes) date back to 1932.

 

No!

 

What makes moderns distinct from the older coins is that the older coins were saved. They were saved in massive quantities while moderns were not.

 

For example, I believe that a coin like the 1983-P quarter has thousands in a grade like MS-65 (498 in the PCGS census last time I checked) and is at most a Judd scale medium to low R-2 in MS-66 (over 200 in PCGS last time I checked).

 

No! It's unlikely there are more than a few truly top notch '83-P quarters. I've looked at many thousands of them since 1983 and these simply don't come very nice. They are nearly as scarce in true Gem as '82-P. It doesn't matter what you call the finest coins but if you want a well made and mark free '83-P you're going to be looking for a while. I'd suggest you restrict your looking to coins graded MS-66 and higher but you might find one in a roll or privately made set. Forget the mint made sets because these just aren't top notch.

 

I do not believe what you call modern bashing is usually bashing at all.

 

I rarely call anything at all modern bashing any longer because there isn't much modern bashing in years. But when they are called the equivalent of chuck-ee-cheese tokens then, yes, this would be modern bashing. (and an insult to a great token collecting series. ;) )

 

How much time do you need to disprove your thesis?

 

Modern coins are exploding and Krause doesn't keep up. This is the theme of the thread. An Indian mint set went up 38,000% this year.

 

Those coins are presumably actually scarce while their US counterparts are not.

 

Of course US moderns can be scarce. They can be particularly scarce in just nice collectible chU compared to the perception. A nice attractive 1969 quarter in any grade is at least ten times scarcer than a '50-D nickel which once sold for $200 in today's money. The '69 isn't cheap because it's common, it's cheap because the demand is almost 0.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot disprove your claims because no one has a crystal ball to the future. When I read your posts, I see a description of a prospective macro trend change in collecting habits and practices that supposedly is going to create a big shift favoring moderns.

 

I am not trying to imply this at all. If the collecting population goes up five fold there will be a nearly five fold increase in the demand of most older world coins. This will have huge effects on pricing for some and more nominal effects for others because of collector reaction to increasing prices and the absolute availability of specific coins. But if even 5% of the new demand goes into moderns then it will increase demand for them a hundred fold. Where the best most older coins will do is a five fold increase moderns can increase explosively because... ...wait for it... ...there's still almost no demand for moderns.

 

In taking the opposite position, I believe I can make a (much) better case against any generic claim that moderns will experience a surge in popularity in practically any country’s coinage than you or anyone else can make for them. Out of the approximately 50,000 to 100,000 moderns available, maybe 500 (likely at most) might increase from $2 to $800 and a slightly higher percentage from less than $1 to $60. These amounts per the examples you used in your recent posts.

 

Modern mintages are in the tens of millions. If you pick any existing coin at random it will most probably be an exceedingly common coin that will "never" be worth anything. Just like a worn out cull 1907 indian cent is always going to be common a VF 1969 French 20c will always be junk as well. It's the tyranny of numbers. Don't think "common" think about all those coins people bashed for half a century and didn't save. You don't see them today so you don't think about them.

 

The fact of the matter is that if any “explosion” occurs in world coin collecting, the lopsided evidence better supports it is going to be in the “classic” equivalents and NOT moderns just as it has been to this point.

 

This simply is not true.

 

The percentage increases in moderns are far far higher than any percentage increases in older coins.

 

The problem of course is that in many instances, the supply does not exist to accommodate such an outcome. The combination of everything I have described in this series of posts and previously is why I believe the financial prospects of world coins will NOT replicate US pricing except selectively and why most over rate their prospects.

 

The demand for older coins is increasing rapidly all over the world where the middle class is expanding. You don't need Nostrodomus to know trhat if this continues then the demand for coins will increase substantially.

 

 

 

I think you just might be surprised to see what could happen if there were a general trend toward collecting moderns. It's impossible to predict this sort of trend because it is dependent on things that haven't happened yet and is too complicated to see the precedents. But it's hardly impossible that people would see the continuing increases in this area and try to get ahead of the curve. The desire to make a profit is a strong motivator in collecting populations. A little self fullfilling phophesy could drive moderns to incredible levels.

 

It doesn't require millions of people getting into moderns to have a huge effect. It just requires a little demand where now there is none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that there are too many of them, and it costs too much to keep up with them. In the old days you could get all of the coins listed from the mid 1700s to date in one book. Now you have buy two or three books to find out what you want. The trouble is a lot space is wasted on modern commemorative junk that does not interest me at all. I wish they would publish a book without all of that foolishness. Forget the junky modern commemorative coins and list real coins only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that there are too many of them, and it costs too much to keep up with them. In the old days you could get all of the coins listed from the mid 1700s to date in one book. Now you have buy two or three books to find out what you want. The trouble is a lot space is wasted on modern commemorative junk that does not interest me at all. I wish they would publish a book without all of that foolishness. Forget the junky modern commemorative coins and list real coins only.

 

I agree and I believe this is a lot of the problem with the catalog. Dividing it arbitrarily at 1900 was a mistake and there would have been a much more natural divide and it would still be up to date if they just separated out the NCLT coins. Listing proofs of regular circulating coins wouldn't be so bad but there are too many NCLT's to keep in the catalog. If these were listed separatly I'd have to buy both volumes and the ~1860 to date catalog would be far more useful to me. There's still the problem with glacial responses to price changes but these problems would be more visible and might be attacked better with separate books. This would also allow them to get all the way back to about 1700 in one catalog (1720 to 1860)(which I'd also buy frequently if it were kept current).

 

1900 to 2000 was a bad decision and it cut many countries and numerous series into fragments. No series should ever be cut between catalogs.

 

It's difficult to believe Krause really cares since these things have persisted for so many years. Modern markets will develop despite not having a viable pricing source and it will just take longer and more coins will leave the US. Older foreign will do well with more demand whether realistic prices are avaialable or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might seem to happen in isolation because a great number of coins and some countriues will be relatively unaffected. The number of common moderns are staggering and the number of those which are common can be quite remarkable. I can hardly imagine how many 1953 Yugoslavian coins exist. It must be in the many millions just in the US.

 

But there are other classes of moderns that are quite interesting but hardly scarce and hardly common. Take for instance a great coin from a country with over 200 million people in it; the Indonesian bird of paradise coin. There are probably a few rolls of thesearound and they are very popular. It's a beautiful cu/ ni 1973 coin with a mintage over a billion!!! But it circulated for 23 years and apparently was melted by the central bank when it became feasible to reissue the 50R in a cheaper metal. It was probably still widely available in AU when it was melted but it's not likely many were held out. They are not tough to find in Unc but this is no hoard coin and vast quantities exist nowhere. I'd guess that as few as a million might exist today with only 20% in Unc. A little demand would easily redistribute the coins to those who want it without much impact on price. The coin comes nice but Gems are simply breath taking.

 

I simply don't see why there can't be modern collecting on a wider scale. People are putting together sets of this stuff South Korean won coinage and finding many dates extremely difficult. It seems to make sense to everyone that old Fijian coins are collected but newer ones are not. It's hard to believe this will make much sense to future collectors.

 

Common coins will always be common but collectors always collect. What is a bird of paradise worth in Gem if people actually need one for their collection? My guess is the current price of $1.50 can't hold up. Even if collectors in the future only collect bird coins, or circulation issuers, or Gems, or type coins, or cu/ ni, or attractive coins this one will still have it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply don't see why there can't be modern collecting on a wider scale. People are putting together sets of this stuff South Korean won coinage and finding many dates extremely difficult. It seems to make sense to everyone that old Fijian coins are collected but newer ones are not. It's hard to believe this will make much sense to future collectors.

It won't make sense to them but it never has. Back in the late 1850's when the ANS and later ANA were established it was general considered that only ancients and colonials were worth serious attention. All that bust and seated liberty coinage was just worthless modern stuff unworthy of a serious collector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my reply to your first post.

 

Every time I have read your posts, you always use "scarcity" for US moderns in the sense of the niche markets I used here. And when I say "every", I mean it literally, Everyone reading our posts knows that using this narrow (and in my opinion completely arbitrary) definition of "scarcity", that these coins are "scarce" or "rare". I specifically conceded this point to you both now and many times in the past.

 

The Soviet coin you used as an example, I presume (since I do not actually know) that it is actually somewhat scarce generically. There isn't even one US modern which meets this definition. You know that and I know it. So making a comparison between world and US moderns this way is invalid.

 

On your comments on the 1983-P quarter, I am not implying that this coin has a high survival rate in MS-66. What I am trying to tell you is that a coin like this one (which you have used as an example in the past) is not really absolutely scarce, even in a grade like this one. I have had this debate with Union collectors on the BoB forum many times because they had a habit of intentionally rationalizing the scarcity of these coins to justify their implied price forecasts and these coins are much scarcer than most.

 

While the specifics differ for US moderns, as with Union, there is no possibility of getting from "point A" (mintage data) to "point B" (census data) just by what each of us sees. The commonality between these two series is their generic low prices which have a proven correlation with the census pops, though we cannot know exactly how much. As I told those in South Africa, this leaves a large variability in any estimate given the low survival rates. Regardless of what specific number you believe exists versus myself, the difference is almost certainly a statistical rounding error.

 

Your theme was different than the one I had in mind. But in any event, these coins are mostly collected haphazardly and nothing else. Moreover, except for a few countries, that all it is likely to ever be.

 

I already answered your comments on the scarcity but the example you gave of the 1950-D nickel is meaningless. This coin was the subject of the early 1960's roll mania. Using this a coin as an example will be the equivalent of saying in 40 years that it was meaningful that the South African Coin Company sold a 2008 NGC MS-69 Mandela 90th BD 5R for the equivalent of $338,000. The only thing meaningful about this price is that it was literally the most overpriced coin in the world and that whoever bought will lose the largest percentage of their "investment" eventually which I expect to be at least 99% even in nominal terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my reply to your second post.

 

The ability to absorb additional buyers and their “investment” funds above relatively nominal amounts is a limiting factor in all markets outside of the United States. This is the reason why I do not believe that either prices or the price structure will resemble the US.

 

For anyone who has difficulty believing this claim, consider the recent purchase of the 1794 PCGS SP-66 dollar for $10MM. If you won the lottery and had $10MM to spend today, what exactly could you buy from any single country with this amount? (It can be one, 10, 100 or 1000 additional buyers with the same amount, it doesn’t matter.) I say single country because most collectors disproportionately favor their own coins, though the level of interest in others varies.

 

I do not believe there are any countries (outside the US) where anyone could spend this amount in any relatively short time period without the entirely self defeating outcome that the prices of the coins to be bought would be inflated and probably substantially. Unlike the US, it would take a long time to spend this amount, if ever. In practically any country, this buyer or these buyers would be hard pressed to spend even $1MM on any “investment” portfolio which is an absolute pittance from a flow of funds perspective. The liquidity and market depth simply do not exist.

 

It does not exist today and it isn’t going to exist later either, except in maybe a few countries, because as I have stated several times, the coins that qualify as “investment” candidates do not exist in any quantity to be bought, at least under the criteria used in the United States. This is fact and not opinion. In my prior posts here I used Mexico as an example and previously also South Africa on the BoB forum.

 

Yes, there are candidate coins which can sell for a lot more but only selectively. These are the ones I call “celebrities”. In South Africa, the unique 1898 “Single 9” gold pond is one and in Mexico, so are the 1732 pillar minors, “royals” and the 1772 pillar 8R.

 

However, I do not believe that anyone can ever demonstrate that a price structure is sustainable if it prices out most collectors out of a disproportionate number or percentage of the coins they actually want to buy, regardless of what it may be. This is a recipe for “widget” trading and not real collecting. It is one thing for most US series to have one or a few “key” dates and entirely another if most of the series is composed of these coins. This is what exists for Union and a disproportionate number in Mexico except that the coins are actually scarce or rare and they do not exist with the same grade distribution as US coins either.

In the US, most scarce and even actually rare coins exist in “high” grade, as in MS or even high MS (65 or better). The 1796 quarter I used as an example in a recent post purportedly has 56 to 70 individual MS specimens with multiple coins known in 65+. No actually rare Mexican or South African coin exists with this survival rate. For South Africa coins, many of the currently best known specimens are in the low to mid-MS grades (up to a 64) and for Mexico, not even that.

 

What I describe, it isn’t just true of the greatest rarities but even a disproportionate percentage of “ordinary” coins, like the Mexico pillar and Cap & Ray 4R. Or in South Africa, most Union KGV shillings, florins and half crowns. And to anticipate the next question, yes I assume that somewhat or a proportionately large additional supply in better grades actually exists, but the absolute number and prospective value is still going to be trivial.

 

So once again I ask, what exactly are any substantial number of collectors supposed to buy when there isn’t even enough for existing collectors today? Do you expect them to pay substantially higher prices for coins that are not favored under the US pricing structure today, such as for mid circulated specimens which no US coin “investor” would likely ever buy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your definition of "wider scale"?

 

Of course there can be a lot more than now, because it is almost non-existent. And of course a very small percentage of the coins can explode in price as I have also admitted in these posts.

 

But what I want to make clear is that for anyone who thinks that world coin collecting generically is ever going to replicate what exists in the US, it isn't going to happen, not soon enough for most or even anyone reading this post where it will make any difference. The supply constraints in most markets are enough of a reason to support my position far more than anyone who believes the opposite.

 

I believe there are some countries which can replicate the US but only where the coins actually exist in enough numbers. And disproportionately, these are going to the ones where collecting is already established today, like the UK, Australia and Canada. By my criteria, almost no coin in these countries is really scarce. So if they adopt TPG and other specialization practices, I consider it reasonable that prices can resemble the structure in the United States.

 

But it isn't reasonable in most others as I have told those who collect Union. Before I started posting on their forum, they apparently thought that just because their coins are much scarcer than most in the US, that they could and should sell for "moon money". This is not possible if real collecting is going to remain because that outcome would price most buyers out of a disproportionate percentage of the coins they actually want to buy. And there is no precedent anywhere that anyone is going to collect just for the sake of it when they can't buy coins they actually like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply don't see why there can't be modern collecting on a wider scale. People are putting together sets of this stuff South Korean won coinage and finding many dates extremely difficult. It seems to make sense to everyone that old Fijian coins are collected but newer ones are not. It's hard to believe this will make much sense to future collectors.

It won't make sense to them but it never has. Back in the late 1850's when the ANS and later ANA were established it was general considered that only ancients and colonials were worth serious attention. All that bust and seated liberty coinage was just worthless modern stuff unworthy of a serious collector.

 

Neither you nor I will be alive to see the result you imply. "Eventually" doesn't have much meaning when we are both dead.

 

I have been a collector on and off for 38 years. Maybe I will live for another 38 but likely somewhat less. And yes, the popularity of these coins has increased but this is only natural because most circulating coins are not that popular and carry low premiums for obvious reasons.

 

Regardless that proportionately these coins will become more popular, I don't believe that collecting is going anywhere in most countries because the culture does not exist to facilitate that outcome. In the specific examples that I know like Bolivia and Panama, they have no organized collecting at all. In Panama, there was one part time dealer In Bolivia, I went to a "plateria" (silver shop) in 1975 who also carried coins but since I have returned starting in 1997, absolutely nothing. It just isn't on their "radar".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply don't see why there can't be modern collecting on a wider scale. People are putting together sets of this stuff South Korean won coinage and finding many dates extremely difficult. It seems to make sense to everyone that old Fijian coins are collected but newer ones are not. It's hard to believe this will make much sense to future collectors.

It won't make sense to them but it never has. Back in the late 1850's when the ANS and later ANA were established it was general considered that only ancients and colonials were worth serious attention. All that bust and seated liberty coinage was just worthless modern stuff unworthy of a serious collector.

 

Timing is everything. Maybe the Fijian moderns will have to be 80 years old befor anyone cares. But there are things that are different here like that in the 1850's the old bust coins were available in Unc and high grades. I believe a large component of nostalgia as a force in causing collecting is the realization that the item is no longer available. Since the bust coinage didn't circulate universally it was still available in nice shape so the nostalgia didn't kick in. By the 1890's one of the most popular collectibles were civil war tokens and these were a mere 30 years old. Prices were "outrageous" and many scarcer issues could sell for a dollar or more in nice shape. A clad quarter in the 1890's would have had more metallic value than a CWT. A fijian half dollar would have far more. Yet people paid more than a days wages for them.

 

Perspective is everything but time changes even perspective. It might seem impossible todays that a few collectors from all over the world would compete for a 1990 Fijian coin but what about 20 years from now? Six months?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see and I do not believe anyone can make any compelling case that nostalgia has any noticeable or predictable element in how much collectors will actually pay, only in a propensity to collect. Let me give you a couple of examples.

 

In the US, I have heard anecdotal stories of some wealthy collector buying the 1913 LHN for the reason you gave but then this coin is actually rare and in this particular instance, there are still plenty of buyers who will "pay up" anyway.

 

I have also heard others on this board provide stories of how they remember collecting with their father (never a mother) or being exposed to a relative's collection. I concede that this matters but once again, not on how much someone will pay. Personally, I believe this tradition is and has been eroding in the United States though I have nothing to support this opinion except trends in society. And by that, I am referring to the changes in the family unit which is a subject outside this forum altogether but which I still think matters to the future of collecting.

 

To use myself as an anecdotal example, I collect many coins because I lived in these countries, including Bolivia and South Africa. And yes, I have a strong sentimental attachment to both. However, my attachment in numismatics is not to those which circulated when I lived there, but to the classic equivalents.

 

I would like complete sets of South Africa 1972-1974 proof and circulation strikes because I lived there during those years. And yes, I want the “best” examples I can find. I have a premium 1974 TPG short proof set for which I paid maybe $300. I also have two examples of the 1973 5C in MS-67 for which I paid $11.50 and $30. For the proof set, I might have paid slightly more but for the latter, none whatsoever because I can and did buy the entire mint set for about $15 and there isn't a dime’s worth of real difference between these two coins and the one in the set. There is also a zero chance I will ever pay “moon money” for these coins and the same applies to the lopsided proportion of other collectors, no matter how scarce they turn out to be later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my reply to your first post.

 

Every time I have read your posts, you always use "scarcity" for US moderns in the sense of the niche markets I used here. And when I say "every", I mean it literally, Everyone reading our posts knows that using this narrow (and in my opinion completely arbitrary) definition of "scarcity", that these coins are "scarce" or "rare". I specifically conceded this point to you both now and many times in the past.

 

The Soviet coin you used as an example, I presume (since I do not actually know) that it is actually somewhat scarce generically. There isn't even one US modern which meets this definition. You know that and I know it. So making a comparison between world and US moderns this way is invalid.

 

I'm not sure of your meaning here. I do use the terms "scarce" and "rare" both colloquially and as proper numismatic terminology expecting my meaning to be apparent by context. A nice 1971 25c chBU is scarce and a 1971-D type b reverse is scarce in any grade. In the first case there are countless thousands of them so it is scarce only relative potential demand and in the second it is scarce as a collector coin because only several exist. Neither has any significant value because there is no significant dwemand for either.

 

On your comments on the 1983-P quarter, I am not implying that this coin has a high survival rate in MS-66. What I am trying to tell you is that a coin like this one (which you have used as an example in the past) is not really absolutely scarce, even in a grade like this one.

 

I believe you're wrong. True Gems of this date are scarce. I know many have been graded but I don't believe more than a few are fully struck Gems. I know the '82-P is rare in high grade because I've expended agreat deal of effort to find them and have looked at tens of thousands of coins from every source since 1982.

 

While the specifics differ for US moderns, as with Union, there is no possibility of getting from "point A" (mintage data) to "point B" (census data) just by what each of us sees.

 

No. This simply isn't true. You're looking at this from your perspective as an old coin collector. Moderns are different becayuse they are still around. All you have to do is look.

 

Your theme was different than the one I had in mind. But in any event, these coins are mostly collected haphazardly and nothing else. Moreover, except for a few countries, that all it is likely to ever be.

 

Yes!!! This is mostly true and one of the reasons is that Krause doesn't keep up with pricing.

 

 

I already answered your comments on the scarcity but the example you gave of the 1950-D nickel is meaningless. This coin was the subject of the early 1960's roll mania.

 

I was taking your point to the extreme. It was you who said that no one will ever collect moderns even if they are far cheaper than the '50-D to acquire the same scarcity. If there were a mania to collect a coin that's many times scarcer than a coin that made it to $200 then what would the price be?

 

I'm not saying the '71 quarter is going to $1000. I seriously doubt it because this isn't 1964 any longer. Manias come and go and might never return. All I'm suggesting is that this coin is far scarcer than the '50-D which is still $10 even today and sells for 50c. OIbviously this situation which actually exists right now is just as absurd as the coin going to $1000. I doubt this situation can persist because collectors collect and eventually they collect everything. Of course it can persist because each year that goes by starting before long the aggregate. potential demand will drop.The odds that these will srtart getting collected will continue to increase year after year for a very long time though.

 

Just to be clear there are thousands of collectors of US moderns and this number is going up every year and these individual collectors are becoming more sophisticated every year. There's really no need of a change in trends to affect pricing on US moderns but it will unfold very slowly at this rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The ability to absorb additional buyers and their “investment” funds above relatively nominal amounts is a limiting factor in all markets outside of the United States. This is the reason why I do not believe that either prices or the price structure will resemble the US.

 

I believe you're viewing it wrong. I believe you are projecting US trends out onto foreign markets. In the US the middle class is being eaten by the wealthy so only the most expensive coins in demand by the wealthy are doing well while the lower priced coins favored by the middle class are being sold to keep the owner out of the poor house. If these conditions persist then there just won't be any collectors of junk like VF 1921-S nickels in the future and much of this stuff will reenter circulation.

 

This is not the situation in many other countries. It's the middle class that is growing in China and Russia. Yes, they have some of their own "elite" but all the wealth of the nation is not being funneled to the few as conditions continue to deteriorate. This provides widespread demand for collector coins rather than only limited demand for trophy coins. This suggests widespread price increases which is exactly what is happening. Many countries have fast expanding economies based on improving conditions and this increasing wealth is going into a wide array of coins. South Africa may be more similar to the US than it is to the improving economies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But what I want to make clear is that for anyone who thinks that world coin collecting generically is ever going to replicate what exists in the US, it isn't going to happen, not soon enough for most or even anyone reading this post where it will make any difference. The supply constraints in most markets are enough of a reason to support my position far more than anyone who believes the opposite.

 

What I see is based on the macroeconomic trends and human nature. When Nixon went to China the die was cast. China became more democratic, Russia followed suit and India began dismantling the bureuocracy that excluded businass and investment as the US began protecting their existing businesses. Much of the world is now following the paradigms that created the economic juggernaut that was once this country. Yes, they are doing it in unique ways to each country and no I don't want to drift into politics. I'm merely pointing out that the middle class is exploding in size all over the world. When people have more money than they need for everyday living they seek other avenues for entertainment and spend more time at these pursuits. One that has always been popular is numismatics. Most people who do collect coins start with the coins of their own countries. This won't change probably and in twenty years we'll start seeing the new Russian, Chinese, Brazilian, and Indian collectors seeking other world coins.

 

There's simply no shortage of coins in any country because if the demand increases the prices will push people into collecting less and less desirable coins. Maybe a exceedingly common VF cull 1967 Russian 10k could get to 50c if enough people want it. Maybe the 1917 10k could get to $10.

 

There can be no shortage of coins for demand because any "excess" demand will simply be diverted to lower grades or other coins as the price becomes too great for many individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I''m not sure of your meaning here. I do use the terms "scarce" and "rare" both colloquially and as proper numismatic terminology expecting my meaning to be apparent by context. A nice 1971 25c chBU is scarce and a 1971-D type b reverse is scarce in any grade. In the first case there are countless thousands of them so it is scarce only relative potential demand and in the second it is scarce as a collector coin because only several exist. Neither has any significant value because there is no significant dwemand for either."

 

You are still talking "grade rare" or specialized collecting. I estimate that maybe 2000 US collectors are willing to pay any premiums of notice for coins like this today. (This is a guess but I can provide a breakdown.) More later but not nearly as many as you seem to believe. This out of probably at least 100,000 who are willing to pay one for all US coins combined.

 

" I believe you're wrong. True Gems of this date are scarce. I know many have been graded but I don't believe more than a few are fully struck Gems. I know the '82-P is rare in high grade because I've expended agreat deal of effort to find them and have looked at tens of thousands of coins from every source since 1982"

 

What is your definition of "rare" and in "high grades"? If you are talking about a "conditional" rarity, that is "rare" almost always by definition. If you are talking one grade below that (I believe MS-66), the coin is "scarce" today in the sense that PCGS listed about 70 the last time I checked. And if you are talking about an MS-65, there are hundreds in the census. For the latter two, none of those numbers are scarce

 

"No. This simply isn't true. You're looking at this from your perspective as an old coin collector. Moderns are different becayuse they are still around. All you have to do is look."

 

Wrong again because I have told you that Union was not saved the way you think they were. I have said many times that I think these coins are somewhat more available than most in SA think but nothing remotely close to what exists for other 20th century world classics.

 

The 1931 silver, if the survival rates of these coins resembled the US or any other developed country, probably 80% at least would exist and mostly in grades of AU or better. The 3P has a mintage of 66, the florin 383 and the half crown 791. Almost none of these coins seem to exist and they are not cheap either. If an MS ever shows up, it is potentially a 100k coin depending upon market conditions. The 1925 florin and 1944 shilling have a mintage of 50k. Almost none of these seem to exist either; even the number in very low grades are not that high.

 

These are examples only and yes others are more available for other dates, but the point I was trying to make is that low prices generically understate the census, even in the US. Why would most US collectors bother submitting a US modern in MS-65 that is worth $30? Even at an MS-66, there are still many who will not. The 1983-P quarter PCGS census data increased from 114 early this year to 219 now. I know because I tracked it. I agree this is unusual for a short time period but they are usually out there whether you can find them or not.

 

"Just to be clear there are thousands of collectors of US moderns and this number is going up every year and these individual collectors are becoming more sophisticated every year. There's really no need of a change in trends to affect pricing on US moderns but it will unfold very slowly at this rate."

 

I'm not sure what you think the outcome of this will be. If you are telling me that a 1983-P quarter will increase from $30 today to $100 later even in constant dollars, I do not argue. Same goes for an MS-66 which Heritage last sold for about $100. I also do not argue on "conditional" rarities because I cannot predict what a handful of buyers will pay.

 

However, I am going to disagree with any implicit or explicit claims that there will be any future "tidal wave" that is going to be "clamoring" to pay much higher prices especially if they exceed their classic predecessors, not in my lifetime. I reject it because I reject any concurrent claim that collectors have any predisposed disproportionate preference to the coins they used in circulation. I will explain this in a follow-up if necessary and this is despite the numerous anecdotal examples you have used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe you're viewing it wrong. I believe you are projecting US trends out onto foreign markets. In the US the middle class is being eaten by the wealthy so only the most expensive coins in demand by the wealthy are doing well while the lower priced coins favored by the middle class are being sold to keep the owner out of the poor house. If these conditions persist then there just won't be any collectors of junk like VF 1921-S nickels in the future and much of this stuff will reenter circulation.

 

This is not the situation in many other countries. It's the middle class that is growing in China and Russia. Yes, they have some of their own "elite" but all the wealth of the nation is not being funneled to the few as conditions continue to deteriorate. This provides widespread demand for collector coins rather than only limited demand for trophy coins. This suggests widespread price increases which is exactly what is happening. Many countries have fast expanding economies based on improving conditions and this increasing wealth is going into a wide array of coins. South Africa may be more similar to the US than it is to the improving economies.

 

You still have not answered what exactly these collectors are supposed to buy when the coins are not available to be bought. Or perhaps you are going to tell me that collectors are going to prefer their moderns to the coins I have used as examples, like the pillars and cobs?

 

What I am telling you is because of the supply, it doesn't matter how wealthy they are unless you are trying to tell me that only rich people are going to be collecting these coins in the future while everyone else collects the "leftovers". I do not believe that but if it does, then you are talking about a completely different type of collecting than what has existed in the recent past. It will return to a hobby of kings.

 

I am not specifically referring to "trophy" coins but to what most US collectors consider equivalent to US classics generically. When I used Mexico as an example in a series of prior post exchanges, I mentioned cobs, pillars and Cap & Ray. In "high grades", I doubt that there are more than enough than for a handful of collectors to buy the entire series except for the isolated date or the later Cap & Ray 8R. Many dates may not exist at all in "high" grade. A coin like the pillar 4R, I have only seen a handful in a grade like AU or better for the entire series which dates from 1732 to 1772. What I describe is in 13 years of looking for these coins.

 

Even in mid circulated grades, many of these coins do not exit in any decent supply. And though I find the US pricing structure absurd and have said so many times, I do not see any collectors paying "moon money" for these coins in avaerage circulated grades because it doesn't make any sense. Absent this, even with these "collector" coins, there still is not enough to buy with more than a nominal amount of money. Now if you think they will, well then I guess we will just agree to disagree.

 

In using Mexico, it is an example only but these coins are considered disproportionately desirable to a large number of collectors. If you are talking about China or especially Russia, the supply is larger but still not even close from what I know to that available for the United States. If millions of Chinese try to collect their equivalent of classics in circulated grades, there isn't remotely enough to buy. I doubt there is enough even for a number like 10,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's simply no shortage of coins in any country because if the demand increases the prices will push people into collecting less and less desirable coins. Maybe a exceedingly common VF cull 1967 Russian 10k could get to 50c if enough people want it. Maybe the 1917 10k could get to $10.

 

There can be no shortage of coins for demand because any "excess" demand will simply be diverted to lower grades or other coins as the price becomes too great for many individuals.

 

The examples you gave do not contradict what I wrote because collectors paying those trivial amounts are not going to absorb any "real money"

 

I also believe it is false that people are going to collect simply for the sake of collecting. I do not believe either you or anyone else can demonstrate that at all.

 

This is probably why you and I will never agree on the prospects for moderns generically and US moderns specifically when referring to the remainder of our life span and that for most or even all reading our post exchanges. I say this because "eventually" is irrelevant to anyone reading these posts if they are not around to see it.

I do not believe there is any "natural" propensity to collect at all, much less something which a disproportionate number of people do not even like. Simply because something exists does not mean that anyone will want it from the standpoint of paying any sum of mention. I believe this is true for coins and I believe it is true for anything else. And if you disagree with this statement, then you do.

 

Some cultures have a larger propensity to collect than others and yes, obviously it is tied to affluence. But in the countries I have used as examples, it isn't for the lack of enough people to buy the coins I have described that explains their relatively low prices versus the US. Even in Bolivia, there are more than enough people with the financial capacity to push the prices of these coins substantially higher. The fact of the matter is that they just do not want them.

 

Now in the future, you apparently believe that this is going to change substantially. I believe that it will in some places but not in most of them. For example, I can see China, India and Russia following what you describe, though not to the extent you probably believe for the reasons I have given here.

 

But for most countries, I believe their collecting is going absolutely nowhere for cultural reasons. I cannot prove it but then you have not provided any compelling explanation in any post of yours that I have ever read, just a claim that it will or may.

 

For most countries, what I can see is that collectors from the US or that have a tradition will collect coins from those that do not, as you have stated but only somewhat. But I just do not believe that in most instances it will have any meaningful impact on their prices even if the proportional increase is significant. A coin going from one cent to $10 is a huge increase but irrelevant in the bigger picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are still talking "grade rare" or specialized collecting. I estimate that maybe 2000 US collectors are willing to pay any premiums of notice for coins like this today. (This is a guess but I can provide a breakdown.) More later but not nearly as many as you seem to believe. This out of probably at least 100,000 who are willing to pay one for all US coins combined.

 

No, I'm not really talking about "grade rarity" as you mean the term. Let me explain it this way. In 1971 the Philly mint did a real... ...ah... ...bang up job on making quarters. They were not only banged up but most were unevenly struck and a significant percentage were still made with worn dies as plagued the earlier issues. Even though the coins were generally disgusting about 1% made for circulation were nice attractive coins. That's a lot of coins and over a million nice coins were released. There were another 150,000 nice coins in mint sets. The point that everyone keeps missing is that virtually none of the 1,000,000 coins survived. People didn't save clad in those days and the tiny number set aside refl;ected what was made. Perhaps 20,000 were saved and 1% are nice so that's only a couple hundred coins that are nice collectible condition and these have suffered attrition as well. Essentially the number availabe is determined by mint sets as is true for most moderns. The availability of this coin exists only because there is extremely limited demand. Yes, one can get the datye out of circulation with just a few weeks of looking or getting twenty rolls at the bank but most of these are still ugly and all of them are worn to low grade VF or less.

 

You can call this "grade rarity" but it misses the point because this isn't the perspective of the typical collector who just wants a nice attractive specimen for a collection. He can find one in circulation in F or less or he can check about 15 or 20 mint sets for one. If you call it "grade rarity" then you miss the point that there wouldn't be any mint sets to even check if there were any real demand for these coins. The alternatives would be a nice F from circulation or an ugly MS-60.

 

You call a type 'b" reverse a "niche market" but the demand here is too low to consider "niche". Furthermore it presumes that clad collectors won't want varieties. There are many reasons to think clad collectors will go for varieties much more than say buffalo nickel collectors. Clad varieties mostly all went into circulation and most have wear. Most are scarce. (3pcs. -100,000 available).

 

I just don't understand why anyone would believe that these can't become popular. Who would have imagined 15 years ago that Whitman would sell tens of millions of albums for states quarters ands MILLIONS of albums for the old clad quarters? Why believe that the 50,000 or so surviving '71 quarters that are nice will suffice for all time as the demand increases year by year? We take mint sets for granted because they've always been there but most are gone now and this supply is not infinite. It exists because of the tiny demand.

 

Some trends are not sustainable. I can assure you that even if no one ever collects clad that the trend eating mint sets is one of these that is not sustainable. Every year fewer and fewer of the old sets come into coin shops and some day they will slow to even less than the number who seek to buy them. On that day you'll know they are gone. They'll be gone nearly in their entirety because they are being destroyed by the thousands by the big retailers. Not only will the sets be gone but the big retailers will still demand the coins. Most of the owners of the coins will be Shop at Home customers!! I believe the fact that you need to look at several 1971 mint sets to find a nice coin puts us much closer to that day than you think. The fact that there may be millions of not yet sophisticated clad quarter collectors makes the potential far greater than you think.

 

I've always believed that the price change in moderns will be very sudden. So far this is the way it seems to be occuring in one country after another. I believe no country has more potential for moderns that the US. However, you are correct that the availability of US moderns is not nearly as restricted as many other countries but the potential demand is still higher in the US. The very reason it's happening in other countries first is the the supply of moderns can be almost nonexistent.

 

I still believe we are seeing macroeconomic and demographic changes that have been obvious for two generations but as it affects coins no one was looking. It sneaked up on everybody because they were too busy collecting art bars, or Morgans, or high grades, or trophy coins. Everything comes and goes and the only things that can be predicted are things that have already happened like demographic changes and macroeconomics.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What is your definition of "rare" and in "high grades"? If you are talking about a "conditional" rarity, that is "rare" almost always by definition. If you are talking one grade below that (I believe MS-66), the coin is "scarce" today in the sense that PCGS listed about 70 the last time I checked. And if you are talking about an MS-65, there are hundreds in the census. For the latter two, none of those numbers are scarce.

 

I believe it's entirely possible that no true Gem 1982-P quarters exist!!

 

I believe it's vaguely possible I have the best two in existence and neither is what I consider a full fledged Gem. I expended great effort in 1982 to locate a nice fully struck example and the best I could find was a clean specimen with a 98% strike. To me a clad coin must have a 99% strike to be a true Gem and it must be one of the first 1000 coins of a die pair. Mine is early die strike but the LIBERTY is a little shallow. I grade it MS-64++. Since 1982 I have searched systematically through the various types of privately assembled sets, pocket change, and BU rolls for an upgrade. I also advertised all through the 1990's to pay $40 for a Gem and recieved several coins. None were true Gems but I paid the $40 a few times anyway because the coins were quite nice. There has been no upgrade and most sources have proven a dead end. For instance there's a good enough sample to say that there is almost no chance that any Gem quartersa went in the '82-P souvenir set. Nice choice coins are common in this set but not MS-64+ or higher. Mintage was reported as 10,000 so these should supply two or three thousand nice attractive coins but no Gems and no Gems and no near-gems.

 

Frankly I have a lot of doubt that one exists because there just aren't many coins that were saved and most sources are not viable. The '83-P was much better made so lots of Gems came off the dies but they got scratched up a lot more and just as few were saved. There should be some of these around and I'd guess that most TPG MS-66's and many of the 65's would be true Gems with full strikes.

 

These two coins and the '69 will limit the number of Gem sets that can be completed. How each individual grades will determine the relative valuations. A lot of people might want to collect high grades considering the fact that the common wisdom in the hobby for 35 years has been to buy the best you can afford. Most individuals can not afford older coins in Gem and some will be forced to collect moderns on this basis. One cent coins are pretty doable in Gem and if you're willing to compromise on a few dates a really spectacular collection will be possible for next to nothing and this could persist even with higher demand. Of course chGem and higher grades already have some more restricted availability. Nickels are impossible and dimes are fairly readily available in Gem. Halfs are tough but a little compromise on a lot of dates makes it doable. Ikes just require compromise. But the quarters are available except the three dates. These are just nice very gemmy and Gem sets. Cheap and available and they'll stay this way so long as there's little demand.

 

Some of these coins though are not common in the undergrade as you suggest. Or, at least, they are common in the undergrade soi long as it's just registry collectors who seek them. Most clad quarters in nice MS-63 and better are less common than a '50-D nickel and sell for 5% of the price of the '50-D.

 

This may seem natural to the current generation of coin collectors but I predict it will seem most unnatural to the next generation. I doubt they'll allow it and I don't expect peoiple will be spending '50-D's anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You still have not answered what exactly these collectors are supposed to buy when the coins are not available to be bought. Or perhaps you are going to tell me that collectors are going to prefer their moderns to the coins I have used as examples, like the pillars and cobs?

 

The quantity of every is fixed but if prices of rare coins or moderns gets too high the demand will simply be forced into other coins in more supply. You've been collecting extremely scarce coins so long that you just don't notice that common coins exist and if every Lincoln cent got to a dime or a quarter then all the "excess" demand in the world can be absorbed. There's no shortage of rare, scarce, elusive, and common coins. In fact there are lots of rare coins that Krause lists for almost nothing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I also believe it is false that people are going to collect simply for the sake of collecting. I do not believe either you or anyone else can demonstrate that at all.

 

 

People collect coins for various reasons but people who spend most of their time working to secure enough food for themselves and their families don't have the time or money to collect and certainly not rare old silver and gold. People love to collect coins and those who are predisposed to collecting and exposed to coins will often collect coins if they have ample time and money.

 

A certain percentage of people with the time and money to collect will collect and most will collect coins of their home country for at least their first couple or three decades of collecting. Then many will branch out to other times and places as a collecting goal. This is just the way it is. People are alike all over. As the middle class expands there will be more people who collect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how this plays into what you guys are saying, but I always wonder how the professional grading of world coins factors in to things. I've seen on ebay common modern coins like a Barbados 20 (or is it 25 cent) cent coin from the 70s in MS 68 selling for 100 dollars. They say in the post that it's the only coin with this grade, but I think that's deceptive because 1) most other countries if not all do not use PCGS and NGC and are indifferent to encapsulating coins; and 2) conditional rarity might not be that big a deal around the world like it is in the US -- of course anyone would want an uncirculated coin over a G or VG coin, but they don't care if it's an AU and probably wouldn't pay more than a few dollars for a higher mint state coin. In other words, an MS 60 is just as good as an MS 63 or 65, unless they can get the higher grade one at low cost. It will be interesting to see how the encapsulating fad will develop around the world. I know China just got a PCGS office I think. And I know Canada has ICCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how this plays into what you guys are saying, but I always wonder how the professional grading of world coins factors in to things. I've seen on ebay common modern coins like a Barbados 20 (or is it 25 cent) cent coin from the 70s in MS 68 selling for 100 dollars. They say in the post that it's the only coin with this grade, but I think that's deceptive because 1) most other countries if not all do not use PCGS and NGC and are indifferent to encapsulating coins; and 2) conditional rarity might not be that big a deal around the world like it is in the US -- of course anyone would want an uncirculated coin over a G or VG coin, but they don't care if it's an AU and probably wouldn't pay more than a few dollars for a higher mint state coin. In other words, an MS 60 is just as good as an MS 63 or 65, unless they can get the higher grade one at low cost. It will be interesting to see how the encapsulating fad will develop around the world. I know China just got a PCGS office I think. And I know Canada has ICCS

 

I have nothing against people collecting high grade coins but if they're buying moderns at high prices then they'd best know what they're doing. A lot ofd these high grades come from mint sets and quite often the mint sets are extremely well done with extremely nice coins. Even if the mint set is low mintage (a lot of Barbados are less than 1000) a coin in MS-68 will be "common" if they are all well made. I have an '81 set and the coins are top notch. I don't know if they're MS-68 or not but they are all certainly Gems.

 

The grade to collect moderns is what I call "no question Unc". You want a nice decent coin that is obviously not circulated at all. Many moderns were improperly stored or pulled out of large batches when they were redeemed so AU's and sliders can be much more common for some issues. Of course, Gems are more desirable but they often aren't available or, if they are, they're common because they come in mint sets.

 

There's a strong tendency for mint set coins to be much better made than coins issued for circulation. This seems to be true even when the mint set is issued by the central bank instead of the mint. Some countries have mint set coins that are virtually proof. Most rare moderns don't exist in mint sets at all and this is why they are rare.

 

This being said the buyer of the coin might be quite sophisticated and is trying to put together the finest possible set before other people bid up the price. It would be a lot of fun to put together date sets or even type sets of a lot of moderns and if you have the chance then why not go for Gem or top grades? The only reason I'm not doing this now is that finding the coins would prove difficult and the cost very high. I'd want to go for a major country personally like Switzerland, New Zealand, or Japan but to each his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You call a type 'b" reverse a "niche market" but the demand here is too low to consider "niche". Furthermore it presumes that clad collectors won't want varieties. There are many reasons to think clad collectors will go for varieties much more than say buffalo nickel collectors. Clad varieties mostly all went into circulation and most have wear. Most are scarce. (3pcs. -100,000 available).

 

I just don't understand why anyone would believe that these can't become popular. Who would have imagined 15 years ago that Whitman would sell tens of millions of albums for states quarters ands MILLIONS of albums for the old clad quarters? Why believe that the 50,000 or so surviving '71 quarters that are nice will suffice for all time as the demand increases year by year? We take mint sets for granted because they've always been there but most are gone now and this supply is not infinite. It exists because of the tiny demand.

 

The likely reason I disagree with this specific example is because you and I have a completely different definition of "popular". I do not know how many people are going to want a coin like that. Maybe it will be more than I believe but it is almost certainly going to be far fewer than you imply.

 

First, I do not believe that even dozens of collectors are going to want a coin like this one at any substantial premium. Look at the popularity of die variety collecting in other series. How many are really popular? I am aware of two or maybe three, large cents first and capped bust halves second. The third would be half cents but I have no direct knowledge of it. The rest, almost irrelevant to my knowledge by any standard. Yes, I know that individual die varieties might carry substantial premiums but it is not many.

 

If die variety collecting is not that popular elsewhere, why would anyone believe it is going to be with these where any critical mass of collectors are going to pay a lot of money for them? I see no basis for such an opinion whatsoever. If this quarter which you have mentioned more times than I can even remember happens to be one of them, it will be the exception and not remotely the rule.

 

The second reason is that most die varieties do not really look that different from the others. Its not like the 1955 double die cent or the 1937-D 3-Legged Buffalo. Even the large cents and capped bust halves, the ones I know are easily distinguishable.

 

The third reason is that the coins I just mentioned are and have been listed in the "Red Book" for decades. Your examples are not.

 

The fourth reason is that there are likely far too many die varieties of any US circulating modern set for any large number of collectors to try to collect them as a set. Given that millions to billions of these coins were struck each and every single year, how many are there just in a single year for one denomination? Is it dozens? Hundreds? How many collectors can be bothered with that?

 

A fifth reason is that collectors may be willing to pay a nominal price or one slightly above it, but almost no one is going to pay "strong money" because to most, there is nothing compelling in such a coin at all. You just allow your over enthusiasm for these coins to influence your opinion on their relative merits just as you likely believe I do the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these coins though are not common in the undergrade as you suggest. Or, at least, they are common in the undergrade soi long as it's just registry collectors who seek them. Most clad quarters in nice MS-63 and better are less common than a '50-D nickel and sell for 5% of the price of the '50-D.

 

This may seem natural to the current generation of coin collectors but I predict it will seem most unnatural to the next generation. I doubt they'll allow it and I don't expect peoiple will be spending '50-D's anytime soon.

 

You are (once again) using personal (and anecdotal) experience as representative of collector’s generally, this time in searching for these coins as representative of the survival rates in the quality distribution. As I told you before, you are attempting to use a similar (though slightly different) logical fallacy as collectors in South Africa did to exaggerate the probable scarcity of the Union series.

 

The mintage for a quarter like the 1983-P is what, 500 million? The PCGS census shows a census count of 500 in MS-65 and 219 in MS-66 as of my last review. (I use PCGS here only because it is preferred for this series from what I know.) In MS-65, this is .0001 percent (1/10,000th of 1%) of the mintage and in MS-66, two fifths of that.

 

Are you actually trying to tell me that your personal observations or those whom you know are collectively so accurate that your margin of error is some fraction of this minuscule percentage? Because if you are, then I do not believe you absent specific evidence to the contrary. And if you are not, then you are implicitly agreeing with me without even realizing it.

 

If the actual survival rate in MS-66 is only twice what appears in the PCGS census today, it is still probably around 400, depending upon someone’s assumption on the number of duplicates. I believe it is somewhat higher than this which is why I stated this coin is likely a medium to low R-2 on the Judd scale where the range is 501-1250. And by existing, I am not referring to today, but what will eventually show up in the census later. Do I actually know this? No I do not, but common sense indicates that this is likely given what is known about collector behaviour generically.

 

If there is someone here knowledgeable in statistical methods, then perhaps they can address this topic. While your sample is undoubtedly large, I do not consider it random and even if it was, I doubt it provides a sufficient level of precision anyway. I would expect that to achieve it, you would literally need to inspect at least several million coins of each date. I am aware that the census incorporates a level of positive selection bias (the better coins are intentionally selected for submission) but I do not know how this impacts the final outcome. I am also aware that some adjustment needs to be made for future attrition but I am not in a position to know how to do this either. Presumably, performing this calculation would involve building a model with who knows how many variables and assumptions where we would almost certainly also disagree on the specifics.

 

In the instance of the 1983-P, the census increased substantially in MS-66 earlier this year. However, I would still believe at least 500 will show up eventually even if this post exchange had occurred earlier in 2013. I know it is possible with some dates that actual survivors may or will not be much greater than the existing count. I do not consider it likely except in isolation. You also need to recognize that there are also going to be instances where it will be far more, even where you have explicitly stated that the date is scarcer than average. This will occur precisely because the margin of error is large in absolute terms given the stupendous original mintages and the numerous factors impacting the outcome that we cannot predict. Normally, given the price of these coins, I believe common sense would indicate far more than the estimate I gave exist but I accept your personal experience (and of others) to a point.

 

If this still seems so hard to believe, consider that many far more expensive coins are estimated to have survivors not listed in the census today. One such coin is the 1878-S half dollar which is actually a scarce coin. In two different listings, Heritage provided estimates of 48 and 60. The last time I checked, the combined census listed 39. If after considering duplicates and “detail” coins, there is even one unaccounted for 1878-S, then I find it much easier to believe that there are at least 300 additional 1983-P quarters eligible for a PCGS MS-66. Is that so hard to believe and if so, based upon what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quantity of every is fixed but if prices of rare coins or moderns gets too high the demand will simply be forced into other coins in more supply. You've been collecting extremely scarce coins so long that you just don't notice that common coins exist and if every Lincoln cent got to a dime or a quarter then all the "excess" demand in the world can be absorbed. There's no shortage of rare, scarce, elusive, and common coins. In fact there are lots of rare coins that Krause lists for almost nothing.

 

 

My opinions have nothing to do with the coins I collect. They have everything to do with how collectors are actually motivated to pursue the hobby which I do not believe is consistent with your last post. I cannot prove what any specific collector will do but I can provide as much detail as necessary to support the claim I am making.

 

I believe that the overwhelming evidence shows that collectors only collect what they actually like, not what is available or what they can afford. I do not believe there is any logic or evidence whatsoever that collectors will buy anything they do not like by continually going down their preference scale to ultimately obtain what is either available or affordable. They are not going to be buying circulated Lincoln cents by the millions and even if they did, that would only absorb a trivial amount of money anyway. This is what I was trying to explain in my prior posts when I was describing the limited availability of world classics.

 

Under your apparent claim, what would be logical in any market is for collectors to go down the "food chain" of classics and if necessary moderns until they can buy what they can afford or what is available, regardless of whether they like it or not. I have literally never heard of any collector who thinks like that and I doubt you have either. I presume that you do not mean this but since you continue to write in the abstract, this is the only logical option left because in any other context, your comments do not make any sense.

 

Today, what I just described doesn't appear to be an issue generally but that is only because there isn't much demand. However, it will be because as I have told you here, anything more than a trivial amount of incremental recurring spending will cause prices to explode upwards which would price out almost everyone out of most everything they want to buy in most country's coinage This hypothetical scenario has never happened in the history of collecting and it is not going to happen because it contradicts how collectors actually act. The lopsided proportion will abandon collecting completely before participating in such a complete farce.

 

And if you disagree with this comment, then tell me how collectors will continually spend even $100,000 more per year for South Africa Union, in Mexico with a few million or any other market.with another number of any consequence.

 

You cannot provide an answer to this question because there isn't one available. In South Africa, your last post is not how collectors behave and I know it because if they did, then the price structure which exists now would be radically different. I know this is only one country but the end result will only differ depending upon how much money you are talking about versus the available supply. It will differ as a result of the specific collecting culture in that country. Buyers from outside can change the outcome somewhat but they have much less impact than domestic buyers in practically every situation.

 

The fact of the matter is that all (prospective) collectors have a third choice which is to not collect at all. They do not have buy anything. This is exactly what I believe happened in the US when clad coinage was introduced, recently in South Africa and will again both in the US and elsewhere if collectors cannot afford what they actually want to buy, either because of limited supply or the US experience I cited.

 

Contrary to what you implied in this one post, I do not believe the current generation of collectors are going to agree with your sentiments by buying the “leftovers” if it is substantially below what they are accustomed to collecting. I also do not believe that future collectors will generally find what would concurrently actually be affordable but numismatically mediocre “compelling” either.

 

What that point is, I do not know because it is collector specific and depends upon the magnitude of the price increase. With US collectors especially, the primary reason many of us do not collect US coins anymore is because the affordable alternatives are so much better. I can positively certifiably guarantee you that I will give up collecting entirely if my only feasible option is to buy the same types of coins that most US collectors do today with my current budget.

 

The bottom line here is that realistically, this provides for above average appreciation compared to most US coins but none whatsoever for replicating the price structure or price levels. The price levels in most instances are overwhelmingly going to remain much lower than the US and the absolute profit potential as well versus the recent past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites