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

[World Colonial]

For all I know gravity will quit and there will be no coins and no collectors by the end of the day. What I'm looking at here are trends. I see a world where there is increasing wealth and this increase is largely in countries that allow competition and that have good resources and demographics. Some of these countries will be in surprising places that haven't had much wealth in millinea and others will be ones that already have good infrastructure and educational establishments.

 

Think of it this way; there were two million collectors in 1964. Since then we exported much of America's wealth and the total world economy will have increased about 10 fold in twenty years from that level. The economy is a mess but the ability to service demand has improved tremendously from 1965 levels. This is efficiency and increased market even though there is so much room elsewhere for efficiency gains. This translates to well over a ten fold increase in the ability of individuals to afford luxuries like coin collecting. The US market will almost certainly grow over the coming decades as a result of the states quarter program.

 

Yes. Most of the increase in collector demand will be abroad but US markets are likely to grow substantially as well. The foreign demand will largely be for foreign coins and, yes, a growing middle class probably won't translate to substantial amounts of coin collecting in some places. There are cultural and societal components to the desire to collect and what people choose to collect. The lackof availabilty of coins might well also play a role.

 

I would point out though that decades ago I tried to establish a trading network in a few countries. India was one of them. There was, at that time, almost no infrastructure for buying and selling coins outside of there metal content. There were no coin shops and no means to acquire coins so despite my being able to establish the links there were no coins (modern base metal) that could be acquired in India without extreme effort. Yet, even without this infrastructure the internet has made it possible to bid up the prices of many coins to what you consider exorbitant levels. I don't know many Saudi Arabians but even if they generally have no interest in coins it doesn't mean that the prices of some can't increase substantially. At least, I believe, none of their moderns are common. I could be wrong. I know that if you try to systematically collect them you will find more stoppers than "easy" ones.

 

A lot of the moderns that exist were saved inadvertantly. They were brought home to places all over the world by tourists but these coins tend to be worn and they have a very high attrition rate.

 

I don't think 15 million is a very high estimate. Even if you were right that wealth has little or no effect on people deciding to collect the world population will still have tripled since 1964. I think this estimate is actually quite conservative. It's a mere .2% of the population and people will never have been so closely connected to one another and all markets. Perhaps by then some of the current safety concerns with purchasing things on the net will be solved or partially solved.

 

The US market will be transformed over the next twenty years but the foreign markets are emerging from their infancies and more are born daily. This will continue no matter what happens here.

 

I have a second rebuttal prepared to this post and if you want to see it, I will post it when I read your next reply. Frankly, though, it will be a complete waste of time because you keep on repeating the same ridiculous logical fallacies no matter how many times I point them out to you.

 

First, it isn't a matter of wealth "maybe" not being an issue, it isn't one. In a prior post, I already explained to you that even in a poor and backward country like Bolivia, there are easily tens of thousands who can afford to buy coins just like we do here in the US. This isn't opinion, it is fact.

 

Bolivia has in the vicinity of 12 million people today. This probably equates to somewhere between two and three million households, probably the higher number. The economy has doubled in real GDP since 2005 and its apparent on each and every one of my visits which is twice per year since 2008 except for 2011.

 

Despite the widespread poverty, there are easily at least one per thousand with a liquid net worth of $1MM USD and ten times that with $100,000. Given the supply of coins to be bought, how can you possibly still claim that these people cannot afford to either buy them or pay more? The idea is utter nonsense and since it is, its obvious that they do not want them.

 

The size of the population doesn't have any predictable value either, other than what I have already conceded to you through pure random chance. If the propensity to collect in these countries due to the culture is effectively zero, by simple math the number of collectors will still be almost zero.

 

You can apply the same logic to every other country in the world where there is a limited or no tradition of collecting and the result is exactly the same. What don't you get about this simple concept and why do you continue to make such a ridiculous counterargument?

 

When you claim you are looking at trends, they isn't any trend as you claim at all, certainly not with moderns at least from the anecdotal data you have provided. Obviously, there are some people in these countries you just used as examples collecting. So what? This doesn't contradict anything I have said in any of my prior posts.

 

The reason you and I have a difference of opinion on this particular idea is because you are proposing a scale which has no merit whatsoever unless you are talking about primarily buying (future) NCLT, bullion and proof sets. As I told you before, there aren't remotely enough classics to be bought as there are here in the US or even Europe. This doesn't just apply to a few countries, but almost all of them.

 

So what else are they going to buy? Since you still have provided no specifics or breakdown by country, I can only conclude that you have such an absurdly inflated opinion of their (circulating moderns) merits that you really believe future collectors are going to collect them by the millions as collectors do with recent classics in the US today. If you really believe this claim and especially in the next 20 years, the idea is utterly ridiculous. Neither you or anyone else can remotely provide any scenario to support such a nonsensical forecast whatsoever.

[World Colonial]

 

I'm surprised that the 1954 Indian set at more than four thousand dollars doesn't cause you some dissonance. How about little mass prooduced East German aluminum coins from the 1950's at $1300? High mintage Soviet coins of the 1970 at nearly $1000? This list goes on and on.

 

Do you believe these are anomalies? Moderns are junk that will never be of interest but, sure there are always speculators to drive up individual coins?

 

It's my contention that these are simply in the vanguard. Is it your contention that these are part and parcel of all the desirable modern coins and it doesn't matter how rare the rest are because no one will ever collect it?

 

Why would your anecdotal examples create dissonance on my part? Have you even read my prior posts where I conceded these to you more times than I can even remember? If you provided me with 100, I would likely concede every one of them to you because it doesn't change anything I have claimed. You can read my prior reply to you where I cover the scale concept which is where one of my primary disagreements with you exists.

 

As for your next question, I am uncertain of what you mean. If you are asking whether I believe that the majority will never be collected except in low numbers, my answer is absolutely. The scarcity is one aspect of it but the primary reason is because I don't believe more than a few are ever going to want them and you have provided no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise. All of you have provided is your own personal preference which does not constitute evidence or even a reason at all. I have already rebutted your fallacies which underlie your assumptions on numerous occasions and I am not repeating them again unless you actually have something new which requires a response.

[World Colonial]

 

Moderns disproportionately contain attributes which place them at or near the bottom of the preference scale to most collectors, both now and since inception.

 

 

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

 

I think a Greek 1957 2 D is one of the most beautiful coins ever made. Almost any half century old aluminum coin in pristine condition is remarkable. I like Ikes.

 

This doesn't take away a bit from a capped bust half or an ancient Roman coin. This isn't about the difference between a "pig face" and Donna Douglas. It's about the attitudes of a group of people who are coin collectors. This attitude that moderns are at the bottom of the preference scale will barely exist at all in the future. It is the product of a place and time that already no longer exists because mints haven't made circulating silver for many years. It is beside the point that many younger collectors prefer silver eagles to clad dollars. It's only natural to desire coins with silver in them. For many individuals silver will always be the deciding criterion. But this isn't about individuals whom haven't even been born yet but about attitudes and what coins actually exist. Every single individual who wants a circulating coin from this era or the last half a century will necessarily be a modern collector and will have base metal coins.

 

So say you who likes the coins which most everyone disproportionately dislikes. That is really convenient, isn't it?

 

If you accept my estimate that there are in the vicinity of 50,000 to 100,000 circulating world moderns (or maybe the higher number for all of them), obviously out of such a huge number, there are going to be many in absolute terms that many are going to like. Do you actually think I don't acknowledge that? My logical framework was a generalization and I was primarily targeting it to US moderns which are undeniably viewed this way by the lopsided proportion of collectors in this country.

 

If you ask me to provide a list of world moderns I like, i can find many of them. One is Switzerland which is probably my favorite from this group. I like this design a lot, whether it is silver or base metal. Still doesn't mean I am going to buy it over other coins or for any others, that I or anyone else is going to pay the hugely inflated prices you think some of these coins should be worth.

[World Colonial]

If you look you can see this in country after country. The moderns are higher priced despite the lack of demand. In twenty years "moderns" will be over a century old. They'll be 110 years old so my guess is they won't even be called "modern" any longer. The term "modern" implies "of recent vintage" so it's unlikely to survive with a new generation of collectors. Someone will think of a more apt term and it will catch on.

 

I don't know what the future holds any more than you do. But I do know trends and I know some of these trends are aimed square at the coin hobby and that world coins will be among the most directly and significantly impacted. Among these coins none will be more affected than moderns. This is simply because moderns have mostly ALL been ignored since the day they were made. Now many are elusive and some are rare in pristine condition. What happens to a $1 coin when demand increases 100 fold or 1000 fold? Some will still be about $1 but watch out with those that can't be found.

 

No, I don't know with certainly what the future holds. What I do know is that I have provided better explanations that you have to describe how people actually behave and how they actually view collecting today.

 

As for your claims on trends, I reject that you have one at all, What you actually have are a relatively small number of coins (there are after all, in the vicinity of 50,000 to 100,000 of them) from a number of countries where the coins and buyers have nothing in common other than an arbitrary date cutoff and metallic composition.

 

If you claim that there is commonality and predictive value in your data, then I will make the same claim that there are any number of coins struck before your cut-off which are at least as scarce that aren't collected much if at all either. Most have low prices but some do not. If I or a handful of buyers were to suddenly pay a lot more for them and I were to use your claim, I already know that you would reject it because these coins and the buyers have nothing in common either. Given the number of coins, its likely that this has already happened but neither one of us know it. So why should I (or anyone else) accept this claim of yours?

 

In a recent post, you mentioned that steel coin. Fine. So how does it stack up against your expectations over the last 30 or 40 years for moderns generically during which time 99%+ of these coins, including those that are not common, have either gone nowhere or the price increases have been irrelevant?

 

In my “eight points of agreement”, I already conceded to you that purely as a function of random chance, that maybe in the vicinity of 1% or about 500 (mostly scarce) circulating world moderns will sell for $800 or more and a slightly higher multiple for $60 or more, both in 2013 constant dollars. This was my point #2. So why do you need to prove this to me by repeating yourself when I already agreed to it?

 

If any of these coins (such as the steel one) are worth even less than $60 (one of your numbers form a prior post), my response to you is, who cares? It is financially irrelevant. Appreciation to $60 is irrelevant. And for those which are or will be worth the $800 number you used, no more than a handful or small number will ever find them in any quantity to make any financial difference at all., I have sold between 100 and 200 South African coins where I paid relatively nominal prices and made more or a lot more than both these numbers, regardless that the percentage may have been lower in most instances. Like I told you before, collectively I have already made more in South African classic coins than over 99% of modern collectors will ever make in their entire life.

 

In my point #6, I also agreed with you that simply as a function of basic math, the proportion who will collect moderns at higher prices in the United States is likely to be somewhat (minimally) higher in the future. I did not specify this for world coins but it equally applies for the same reason.

 

To sum this post up, there is't anything new that you have told me or that I did not already concede to you. Nothing you just wrote contradicts my prior claims.

[World Colonial]

In a prior post, you claimed that only your “new demographic” is relevant (of course along with your “regression to the mean”). Where have you demonstrated the linkage between a collector’s age and their preferences? Even for the United States, you certainly have not done so though there is far more data available than anywhere else. When I showed you what is probably the most direct, verifiable and convincing data available, you ignored it because it refutes your claims.

 

Earlier when I used the assumption that your “natural” claim is based upon the premise that collectors are supposed to prefer the coins they used in circulation, you denied it. Though of course it is a complete fallacy, if your demographic claim had any merit at all, using this assumption would make far more sense than anything you have actually used. It would make far more sense because of the concurrent claims you have made about the supposed significance of nostalgia which (supposededly) explains why so many collectors will want them, something else I might add which is also irrelevant except in isolation.

 

In a prior post, you mentioned the importance of the Mint’s practices. I agree which is why I included it in my list in a reply to Josebet covering the preference scale. As the biggest proponent of moderns both on this forum and PCGS, the State Quarters program (in combination with the subsequent issues) is the biggest gift you are likely ever going to receive. Yet as the data I used in the post comparing the ASE to Washington clad quarters proves, (younger) collectors still show a lopsided preference for both the ASE and modern commemoratives anyway.

 

Apparently, your claim is that since your “new demographic” will no longer “hate” moderns, this is why you will be “right”. Of course, you have not defined what “right” means in terms of scale or the magnitude of the change except indirectly, as in your prior post where you claimed that demand will go from as low as zero to hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands. This claim has no merit whatsoever and if necessary, I will provide you with my counterargument.

 

Another fact which makes this claim ridiculous is that even for the anecdotal examples you have used, you still cannot link these prices to the buyer’s age because you have no idea who bought them. The only thing these examples prove is that a handful of buyers wanted them which isn’t support for your primary theory at all.

 

The same reasoning applies to the prior comparison you made between the Buffalo nickel and Washington quarter where you claimed the existing 20-1 ratio isn’t “natural”. Aside from the logical fallacy which presumes that collectors are inclined (much less required) to collect coins in the arbitrary proportion you demand, your demographic claim doesn’t “connect the dots” to demostrate how we get from “there” to here” either, even ignoring the additional fact that no one including you can define what this supposed “natural” ratio is supposed to be anyway.

 

Sorry to tell you this but even if collectors no longer “hate” moderns, it does not equate to buying them to the extent of your claims and paying the absurd implied prices you believe they should be worth..

 

To draw a contrast between your claims and mine, I am going to provide two more examples to illustrate the faulty logic you use.

 

The first was the the Jefferson nickle I used a few posts ago.

 

The earlier one was in replying to Mohawk, I mentioned the projected increase in the US Latin population. Given the observable correlation that collectors actually tend to collect the coins of their origin or residence, it should be apparent that there are going to be more US based collectors from this demographic and therefore, more collectors are almost certainly going to prefer particularly Mexican but also Latin America coins generally. I do not see how even you can deny it and if you do, the idea your “new demographic” based upon age has more plausibility (much less evidence) than this one is an absolute farce and you will totally discredit your entire theory on your own.

 

Now tell me this, given that I have much better demographic evidence than you do, have you seen me claim a preference change anywhere near the scale of the one you just did in your recent post? The answer is absolutely not. I have not because of the other logical fallacies in your posts, particularly the one where I pointed out the limited availability of the coins most collectors actually prefer. I haven’t made your claims because it contradicts both common sense and observable collector behavior. And as I told you in another recent post, this does not exist in isolation as you apparently implied in one of your posts, but practically everywhere.

 

[cladking]

In a prior post, you claimed that only your “new demographic” is relevant (of course along with your “regression to the mean”). Where have you demonstrated the linkage between a collector’s age and their preferences? Even for the United States, you certainly have not done so though there is far more data available than anywhere else. When I showed you what is probably the most direct, verifiable and convincing data available, you ignored it because it refutes your claims.

 

Earlier when I used the assumption that your “natural” claim is based upon the premise that collectors are supposed to prefer the coins they used in circulation, you denied it. Though of course it is a complete fallacy, if your demographic claim had any merit at all, using this assumption would make far more sense than anything you have actually used. It would make far more sense because of the concurrent claims you have made about the supposed significance of nostalgia which (supposededly) explains why so many collectors will want them, something else I might add which is also irrelevant except in isolation.

 

In a prior post, you mentioned the importance of the Mint’s practices. I agree which is why I included it in my list in a reply to Josebet covering the preference scale. As the biggest proponent of moderns both on this forum and PCGS, the State Quarters program (in combination with the subsequent issues) is the biggest gift you are likely ever going to receive. Yet as the data I used in the post comparing the ASE to Washington clad quarters proves, (younger) collectors still show a lopsided preference for both the ASE and modern commemoratives anyway.

 

 

I really think one of the biggest problems here is that you are predicting th present. This is the where most prognosticators go wrong. They see the way things are and understand why they are the way they are and then extrapolatate that into the future (and the past as well). The future is complicated which is why everyone is always wrong when they make prwedictions. This failure to be able to make predictions is reflective of our intelligence and the power of our science. Even predicting the outcome of current trends won't work simply because all trends change and new trends develop that are dependent on random events that have not yet happened.

 

This is how most predictors go wrong; they predict the present. We believe we understand the present but even this isn't really true. At best we observe it and speculate about underlying causes. Just because young people now tend to prefer silver has ne bearing on the future. Silver has done exceedingly well as an investment in the last decade. Why wouldn't anybody at all like silver? Silver is a beautiful medium for most designs and is also good for circulating coinage. The silver bullion coins are a very popular design. These coins might remain popular indefinitely though, like most things, this is unpredictable.

 

The first predictions that fail are always those that are predicting the present. This is because things change. The months and years go by and everything changes. Most of these changes are cyclical but seeing these cycles is usually only easy in retrospect. When the pendulum with a ninety year cycle is at its mid-point it is impossible for most people to see. As the pendulum approaches the point it reverses, few can believe it can even slow further, far less reverse.

 

There are two concepts you seem to be avoiding. One is that coins have been made of base metal for over half a century. Essentially this means all coins. This means all coin collections with coins from the last half century will be base metal. Collections of these coins for the main part don't exist today because people haven't collected moderns. These coins have to come from somewhere and this means a market for these coins and no supply. It's irrelevant if you're right that there will never be much demand because there isn't any supply in the traditional sense of "supply".

 

The other concept you seem to be avoiding is that many moderns have already exploded in price. You call them "isolated examples" but I see no logic in assuming all the demand that will exist exists now. Something has to be first. Trends don't start at their ends but at their beginnings.

 

As great as silver is (I am its biggest fan), what happens when this new generation starts noticing that many of the biggest gains aren't in silver but in cu/ ni or aluminum? Success breeds success and this has always been true. People like to do everything together. Even if people never get hooked on base metal the fact still remaims that this is where some of the greatest bargains in coins are TODAY.

 

I imagine the vast majority of collectors would pass right by a roll of aluminum 1955 Chinese 5f at $3 assuming it was just modern junk. Just like they passed by Indian base metal coins last year for next to nothing. There's nothing wrong with having no interest in such coins but the fact is that this is where the action is and it has barely begun.

[cladking]

 

If you ask me to provide a list of world moderns I like, i can find many of them. One is Switzerland which is probably my favorite from this group. I like this design a lot, whether it is silver or base metal. Still doesn't mean I am going to buy it over other coins or for any others, that I or anyone else is going to pay the hugely inflated prices you think some of these coins should be worth.

 

The Swiss coins are among my favorites as well. So far they haven't been doing very well despite large gains in the older silver coins and the fact that most of the moderns issues are scarcer. At least they are scarcer than most dates back to the '20's or '30's (probably).

 

Like most moderns getting meaningful estimates of the number of survivors is nearly impossible. This is one market I have studied a little and like most moderns it's very unlikely that any hoards exist. This is based on the fact that none have come to light and there's no evidence of people putting them aside. This is mostly anecdotal because this is the type of evidence that exists. Mint sets were made in the '70's so none of these can be rare but set mintages were only five to ten thousand. Attrition won't be exceedingly high on these because the sets are stable and very attractive. Many will be lost to misadventure or cut up to make collections but probably half the mintages survive and many of the coins removed from the sets. Circulation issues were exceedingly well made as well but these are elusive.

 

Lots of people have collections of the silver and over the years these coins will come back on the market. Collections of the base metal coins are not seen in the US or in Switzerland. Collectors assume the moderns are common but they are only common in well worn condition in circulation. Mint sets are still available for a song because no one wants them.

 

This is simply unsustainable. Each year another 1% of the uncs fallby the wayside and 5% of circulated issues lost, destroyed, or severely degraded.

 

They are beautiful coins but people are ignoring them.

[World Colonial]

I really think one of the biggest problems here is that you are predicting th present. This is the where most prognosticators go wrong. They see the way things are and understand why they are the way they are and then extrapolatate that into the future (and the past as well). The future is complicated which is why everyone is always wrong when they make prwedictions. This failure to be able to make predictions is reflective of our intelligence and the power of our science. Even predicting the outcome of current trends won't work simply because all trends change and new trends develop that are dependent on random events that have not yet happened.

 

This is how most predictors go wrong; they predict the present. We believe we understand the present but even this isn't really true. At best we observe it and speculate about underlying causes. Just because young people now tend to prefer silver has ne bearing on the future. Silver has done exceedingly well as an investment in the last decade. Why wouldn't anybody at all like silver? Silver is a beautiful medium for most designs and is also good for circulating coinage. The silver bullion coins are a very popular design. These coins might remain popular indefinitely though, like most things, this is unpredictable.

 

The first predictions that fail are always those that are predicting the present. This is because things change. The months and years go by and everything changes. Most of these changes are cyclical but seeing these cycles is usually only easy in retrospect. When the pendulum with a ninety year cycle is at its mid-point it is impossible for most people to see. As the pendulum approaches the point it reverses, few can believe it can even slow further, far less reverse.

 

There are two concepts you seem to be avoiding. One is that coins have been made of base metal for over half a century. Essentially this means all coins. This means all coin collections with coins from the last half century will be base metal. Collections of these coins for the main part don't exist today because people haven't collected moderns. These coins have to come from somewhere and this means a market for these coins and no supply. It's irrelevant if you're right that there will never be much demand because there isn't any supply in the traditional sense of "supply".

 

The other concept you seem to be avoiding is that many moderns have already exploded in price. You call them "isolated examples" but I see no logic in assuming all the demand that will exist exists now. Something has to be first. Trends don't start at their ends but at their beginnings.

 

As great as silver is (I am its biggest fan), what happens when this new generation starts noticing that many of the biggest gains aren't in silver but in cu/ ni or aluminum? Success breeds success and this has always been true. People like to do everything together. Even if people never get hooked on base metal the fact still remaims that this is where some of the greatest bargains in coins are TODAY.

 

I imagine the vast majority of collectors would pass right by a roll of aluminum 1955 Chinese 5f at $3 assuming it was just modern junk. Just like they passed by Indian base metal coins last year for next to nothing. There's nothing wrong with having no interest in such coins but the fact is that this is where the action is and it has barely begun.

 

The problem you have is that your theory doesn't explain the present and has no merit in explaining how collectors collect today, yet somehow, you think it explains the future. That really makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

 

The whole point of this post you quoted is that your premise is that age or your "new demographic" has predictive value. As usual, you completely ignored the evidence I present against your claims and proceed to act as if your unsubstantiated premise actually has merit when it does not and there isn't even a reason to believe it ever did.

 

If age is such a predictive factor, why do younger collector prefer the ASE instead of the coins you insist they should? You never answered this question before because you cannot.

 

We've covered every single of your premises many times. To refute your claims, I do not need to be a fortune teller, I just need to provide better data and arguments than you and I have because your view does not remotely reflect how collectors behave even today. Since there is either limited or no evidence that your premises are valid now, why would I agree that they have any more merit later?

 

To your comments that I am "avoiding" your concepts, I am not avoiding anything. I know exactly what you are talking about. I reject your position because it is unsubstantiated and disproportionately has no merit. To my knowledge, I have not only answered but rebutted every single one of your claims. Your response is that because I cannot predict the future, you are "right". This is the equivalent of requiring me to disprove a negative and its nonsensical.

 

In all your posts, you continue to write as if your anecdotal examples are representative of how collectors will generally collect in the future. There is no reason to believe that at all either.

 

I know exactly what you are attempting to claim, though you only finally admitted it a few posts ago. It’s the same message since I joined this forum. You are attempting to use these anecdotal examples as evidence for your illogical premises to extrapolate them to your future estimate of 15 million “serious” collectors and with it, your exorbitant though unspecified price expectations for circulating moderns. Like I told you throughout this thread, there is no merit to it except in the context I have already conceded to you previously.

[World Colonial]

The other concept you seem to be avoiding is that many moderns have already exploded in price. You call them "isolated examples" but I see no logic in assuming all the demand that will exist exists now. Something has to be first. Trends don't start at their ends but at their beginnings.

 

No of course you don't. But of course, you keep on insisting you have a trend where there is isn't one at all. The primary basis of your argument is that simply because these coins exist and some of them are scarce, that people have to both want them and pay the prices you require.

 

There are several trends that are obvious to any collector but yours certainly isn't on the list. First are the five (e.g., TPG) in the US I listed in a recent post. In the series I collect, also ZAR since the late 1990’s and Union after 2006. All of these meet the common sense definition either because the coins and the buyers are related (as in the last two) or there is an observable cause and effect from a common practice (the first group).

 

Nothing you have written in this thread remotely resembles this description. From your arbitrary population of 50,000 to 100,000 coins, all you have is a miniscule fraction of unrelated issues bought by unrelated buyers. Both of us call this grouping moderns but how many are actually collecting these coins in the manner you describe? The equivalent is claiming I collect world classics. No, I do not. I collect pillars as opposed to 18th century British but the only common factor is the time period.

 

In your examples, is there a noticeable trend in any modern series you have mentioned? Let me guess, even while your anecdotal examples have increased substantially, either most or disproportionately all others have gone absolutely nowhere? Does that sound about right? But let me guess, I am supposed to agree with you that it is reasonable to extrapolate this data to other scarce moderns first and then to all of them generically? Yes, that is really some trend you have and if we were having this debate 20 years ago, we would be having the exact same discussion we are having now, wouldn't we?

 

[cladking]

It's apparent we aren't going to agree. Like all disagreements I believe the root is that we don't share the same premises and definitions. I believe that life itself is flux and all knowledge is conditional and you believe there are bedrock beliefs and knowledge that are real and can't change. I believe even things like definitions change over time and never "faster" than demographics and you believe that the world is like it is due to immutable laws of nature and man's ability to understand them.

 

Rather than trying to expand the scope of the argument to include such premises (which actually could work but is outside the parameters of this message board) perhaps it's just time to agree to disagree.

 

Two quick points though that are "factual" and which exist in black and white within the pages of Krause and other pricelists for modern world coins.

 

...Modern world coins have been exploding in price and have been doing it for decades. This isn't just a coin here and there but countless hundreds of them. In the '70's it was only my beliefs that moderns were rare and now there is concrete evidence. It was only my beliefs that they were desirable but high prices show that others agree.

 

...The new Krause will be out later this month (or early next month) and there will most probably be lots more moderns that have been "fixed" and now have very high prices.

 

Whether or not this is a trend that will broaden and accelerate is the point of contention. It is simply my belief that we collectors are still two generations behind the reality. People didn't save high mintage coins because we percieved them as "junk".

[World Colonial]

We can end this discussion any time you want. We have been going in circles for many posts now and haven't covered anything new anyway. I don't believe the future is "fixed". I just don't believe the view point in the context you have presented has any merit whatsoever which is an entirely different issue. I consider it disproportionately nonsensical and you haven't provided any reason to believe it except with the exceptions I have already conceded to you more times than I can even remember.

 

Your primary claim has no merit for two reasons, timing and scale. Much earlier in this thread, when I stated you were predicting a macro trend favoring moderns, you denied it. This is exactly the claim you are actually making though you won’t state it directly. Because if this is not true, you would have clarified yourself by replying to my interpretation of your recent posts and you wouldn’t make the claim that hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands will buy any single circulating modern when this either doesn’t exist at all for classics or only minimally.

 

You claim a timeframe of 20 years from your “new demographic”, a concept without merit either. But even if collector age had predictive value, the Jefferson Nickel which you actually mentioned first rebuts it. You brought this up as evidence for your “natural” claim and I conceded it to you as an exception (point #7) in my “eight points of agreement”. The problem for your theory though is that your own data is the best evidence against one of your other meritless premises, your principle of numismatic relativism.

 

As I told you before, if preferences for the earlier dates have persisted for up to 50 years regardless of relative scarcity, then where do you get the idea that your unprecedented outlook has any viability in 20? You never answered this obvious question because there isn't one available. This aside from the relative preference for the ASE (and other equivalents such as the Panda and Brittania series) which you still have not explained. I can only presume that you use 20 years because anything longer is obviously irrelevant but regardless, neither of us will be around to remotely see what you describe.

 

On the scale, if you think you can substantiate it, then go ahead and try. I can hardly wait to see how you allocate your estimate of a minimum 15 million “serious” collectors geographically and between classics, circulating moderns and other moderns. I already know that any scenario you present, I can either refute it entirely or provide a better reason contradicting it unless it is disproportionately for (future) NCLT, bullion and maybe proof sets. I can also mostly refute your claims that the number of buyers for a single coin will reach the levels you claim.

 

This is aside from the fact that the economic preconditions you described in a recent post are already in place right now. There is no need to wait another 20 years because there are easily a large multiple of 15 million who can afford to collect as you describe today. That maybe two million or slightly more do makes it equally obvious that it hasn’t happened for one reason only, they choose otherwise.

 

[cladking]

I'd still like to hear you explain why there are thousands of base metal, high mintage, junk moderns with awful designs (some are good) from all over the world that have exploded in price.

 

When the new Krause comes out be sure to explain why more junk has exploded in price.

[World Colonial]

I do not need to explain this you because it is an absurd exaggeration and the actual number does not remotely support your claims.

 

It is another of example of the hyperbole you have engaged in throughout this entire thread. I know that some of them have and I have already admitted this to you more times than I can even remember. I was very specific in where I do and do not agree with you and I am sure that there are a few additional specifics where I probably would also add to my list that I did not. Regardless, this is secondary to your primary claim.

 

How much have these thousands appreciated? Apparently, we cannot even agree to this and you have a completely different definition of the term "exploded" than I do. Obviously since there has been a lot of inflation in the last 40 years and a large number have been issued since I started collecting and were worth face value at issuance, I am sure they have "exploded" by your definition.

 

The reason you did not respond to my last post is because I know that you actually believe five to ten million collectors worldwide are supposedly going to collect circulating moderns within 20 years as US collectors have in the recent past with classics and at a similar price level. This even though there are at most a few thousand in the US collecting the better circulating moderns at open market prices if not far fewer. The idea has no merit whatsoever and there is no possibility that you can remotely substantiate it or else you would have done so.

 

As for Krause, you still use that as evidence even after this thread? That is really amusing. The numbers are just "made up" just like your premises. What evidence is there that more than a minority of any scarcer coins have actually sold at those prices or anywhere near them? The SA Union coinage I collect (which is almost certainly disproportionately scarcer than most of these moderns), the entire series is still listed at the 1998 prices. Many other prices are inflated. Krause is a joke.

[cladking]

I actually got well into a post listing the various coins that have exploded upward over the last three decades and lost it so just posted the one at the top of the page right before your last one. By the way the problem that caused it to be lost was greatly mitigated by clicking the "my cookies" link below and erasing the old ones. It worked for me anyway.

 

But you do bring up what might be a lot of our inability to agree; that we have much different definitions for "exploded". I'm old school and to me it doesn't really matter if you have one share of a $100 stock that doubles or a 100 shares of a $1 stock that doubles. The important thing is the percentage increase. You look at something like a 1966 Hungarian 10f at $17 and say ho hum because it's still just a cheap coin. But, this coin used to list for 20c and it was considered common junk. If you found a roll of fifty you might pick it up for a dollar or two and have all of 3c wrapped up into each one. I call this exploding in price. A 1953 Portuguese 50c went from 50c to $75. It's the same thing. If you could have found a roll of them then you might have a roll of $75 coins for which you paid a dime apiece.

 

To someone who's used to fishing off the deep end this might seem like small fry but to those of us in the shallower water this is like a leviathan.

 

The difficulty was two fold for those few of us chasing these coins; the easy part was identifying the ones that were seldom seen and the hard part was buying them. Since they were seldom seen you rarely were able to find even one far less an entire roll.

 

I developed a sixth sense for where to look and learned to scan coins very very quickly. I still could only come up with a few in most dealers' entire inventory. Sometimes there would be none at all. Remembering all these coins is a little tricky and is really a matter more of experience than it is memory. You just see a coin and think "hey, that's one you never see". Of course, as long as you're looking for coins that aren't seen you might as well grab the Gems you see.

 

It is no exaggeration to say thousands of them have exploded but you need to remember that the current price of some of these is still only a few dollars. Sometimes they've gone from a few pennies to five dollars. Not every modern that has exploded is going for more than a $1000 now.

 

I believe there are a great number more moderns that are scarce enough to go for $1000 if the demand ever materializes and I believe it will materialize but at this time there are only a couple hundred that have even crossed the hundred dollar barrier (if that). I do have a few rolls of coins that I believe are "scarce" but none of these have exploded yet. The best has gone from 20c to $1. Of course, I could be wrong about any given coin because my experience in finding them might not be indicative of their overall availability.

 

I can't really be wrong about all of them and it seems highly improbable I'm wrong about the direction of the market. The market is headed this direction and has been for more than a quarter century. I believe it will accelerate as collections come on the market and almost none of them contain scarce moderns. Even very slightly increasinfg demand can't be satisfied by a dwindling supply. Older markets tend to be static with supply matching new demand and increases coming as supply fails to keep pace. But in this case there is almost no supply so demand will be thwarted. This is what has been causing the little and the big explosions and the demand has barely even started yet.

 

What percentage of collections coming on the market will have a nice Unc '66 Hungarian 10f? It will be such a tiny percentage that almost any demand at all can't be met. Meanwhile Hungary's GNP and individual wealth just keeps growing year to year.

 

It's the magnitude of these trends you are underestimating. It's the fact that some of these coins simply don't exist in collections that has been and will continue to cause even the weakest demand to cause outsized price changes.

 

It's so easy for collectors who don't look closely at these coins to believe they are common. There are boxes and boxes of modern "junk" in the back of every coin shop. But that doesn't mean there will be any Kenyan cu/ ni in it. So long as no one wants Kenyan cu/ ni it doesn't matter but there won't be collections of these coins coming onto the market for many decades because collections haven't even been assembled yet. The coins aren't available to make a collection now because they are too cheap to advertise and because they don't exist. This is the reality and the future is, as always, uncertain. And, as always, it comes much sooner than anyone expects.

[World Colonial]

What you call exploding, I call financially irrelevant. It is mostly irrelevant now and it is going to disproportionately stay that way because the demand you claim is going to occur doesn't even exist for world "classics" today and it isn't going to later either for the most part for the many reasons I have provided. I say this not just about the coins you like but those I collect as well which are a lot more desirable to most collectors than most moderns ever will be.

 

As for you being right on the direction of the market, I have never argued that in this entire thread. I disagree with the scale of your claims because there isn't any reason to believe that it will ever materialize to the extent you state. None at all. It isn't just a difference in our premises but that there isn't any reason to objectively believe your premises as you define them. And the reason for this is because people do not act as you apparently think they do. They do not now, they never did in the past and I haven't seen you provide any reason in any of your posts anywhere to explain why they will in the future either. Your premises are ultimately a reflection of your personal preference and nothing more.

 

After your last post, I went and looked in the NGC World Price Guide which is the same data as Krause. It is cumbersome but I did look at numerous denominations from a range of countries.

 

From what I can tell, early Republic India and PRC China (late 40's to early 50's maybe) are actually scarce and I have agreed with you that these have potential. PRC China 1955 and later disproportionately isn't scarce at all going by the census. Many of the counts are in the hundreds with more graded as a 67 or even a 68 than even exists for the US today. Most of the 80's and later dates have low counts and some may be scarcer than I believe but most of them must exist in very large numbers even in high grades. I don't see that most of these coins except because of the TPG grade will do any better than most US moderns and you already know what I think about their prospects.

 

Elsewhere, I also noticed respectable prices on early German moderns (both East and West up to about 1955), a handful from Poland and one or two from Albania. The later dates, I don't know how available most of these coins are but I suspect that most of them are actually still not that scarce (except "grade rare") and if these aren't given the political and economics of the region until 1989, I don't see that most moderns elsewhere are either.

 

In most other countries, I know that most of these coins are either common or common as dirt. In the UK, the only one I found which has any appreciation worth considering is the 1952 6P which still isn't that scarce either. And since no one is paying any premium of significance for others struck near it, I don't see that a coin like this one is going to increase substantially either absent TPG for "grade rarities".

 

Same goes for Canada, Western Europe, Australia, South Africa and Bolivia. In the countries I specifically just mentioned, I'm not aware of any moderns whose appreciation is of any consequence whatsoever except because of the TPG grade. Even the Bolivia 1937 50C which we discussed, it isn't that scarce and I see no reason at all why it will surpass the other decimal coins I collect now which are also priced nominally and are likely to stay that way.

[World Colonial]

A second thing I want to cover here is how wrong Kruase is on the prices. You point out those that are too low but I haven't seen you say anything about those that are far too high.

 

One example you have mentioned more times than I can even remember is that 1954 India proof set. In one post, you mentioned that it is now worth $4000. When you mentioned this number, I thought it might actually be a real price but even this one isn't. Earlier this year, Maru Auctions sold lot 854 for INR 100K (about $1500)  http://www.maruauction.com/ebook-Auction13/index.html or a 60% discount to the most recent Krause price. The Krause price was wrong before it was adjusted by the 38000% you mentioned and it is wrong now.

 

The 1952 UK 6P from my last post, Krause lists it at $125 in "UNC" and according to a prior Heritage listing, the SCBC (I presume their "Red Book") lists it for GBP 125. Even for differences in grading standards, neither price is right. Heritage sold four of them in a single lot ungraded http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=3019&lotNo=27399 for $253 in May 2012. There also two on eBay listed right now in MS-63, one in an NGC holder and another graded by ICG with ask prices of $219 and $99. All of these coins look "uncirculated to me. Having bought from UK auctions in the past, I don't believe the difference in the catalog has anything to do with grading standards either. Both just have an inflated opinion of this coin.

 

The prices you mentioned in your last post, I am not sure how many of them are actual prices but I suspect that even where you believe that thousands have "exploded" by your definition, that the actual price in many instances is actually proportionately much lower than you think. I certainly don't see how you can know the actual market values of thousands of these coins, not where it reflects multiple sales over any period of time. But regardless, what I do know is that Krause prices are just "made up" and in most instances, the coins only sell for these prices in a B&M dealer retail setting. Outside of it in a true auction, neither buyers or sellers are going to get the catalog price most of them time, mostly less

[cladking]

What you call exploding, I call financially irrelevant.

 

I can't help but think this is the real root of our disagreement. You're fishing off the deep end for bigger fish and I'm fishing off the shallow end.

 

You can call these gains "irrelevant" but duplicating my collection of red hot coins will prove extremely expensive for you and extremely difficult because many of these coins aren't offerred very often. How often do you see nice gemmy 1950 NZ shillings offered for sale? To you it's just another high mintage base metal modern but to someone who wants it it is highly elusive. And this coin isn't in collections today because it wasnm't saved. It wasn't collected so the new demand has to seek out old coins that weren't set aside. I was lucky and found a nice privately assembled 1950 mint set for which I probably paid the princely sum of $5. The handful of these that exist won't even start dribbling onto the market for 20 years because most are owned by someone who knows how scarce they are.

 

These coins aren't too tough and you can find F's in poundage with a little luck. As a rule there just aren't any Uncs. This cuts across the board and if you have a lot of this material it is not irrelevant. I'm proud to own many of these coins and only wish I had stretched more to pick up the rarities that I seldom saw. Most of these were simply so cheap there was no stretching required. Krause listed them for pennies and that'swhat I paid.

 

I can assure you thereare thousands more rarities still listed for pennies.

 

You point out those that are too low but I haven't seen you say anything about those that are far too high.

 

It's very true that Krause lists many moderns at prices that are very difficult to obtain. But what people have to remember is that with moderns most of the demand is domestic. You need to remember that there is almost no demand even in the domestic market. These prices are being caused by a a few collectors chasing even fewer coins. Naturally you're probably going to have to sell to an arbitrageur. Their percentage can be substantial in a very thin market.

 

You can't imagine these markets ever being anything other than very thin, but I can. Even if they never grow substantially they might still become more efficient as the computer and internet come of age.

 

I'll comment again when I have the new Krause in hand.

[World Colonial]

I am not knocking these coins as collectibles and never have. In this entire thread, I have disputed your financial claims because this is the primary reason we are even discussing this topic on this thread. If you are telling me that you or anyone else want to buy these low priced coins as an alternative to another form of consumption (which is my opinion of real collecting regardless of the coin), I have no reason to question that. Why would I?

 

As for my collecting habits, I do not hunt for "big fish". My collection is better than most but I am not a "big time" collector. I only use my discretionary income to buy the coins I now own and I am hardly "rich".

 

I have admitted to you that some of these coins are somewhat scarce and a few actually rare. But I am also telling you that they are almost certainly nowhere near as scarce as you think them to be. In your NZ example, I cannot think of one single reason why you would expect to see these coins for sale very often and how you come to the conclusion that just because you do not, that this in and of itself says much about their scarcity.

 

This reminds me of the claims made by South Africa collectors on the BoB Forum. In the six years I have been a contributor, they have consistently overestimated the scarcity of most of these coins and many of them are much scarcer than the disproportionate percentage of 20th century from anywhere.

 

To give you one example, the QEII (1953-1960) shilling, florin and half crown have low census counts by US standards and many even by local ones. Without providing any specifics, one long time collector attempted to claim that because no one seemed to find these in any quantity, that they were rare.

 

My response was that if there are in the vicinity of 200 UNC for some of these dates (maybe 500 for the more common) which is hardly unrealistic, why would anyone expect to see them that often, especially given their disproportionately low prices? The obvious answer is that there is absolutely none. And if they exist in this number, is this really that scarce outside of "grade" rarity?

 

Do you ever look at the census? There are many "old" coins with pops in UNC where most would not expect to see them in these numbers. To give you a few, the 1733 Mexico 8R has 11 in multiple varieties, the 1751 Mexico 1/2 real 27 and the 1864 Bolivia centavo three, all in MS. 27 1751's? The Bolivia coin, it has a mintage of 10,000 and almost none must have been saved. If there are this many of these coins, there are easily 10 to 100 times in UNC for the coins you have profiled in most instances..

 

As for the scale in your last paragraph, there is a difference between an increase in collecting and your claims. Your claims are completely out of proportion with anything that is realistic. I have commented on this in detail throughout this thread.

 

The fact of the matter is that people do not find collecting anywhere near as compelling as you (or the BoB Forum contributors) think they do. On the BoB Forum, I attempted to explain this in great detail under the topic "A Comparison of the Market Characteristics Between the United States and South Africa". It was a generalization of course and directed to SA, but you can substitute any country of your choice and the result is not going to be that different in almost every one of them.

 

In SA, prices have actually exploded since I started collecting Union and ZAR in 1998. But even so, its primarily been because of TPG, not because of any reason you have provided here. As prices have increased, the supply has also increased a lot though it is still low or very low by US standards.

 

Moreover, as the price structure and trend since 2011 indicate, apparently, there isn't that much interest in real collecting. The best TPG grades sell for big money while almost all others sell for piddling amounts. I don't see that NZ (and most other countries) is going to be any different and I also believe that these coins are either more common or a lot more common than those in SA.

[World Colonial]

How often do you see nice gemmy 1950 NZ shillings offered for sale? To you it's just another high mintage base metal modern but to someone who wants it it is highly elusive.

 

There is another point I want to make on this quote.

 

I don't see this coin as a modern. We never defined this term at the beginning of this thread and we probably should have because its likely it has created some confusion.

 

You appear to be disproportionately classifying these coins as moderns just because of the metal content. In another post, you used a coin from 1917 (or near it). I am not familiar with many of these coins but I suspect that I don't agree with you on this definition either.

 

To give you one of my examples, the 1918 and 1919 Bolivia 5C and 10C, you probably consider them moderns. However,there isn't anything to distinguish them from those which were struck from 1893 to 1909 after which silver was discontinued from other denominations. The design and metal composition is exactly the same. So why is one a modern and the others "classic"? The same applies to some from the 1930's.

 

To give you a second one, I suspect you consider the South Africa RSA first decimal (Van Reebek) silver issues "classics" and the subsequent base metal coins moderns. If so, SA collectors do not see and do not collect them that way either.

 

South African collectors know that both are actually RSA, don’t really care about the distinction, don’t really like any of them and are unlikely to do so in much larger numbers in the future where it will matter to anyone reading this post except maybe because of TPG which is what they already do for Union and ZAR. This despite the fact the silver were saved in larger number and the census counts are higher.

 

Lastly, when you use the term "gemmy", you are talking about "grade" rarity. Obviously, all collectors prefer better coins but today most outside the US do not like (or at least certainly will not pay large premiums for ) TPG. I do not see that this is particularly significant either unless you are telling me that TPG will come to be preferred elsewhere.

[World Colonial]

It's very true that Krause lists many moderns at prices that are very difficult to obtain. But what people have to remember is that with moderns most of the demand is domestic. You need to remember that there is almost no demand even in the domestic market. These prices are being caused by a a few collectors chasing even fewer coins. Naturally you're probably going to have to sell to an arbitrageur. Their percentage can be substantial in a very thin market.

 

I am aware of this but one of my points (perhaps not very clear) is that its likely these prices aren't what they are worth in the home market either. The 1954 proof set was sold in a local auction.

 

I do not believe that the discrepancies have anything to do with arbitrage or local demand because there isn't any reason to believe that the list price is or ever was a real price at all. To my knowledge, there isn't any evidence (except in isolation) that the listed price was derived from actual sales, certainly not for the more expensive coins. It isn't like Krause actually takes a survey prior to publishing since it isn't economical to do so. This is also impossible since many coins either do not sell at all for years or not in a listed grade. Some of these scarcer coins (whether modern or otherwise) likely do not even exist and possible never did, as I also explained much earlier in this thread.

 

For most coins, regardless of whether it is a modern or a "classic', the demand is disproportionately domestic. South African collectors, some seem to think that foreigners such as myself are "clamoring" to pay the absurd prices they believe their coins should be worth. I have disabused them of that notion on multiple occasions but they still do not "get it". The same applies to the few on this forum and PCGS who think that foreigners want to pay the ridiculous prices so many US coins are worth today. The idea is a complete fantasy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cladking]

 

I don't see this coin as a modern. We never defined this term at the beginning of this thread and we probably should have because its likely it has created some confusion.

 

The definition for modern is very simple. It's the year that silver coinage was replaced by base metal "junk". It just happens to be the exact same year that people quit saving new coins. This happened all over the world starting after WW II but was at all different times between 1945 and 1969. In a very few cases one can make an argument it was sooner. the two that leap to mind are Denmark and Portugal. This is a fine point and not importanrt to the discussion. It's simply a matter of all other defining factors being in effect even in the 1920's. They can simply be considered precursors if you prefer.

 

In any case some 1950 coins (like Canada) are classics and some (like New Zealand) are definitely modern.

 

 

South African collectors know that both are actually RSA, don’t really care about the distinction, don’t really like any of them and are unlikely to do so in much larger numbers in the future where it will matter to anyone reading this post except maybe because of TPG which is what they already do for Union and ZAR. This despite the fact the silver were saved in larger number and the census counts are higher.

 

Moderns are by definition base metal. People saved silver and I'm talking about the base metal coins that weren't saved because they were "junk".

 

Lastly, when you use the term "gemmy", you are talking about "grade" rarity. Obviously, all collectors prefer better coins but today most outside the US do not like (or at least certainly will not pay large premiums for ) TPG. I do not see that this is particularly significant either unless you are telling me that TPG will come to be preferred elsewhere.

 

This is not what "gemmy" means. Not all, but most older silver coins came off the dies in nice attractive condition. The dies were properly made and set up and they were swapped out when detail was worn away. Most of these coins were "gemmy" when they left the dies.

 

Part of the reason moderns haven't been saved is would-be savers had a difficult time finding nice attractive coins to save. Cu/ ni wears out dies and mintages usually soared. This meant a lot of the brand new coins really were junk. You can't find these junky coins either but in some cases they are a little more available than the nice ones. This makes modern collectors "gemmy" conscious. It's simply not a matter between an MS-62 and an MS-65. It's a matter between an ugly charitably graded MS-60 and a nice attractive coin. By "gemmy" I just mean a coin that has some attributes of a Gem and is at least MS-63+. It merely needs to be fully lustrous, have a decent strike, and not be beaten up too hard. This is easy with Barber dimes or even large cents but it's not so easy with 1950 schillings. It's not like I've seen a lot of Uncs to know but I've seen XF's and these have strike deficiencies. These deficiencies even appear on low grade coins because they can be so severe.

[cladking]

 

For most coins, regardless of whether it is a modern or a "classic', the demand is disproportionately domestic.

 

If this is true I have to believe it's a more recent development. When I was more active back in the '80's and '90'sthere were only a handfull of countries that had a substantial domestic demand and this demand was exclusively for classics. Countries like Great Britain and France had demand for their coins but most demand for most countries was in the US by world coin collectors.

 

I'd be interested in any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) you have to support this. I know you've spoken of the SA market. But you've suggested there's no demand in Bolivia as well.

[cladking]

In your NZ example, I cannot think of one single reason why you would expect to see these coins for sale very often and how you come to the conclusion that just because you do not, that this in and of itself says much about their scarcity.

 

I believe the home market price for this coin is NZ$ 400. This is substantial enough to bring coins out of the woodwork if there were any coins in the woodwork. If they were common and the price were indicative of substantial demand then you would see them trading extensively. This price is higher than for many of the older silver coins and these often trade in Unc. I believe the only conclusion one can make is that there is extremely low demand and an even lower supply.

 

Now ask yourself why a coin that is far scarcer than the silver version with the exact same design is selling for only twice as much. The only possible answer gets right back to the same reason they weren't saved; most people consider them "junk" whether they're gemmy or not. They are cheap and not in demand only because they are base metal. This has been true since not so many years ago that this coin listed for a few dollars.

 

Despite your repeated protests it is not likely to be true in the future. Demand may or may not increase but it will NECESSARILY increase relative to the demand for silver. So will the SA moderns.

 

The disdain for base metal is the result of the experiences of individuals who grew up at the time of the changeover to a large degree. We collect half cents in this country and someday moderns will most probably get the same attention. I'm not predicting the future, I'm predicting the past. This is how things work; pendulums swing. This particular pendulum has merely stopped and reversed directions. Most people won't even think of getting on board until it's slowing to a stop. I don't know what conditions will be like at that time but it should be about a quarter century from now.

 

Do you ever look at the census? There are many "old" coins with pops in UNC where most would not expect to see them in these numbers. To give you a few, the 1733 Mexico 8R has 11 in multiple varieties, the 1751 Mexico 1/2 real 27 and the 1864 Bolivia centavo three, all in MS. 27 1751's? The Bolivia coin, it has a mintage of 10,000 and almost none must have been saved. If there are this many of these coins, there are easily 10 to 100 times in UNC for the coins you have profiled in most instances..

 

Old coins are quite desirable. But many are much too scarce and/ or too obscure to be widely collected. I'm sure many are grossly underappreciated and this may change over time.

 

It seems there are large swathes of numismatics and exonumismatics that are grossly underappreciated. Remember the so called tax tokens where rarities can be acquired for less than a nickel? What can be more underappreciated than this?

 

 

 

 

[World Colonial]

Moderns are by definition base metal. People saved silver and I'm talking about the base metal coins that weren't saved because they were "junk".

 

This is your definition of moderns and presumably that of US collectors. I don't believe that foreign collectors know this terminology except in isolation. In the South Africa example I gave you, forget it. They do not agree with you because the term is meaningless to them and they have never even heard of it. They do not distinguish between "classics" and "moderns". They do not collect their coins using this arbitrary definition and I don't believe others neccesarily do either. They think in terms of ZAR, Union and RSA and with the latter, maybe pre and post 1994 because of the change in government.

 

You can call the 1961-1964 silver RSA issues "classics" if you like but it isn't reflective of how anyone actually collect them.

[World Colonial]

 

For most coins, regardless of whether it is a modern or a "classic', the demand is disproportionately domestic.

 

If this is true I have to believe it's a more recent development. When I was more active back in the '80's and '90'sthere were only a handfull of countries that had a substantial domestic demand and this demand was exclusively for classics. Countries like Great Britain and France had demand for their coins but most demand for most countries was in the US by world coin collectors.

 

I'd be interested in any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) you have to support this. I know you've spoken of the SA market. But you've suggested there's no demand in Bolivia as well.

 

This comment of mine was not accurate. What I was trying to say is that I don't believe that there is as much of a distinction between foreign and domestic demand for base metal versus "classics"..

 

I agree with you that for most countries, the demand is not local, as in Bolivia that I collect. But Bolivian collectors don't buy their classics or their moderns because there isn't any collecting of anything.

[World Colonial]

In your NZ example, I cannot think of one single reason why you would expect to see these coins for sale very often and how you come to the conclusion that just because you do not, that this in and of itself says much about their scarcity.

 

I believe the home market price for this coin is NZ$ 400. This is substantial enough to bring coins out of the woodwork if there were any coins in the woodwork. If they were common and the price were indicative of substantial demand then you would see them trading extensively. This price is higher than for many of the older silver coins and these often trade in Unc. I believe the only conclusion one can make is that there is extremely low demand and an even lower supply.

 

Now ask yourself why a coin that is far scarcer than the silver version with the exact same design is selling for only twice as much. The only possible answer gets right back to the same reason they weren't saved; most people consider them "junk" whether they're gemmy or not. They are cheap and not in demand only because they are base metal. This has been true since not so many years ago that this coin listed for a few dollars.

 

Despite your repeated protests it is not likely to be true in the future. Demand may or may not increase but it will NECESSARILY increase relative to the demand for silver. So will the SA moderns.

 

I am aware of what you state. The point I was making is that I don't believe that this coin is anywhere near as scarce as you believe it to be, though you never gave an estimate.

 

The price is not that low, but I don't believe it is remotely high enough to bring coins "out of the woodwork". If you think this coin is "rare", it is almost certainly because coins that you think are rare I do not. I really don't see why a coin like this one wouldn't have at least 100 that qualify for a low MS grade or higher.

 

I'm not sure where you have been looking for this coin and how consistently. I suspect that if you were to buy even on occasion from any of the major dealers in Australia or any that exist in NZ, you wouldn't have trouble buying this coin in MS at all. It may not satisfy your criteria of quality, but then, most foreign collectors don't place as high of an emphasis on this as you or other US collectors do, certainly not where they will pay the exorbitant price spreads which US collectors consider normal.

 

After you wrote your post, I checked the archives of Noble Numismatics (Australia) which I believe is the largest auction firm in that market. They listed four or five as part of group lots of which at least a few were likely uncirculated based upon the auction description. They weren't "gems" or else they would have listed them singly but the fact that they mentioned the 1955 as "rare" but not the others indicates to me that this firm (who should know) does not think of this coin in the same context as you do.

 

The point I was making with my comparisons to those Mexican and Bolivian coins is that invariably, there are almost always more coins in "high quality" than most would think possible. The examples I gave aren't an aberration at all and almost certainly, there are still more available and in most instances, few duplicates. I happen to own two of the three 1864 Bolivia centavos and with this coin, there are unlikely to be zero addiional and could be as many as 10-12 in total.

 

Sometimes, there are exceptions that have no logical explanation but not often. For example, the generic answer to why SA Union are so unusually scarce is 1) lack of collectors during the Union period. 2) reduction in the silver content to 50% in 1951 and then to base metal in 1965 3) conversion to decimal coinage in 1961.

 

However, this still doesn't explain why there are so few of so many of these coins and some are very expensive by world coin standards plus TPG is preferred. The 1931 silver have low mintage but the 1925 florin and 1944 shilling have 50,000 each. There are TWO MS florin today and ZERO of the shilling. I presume that there are more somewhere, but it cannot be many. Some of these coins apparently exist in very low numbers even in average circulated grades, like these two.

 

On your point about the answer to your question of the silver versus the base metal, I have already agreed with you on the Jefferson nickel and concurred that the discrepancy between in the FDR dime and Washington quarter maybe isn't "natural". It was included in my "eight points of agreement" This one isn't any different.

 

On your last point, in SA, RSA are a lot more common than Union across the board. It would take a relatively large number of collectors to make any difference on the price level except for "grade rarities". I do not see that happening any time soon at all.

 

In NZ, yes, the base metal 1947-1952 shillings are under priced versus the silver 1937-1946, but its apparent in the price level that collectors don't dislike them. I expect that they will sell for more later.

[cladking]

In your NZ example, I cannot think of one single reason why you would expect to see these coins for sale very often and how you come to the conclusion that just because you do not, that this in and of itself says much about their scarcity.

 

I believe the home market price for this coin is NZ$ 400. This is substantial enough to bring coins out of the woodwork if there were any coins in the woodwork. If they were common and the price were indicative of substantial demand then you would see them trading extensively. This price is higher than for many of the older silver coins and these often trade in Unc. I believe the only conclusion one can make is that there is extremely low demand and an even lower supply.

 

Now ask yourself why a coin that is far scarcer than the silver version with the exact same design is selling for only twice as much. The only possible answer gets right back to the same reason they weren't saved; most people consider them "junk" whether they're gemmy or not. They are cheap and not in demand only because they are base metal. This has been true since not so many years ago that this coin listed for a few dollars.

 

Despite your repeated protests it is not likely to be true in the future. Demand may or may not increase but it will NECESSARILY increase relative to the demand for silver. So will the SA moderns.

 

I am aware of what you state. The point I was making is that I don't believe that this coin is anywhere near as scarce as you believe it to be, though you never gave an estimate.

 

The price is not that low, but I don't believe it is remotely high enough to bring coins "out of the woodwork". If you think this coin is "rare", it is almost certainly because coins that you think are rare I do not. I really don't see why a coin like this one wouldn't have at least 100 that qualify for a low MS grade or higher.

 

I'm not sure where you have been looking for this coin and how consistently. I suspect that if you were to buy even on occasion from any of the major dealers in Australia or any that exist in NZ, you wouldn't have trouble buying this coin in MS at all. It may not satisfy your criteria of quality, but then, most foreign collectors don't place as high of an emphasis on this as you or other US collectors do, certainly not where they will pay the exorbitant price spreads which US collectors consider normal.

 

After you wrote your post, I checked the archives of Noble Numismatics (Australia) which I believe is the largest auction firm in that market. They listed four or five as part of group lots of which at least a few were likely uncirculated based upon the auction description. They weren't "gems" or else they would have listed them singly but the fact that they mentioned the 1955 as "rare" but not the others indicates to me that this firm (who should know) does not think of this coin in the same context as you do.

 

The point I was making with my comparisons to those Mexican and Bolivian coins is that invariably, there are almost always more coins in "high quality" than most would think possible. The examples I gave aren't an aberration at all and almost certainly, there are still more available and in most instances, few duplicates. I happen to own two of the three 1864 Bolivia centavos and with this coin, there are unlikely to be zero addiional and could be as many as 10-12 in total.

 

Sometimes, there are exceptions that have no logical explanation but not often. For example, the generic answer to why SA Union are so unusually scarce is 1) lack of collectors during the Union period. 2) reduction in the silver content to 50% in 1951 and then to base metal in 1965 3) conversion to decimal coinage in 1961.

 

However, this still doesn't explain why there are so few of so many of these coins and some are very expensive by world coin standards plus TPG is preferred. The 1931 silver have low mintage but the 1925 florin and 1944 shilling have 50,000 each. There are TWO MS florin today and ZERO of the shilling. I presume that there are more somewhere, but it cannot be many. Some of these coins apparently exist in very low numbers even in average circulated grades, like these two.

 

On your point about the answer to your question of the silver versus the base metal, I have already agreed with you on the Jefferson nickel and concurred that the discrepancy between in the FDR dime and Washington quarter maybe isn't "natural". It was included in my "eight points of agreement" This one isn't any different.

 

On your last point, in SA, RSA are a lot more common than Union across the board. It would take a relatively large number of collectors to make any difference on the price level except for "grade rarities". I do not see that happening any time soon at all.

 

In NZ, yes, the base metal 1947-1952 shillings are under priced versus the silver 1937-1946, but its apparent in the price level that collectors don't dislike them. I expect that they will sell for more later.

 

I probably should have been much more methodical in my search for these coins. They did appear on lists at times and I rarely checked the lists and more rarely ordered from them. I figurde that any coin that existed on the lists would eventually show up in collections and dealer stock anyway and would be even cheaper when they did. I mistakingly believed that by searching poundage and other available sources the best estimate of populations could be made. Perhaps the greatest fear was that perusing lists would confound the estimates of populations I had already made since the lists would tend to be very very non-random. I should have put more effort into seeing collections of moderns that hit the market.

 

I tend to estimate populations of everything much higher than other people. I believe there are some 100,000 '16-D dimes for instance whjile most others believe there are no more than 25,000. I believe the discrepancy can be accounted for by many unknown and unseen collections formed in the 30's to '50's and held by heirs.

 

This being said I'd guess the surviving number of '50 coins to be well into the hundreds, but the older silver issues are over 1000. Many of the later coins simply are owned by individuals who aren't aware they even own them or that they have increased substantially in price. As such these coins aren't available for sale. They exist in privately assembled mint sets picked up on vacation or rolls of misc foreign coins.

 

It will be 30 or 40 years before the bulk of these coins are found and sold. The market should absorb them easily.

 

Where the silver coins tend to be common in AU and high circulated grade because some collectors were late to the series and saved them from circulation or because people simply hoarded silver, the availability of AU cu/ ni will generally be very highly restricted. This means collectors will have to either settle for low grades or go all the way up to Unc. The availability of moderns will be akin to Barber half dollars as a rule; most coins are unc or heavily worn.

 

I like moderns from many perspectives. Initially it was largely just the ability to collect without competition but over the years the attributes of these coins become easier to see. There's nothing inherently wrong with coins made of cu/ ni so long as they aren't extremely high face value and few are. They can be quite beautiful even when they aren't extremely well made and nice specimens provide the thrill of the hunt. Their financial and historical importance become more apparent with each passing year. Coins may not be instrumental to economics any longer but they still serve a vital function and they still say a great deal about the cultures that produce them.

[World Colonial]

I probably should have been much more methodical in my search for these coins. They did appear on lists at times and I rarely checked the lists and more rarely ordered from them. I figurde that any coin that existed on the lists would eventually show up in collections and dealer stock anyway and would be even cheaper when they did. I mistakingly believed that by searching poundage and other available sources the best estimate of populations could be made. Perhaps the greatest fear was that perusing lists would confound the estimates of populations I had already made since the lists would tend to be very very non-random. I should have put more effort into seeing collections of moderns that hit the market.

 

I tend to estimate populations of everything much higher than other people. I believe there are some 100,000 '16-D dimes for instance whjile most others believe there are no more than 25,000. I believe the discrepancy can be accounted for by many unknown and unseen collections formed in the 30's to '50's and held by heirs.

 

This being said I'd guess the surviving number of '50 coins to be well into the hundreds, but the older silver issues are over 1000. Many of the later coins simply are owned by individuals who aren't aware they even own them or that they have increased substantially in price. As such these coins aren't available for sale. They exist in privately assembled mint sets picked up on vacation or rolls of misc foreign coins.

 

It will be 30 or 40 years before the bulk of these coins are found and sold. The market should absorb them easily.

 

Where the silver coins tend to be common in AU and high circulated grade because some collectors were late to the series and saved them from circulation or because people simply hoarded silver, the availability of AU cu/ ni will generally be very highly restricted. This means collectors will have to either settle for low grades or go all the way up to Unc. The availability of moderns will be akin to Barber half dollars as a rule; most coins are unc or heavily worn.

 

Are your estimates of the 50's coins in UNC or something else?

 

If there as many as 500 1950 UNC NZ shillings, I don't really think that is really scarce. Its probably more than the number of collectors who are willing to pay today's price and though I think the number will increase somewhat, I am dubious it will increase substantially. And in making this comment, I think NZ has better or much better prospects than most other countries..

 

I am also aware that the quality of many UNC may not be that good for a variety of reasons and yes, I do think it matters though much less than in the US. In the Noble auctions, the price multiple seems to be about four between a generic UNC and what they term "full mint bloom" which I equate to "gem" or "FDC". This was the price variance of the 1950 6P.

 

In South Africa, even though KGVI was issued in 80% and then 50% silver and QEII in 50%, the quality of the strikes is generally not that good. Usually MS-63 is the minimum I like for both. QEII is notorious for terrible strikes. Not sure whether this is true elsewhere or not.

[cladking]

I was hoping to have a critique of the new Krause 1901-2000 catalog by now but Amazon dropped the ball and it may be a week or two yet. I've been consoling myself but checking prices on eBay relative to Krause.

 

For the main part it seems Krause actually reflects some of these prices reasonably well but there are a few exceptions and caveats to this. Major country's moderns seem a little more available but more esoteric coins are a little more likely to go for more. Most importantly though is that higher prices have not brought some moderns onto the market. This implies that there is more demand than I had been imagining that is driving up prices on the available coins. There are hundreds of BU modern Russia listed which is far more than I'd have expected.

 

There's also some apparent speculation in some of these coins, or it might be exuberance. Higher prices have not made better Indian coins available but there are poor specimens trading at very high prices. Coins that listed at a dime a few years ago that now list for $6 in Unc are bringing $12 for low grade culls. It is probable that Indian moderns are quite scarce in low grade compared to other moderns but these were made in huge numbers and most probably survive in very substantial numbers. Even a 1% survival rate would make them very common. I would advise against paying substantial premiums for any poor quality Indian coinage. Even nice Unc material should be treated cautiously at these new higher prices. There are a few coins on eBay that don't look overpriced but the vast majority are either uncollectible and/ or overpriced.

 

When I finally get it I'm hoping the new Krause will counter WorldColonial's argument better than anything I could come up with.

[Star City Homer]

Well, the catalog is on Amazon. I made the buy directly from Krause/F+W--the 5 books/$99/free shipping deal was too good to pass up.

 

I haven't done anything remotely resembling an exhaustive review of it. It certainly is better than my old one purchased in the early 2000s. However, Japan is all jacked up. Going by a review from the 2014 at least I can say Panama, China/Taiwan and Spain are back. Just not much from Japan from about 1950-1989.

 

Yes, that is my review on the book. I am not pleased. It's a book to buy, but I am not pleased, which has nothing to do with pricing/values listed and everything to do with editing and proofing.

 

2015 1901-2000