Two Interesting Perspectives on the Challenges facing the Hobby

[cladking]

58 minutes ago, Conder101 said:

 

 

So eventually prices will decline to the point where they DO have the capital and more collectors will start buying the older coins.

I fear that to some extent this is inevitable.  But I'm not so certain that it has to be a bloodbath for current collectors or affect all areas of every market.  As mentioned previously there are some coins that are soaring in price and some of these profits will be plowed right back into other coins.  Each year that goes by the newbies not only will have broader numismatic interests but also more capital.  Many of these people are already coming to the forefront in various occupations.  A twelve year old who started collecting states coins in 1999 is now 30 and running a company or a highly sought professional or at least beginning to achieve financial stability. 

The boomers' collections have already started hitting the market and things aren't in shambles yet. 

The beach doesn't have time to dry when the tide goes out. 

I'll just predict that as always the real collectors will do reasonably well.  Most won't realize the huge paper profits they once had but they'll  get back their capital and then some.  Investors won't do as well and those who got in late will do poorly.  New collectors will want scarcity and quality and they'll find much more of it in collections than in investment portfolios. 

[World Colonial]

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 10:36 AM, cladking said:

I phrased that poorly. 

What I meant to convey was that among the more advanced collectors most of us are older.  There were many millions of young new collectors when I was a boy just as there are now.  Of course newbies don't attend coin shows just like as has always been the case.  My point was chiefly that the young people might be less prepared to own "all" the coins than they were in the '50's and '60's since the aggregate value of all coins is many multiples of the aggregate value of the coins in those days. Inflation has increased ten fold but the value of all coins has increased fifty fold.  Let's just say it's been a good 70 years! The number of boomers who collect today is pretty high since we are collecting later in life and we are such an enormous demographic.  But in few areas is this demographic more profound than in coin collecting whether seen in terms of numbers or in terms of the total value of the coins we own compared to the total value of coins owned by other age groups in this country. 

Like everything numismatics requires a lifetime to acquire significant expertise.  Older people will always have some advantages and prominence over younger people in most walks of life.  They'll always have had more time to have acquired, knowledge, wisdom, wealth, and coins.  They might always be more visible in coin collecting though there was a time when this current crop of oldsters were quite visible as beginners because there were so many of us. 

 

The fact is, most people, regardless of age and financial affluence, would rather spend their time and money doing something else.  And today, there are far more options available than in the past.  The proportion and number of non-collectors who aspire to pay any premium for any coin is inconsequential, just as it was when you started collecting.  The overwhelming reason for the much higher price level of today and since the 1970's is not "collecting" but financial buying.

Remember the threads on the PCGS forum by contributor Owen Seymour?  You should because you commented in at least one.  He seems to have a some idea of the interest by the younger demographic group, based upon his stated claims of his customer base.  Why don't you ask him if he sees the same problem you do?  I don't believe he does.

I don't believe the hobby is at risk, only the currently and exorbitantly inflated US price level which is what this thread and the two articles in the OP are really talking about. A much lower price level will result in a much larger number of financial buyers being replaced by fewer hobbyists, but this hardly means the hobby isn’t viable.  It just means it won’t be as profitable for those who work in it and those who own the (most) overpriced coins will lose money.

For actual collecting, I see this as a positive because it will enable a much larger number much greater options.  How can that be negative? 

[Six Mile Rick]

You guys are really looking too hard for something that will explode in the future. The new collectors of tomorrow are video game players. Raised in coins and collections but strapped with college bills and new house endeavors and such. It is so hard for them to figure out which direction to go that coin collecting is the last thing on their mind.

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, Six Mile Rick said:

You guys are really looking too hard for something that will explode in the future. The new collectors of tomorrow are video game players. Raised in coins and collections but strapped with college bills and new house endeavors and such. It is so hard for them to figure out which direction to go that coin collecting is the last thing on their mind.

Yes, I have made a similar point elsewhere in other threads.  The typical American is flat broke.   My "pessimism" here is independent of aggregate economic conditions.  Combine my opinion here with my prior economic comments and you can draw your own conclusions on the implications for the price level.

[numisport]

As a new collector look how awful your modern collectable coins look. Lobbyists control it all. Teddy Roosevelt roll over in your grave cause you wont like what you see. Most coins have such low relief that they look like crude fakes. And small dollar coins starting with Susan B....... Of course Gasparro knows his work was hijacked right ? You can buy a nice frosty near gem proof Walker for around that 500 dollar budget that was thrown out there. Please don't take this the wrong way; I don't wish to turn away new blood but rather would like to attract them to legitimate numismatic material in lieu of politically motivated charms.

[Conder101]

Ugly modern coins are often the result of extremely low relief.  Extremely low relief is the result of excessive speed of production.  Excessive speed of production is needed because a great deal of coins go on one way trips from the mint to the change jars.  Coins go on one way trips to the change jars because their purchasing power is so low it doesn't make them worthwhile to dig them out and carry.  Until the coins again have high purchasing power they will stay ugly.  There are two ways to restore the purchasing power.  Either through a revaluation (100 to 1 works nicely, gives the "new cent" the purchasing power of the old dollar, the new nickel is the same as the old five dollar etc) or through elimination of the lowest denominations and issuing larger denomination coins (there equivalent paper denominations would have to be discontinued.  Say make the smallest denomination the quarter and issue five and ten dollar coins.  Few coins would be needed, production could slow and relief could be increased.  With increased relief we have a chance for attarctive coins again.

[World Colonial]

20 hours ago, numisport said:

As a new collector look how awful your modern collectable coins look. Lobbyists control it all. Teddy Roosevelt roll over in your grave cause you wont like what you see. Most coins have such low relief that they look like crude fakes. And small dollar coins starting with Susan B....... Of course Gasparro knows his work was hijacked right ? You can buy a nice frosty near gem proof Walker for around that 500 dollar budget that was thrown out there. Please don't take this the wrong way; I don't wish to turn away new blood but rather would like to attract them to legitimate numismatic material in lieu of politically motivated charms.

I don't believe hardly any US modern coinage is attractive and I agree this opinion is shared by most (prospective) collectors.  The Sac dollar I think is a nice looking coin and I like the Ike dollar and Kennedy half somewhat as well, but still don't think either are competitive artistically with numerous foreign designs.

However,  these coins aren't alternatives to a proof WLH for most collectors since only a low minority are in the market for $500 coins.  When I used $500 as a budget cut-off, I was referring to an annual budget because that's my assumption of the reality for a noticeable proportion of the collector base, maybe most.  If you have ever read the posts by PCGS contributor Cougar1978, I consider his sentiments reflective of the reality for the typical collector, not those here and on PCGS.  He has used a per coin cut-off of $300 as his target market and I'd say it's probably representative for about 80% of collectors, at minimum.  In reading his posts, they are mostly ignored because he brings up observations which aren't relevant to the collecting experience of most participants or are contrary to what they want to hear and believe.

The other consideration with a proof WLH is that it's one of the few that I see as numismatically competitive at this price point.  This is another consideration nobody on either forum wants to hear either.  For the prospective collector of US coinage, the overwhelming percentage of options fall into three categories:

One:  At best, dead money which applies to most moderns, circulated classics, classic commemoratives and even a noticeable proportion of higher grade classics.

Two: As you stated, moderns with limited to no numismatic appeal to the overwhelming percentage of (prospective) collectors.

Three: Many currently preferred coins with limited distinction and merits (completely) disproportionate to their prices.

If this is questioned,, look at the popularity of NCLT, both US and world.  Especially silver NCLT such as the ASE.  Looking at the number of issues, mintages and population report data, it's evident to me anyway that many collectors (not just financial buyers) have substituted NCLT for traditional coinage which is why many US circulating issues and proofs are stagnant or losing value.  For the low budget collector in particular, the ASE is one of the few options they presumably like, can afford and don't see as an automatic  money loser.

Speaking for myself, I have researched the prices of most US series and can't find much that is remotely numismatically competitive above a relatively low price point, affordable and that I wouldn't mind losing money with if it loses a noticeable proportion of my outlay.  I am sure if I try hard enough, I can come up with a few more but offhand, I can only think of proof WLH, proof Mercury dimes, mid MS Barber quarters, common mid MS IHC, circulated colonials and some of the cheaper Capped Bust coinage.

[cladking]

Quote

Two: As you stated, moderns with limited to no numismatic appeal to the overwhelming percentage of (prospective) collectors.

No.  They have no appeal to YOU and most older collectors and this is one of the primary reasons that they stay away from these message boards in droves.  How would you like to be told that your coins are uncollectable?  A case could certainly be made that SA coins are testaments to oppression. Maybe they could be banned right along with the Krugerrand. 

[numisport]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 6:09 PM, World Colonial said:

Speaking for myself, I have researched the prices of most US series and can't find much that is remotely numismatically competitive above a relatively low price point, affordable and that I wouldn't mind losing money with if it loses a noticeable proportion of my outlay.  I am sure if I try hard enough, I can come up with a few more but offhand, I can only think of proof WLH, proof Mercury dimes, mid MS Barber quarters, common mid MS IHC, circulated colonials and some of the cheaper Capped Bust coinage

I certainly agree my friend and I fully expect to lose a little money in my pursuit of those '36 to '42 proof coins. I started this set 6 or 7 years ago and quickly targeted Pf 66 to Pf 67 coins mainly because many Pf 68 coins have shallow mirrors or unattractive toning and are overpriced without that eye appeal that is so important.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

On 8/23/2017 at 11:36 PM, cladking said:

No.  They have no appeal to YOU and most older collectors and this is one of the primary reasons that they stay away from these message boards in droves.  How would you like to be told that your coins are uncollectable?  A case could certainly be made that SA coins are testaments to oppression. Maybe they could be banned right along with the Krugerrand. 

I have followed you for many years, due to your dedication to the moderns, which is more than a passing interest of mine also. I concur with your statements.

[cladking]

12 hours ago, numisport said:

I certainly agree my friend and I fully expect to lose a little money in my pursuit of those '36 to '42 proof coins. I started this set 6 or 7 years ago and quickly targeted Pf 66 to Pf 67 coins mainly because many Pf 68 coins have shallow mirrors or unattractive toning and are overpriced without that eye appeal that is so important.

Anyone collecting coins rather than investing in them stands an excellent chance to actually profit when they sell the collection.  It's "investors" who almost invariably get burned. 

I'm always amazed to hear people say things like "Washington on the quarter has spaghetti hair ('1996) so all coins made after 1965 are uncollectable" or  "Quarters have little more value than chuck-e-cheese tokens so all coins made since 1916 are garbage" or "Moderns are all made in huge numbers so they are automatically all trash".  Of course the list goes on and on and on and then people wonder why so few newbies come around.  The reason there are so few who come round is those not chased out of the hobby by this attitude congregate elsewhere. 

[Afterword]

I frequent this message board because many of the topics are of interest to me. They address my interest in collecting. I collect classic coinage. 

Now, if I collected modern coinage, I would not frequent this message board. I would seek out a message board more aligned to my interest. 

 

[World Colonial]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 11:36 PM, cladking said:

No.  They have no appeal to YOU and most older collectors and this is one of the primary reasons that they stay away from these message boards in droves.  How would you like to be told that your coins are uncollectable?  A case could certainly be made that SA coins are testaments to oppression. Maybe they could be banned right along with the Krugerrand. 

I wasn't specific in my post and I didn't intend to be.  I Intended to summarize as I cannot address every exception every single time,   And by generic, I am referring to the preferences  of most collectors and how they view US moderns in the aggregate, not every collector and every single coin.

Below is my evidence from the Heritage archives.  How do I arrive at my conclusion?  By evaluating how collectors spend their money.  Unlike most world and ancient coins, 99%+ of US collectors are certainly aware of every US modern as a generic date/MM and there aren’t any supply constraints outside of specialization, which is mostly irrelevant to this discussion anyway. This is how I conclude that more sales and higher prices versus less sales and lower prices equals a preference.   

The logical self-evident conclusions from this data are:

Moderns are partially competitive below $100.  I didn’t include this data since I am not attempting to prove otherwise but can do so. 

Moderns are not competitive for prices above $100, except for a very low proportion.   To state the completely obvious, above $100, no modern series is even competitive versus its predecessor with the same portrait,1964 and prior except for the cent which is prior to 1958.  So why would I conclude otherwise for other coins at equivalent prices either except also due to quality differences?

Outside of errors collectively and “grade rarities”, the exceptions include maybe 20-40 coins from approximately 1000 circulation strikes and proofs as a generic date/MM.  This includes “No S” proofs, ’71 MS-66 and the ’72 Type 2 and Type 3 Ike dollars in higher grades, ‘72DDO cent and Kennedy halves such as the ’70-D in MS-66 and 1998-S SP.  So yes, I agree these coins are competitve versus others at equivalent price points above $100 to US buyers but not otherwise.

 

The volume ratio for the Washington quarter is 16-1 and 33-1 between silver and clad.  Even for the Jefferson nickel which has exactly the same metal composition, between four and five to one.  Similar result for the Lincoln cent and FDR dime.  Measured by value, the discrepancy is at least as large, If not much larger.

 

As for your age claim, where is your evidence to support it?.  I have already admitted to you that there is less bias now versus the past but this doesn't indicate that this group views these coins as competitive either, except as I show here.  Or perhaps you expect me to believe your claims over the Heritage data?  I already explained to you that to the extent this demographic buys these coins in greater proportion, it is almost certainly due to budget constraints, not an actual preference.

 

                                                            $100-$1,000    $1,001-$10,000

Total US                                              1,000,847        452,700

Total world                                          168,396           61,021

Total ancient                                       49,125             28,694

Lincoln Cent, post 1958 (est)             7,500               1,500              

Jefferson Nickel                                  9,478               1,765

Jefferson Nickel, post 1964 (est)        2,000               288

FDR dime                                            4,097               613

FDR dime, clad (est)                           1,500               200

Washington quarter                            24,570             4,675

Washington quarter, clad (est)           1,500               143

State quarters                                     1,410               113

Kennedy half                                       3,510               562

Ike dollar                                             1,468               317

SBA dollar                                           717                  62

Presidential dollars                             351                  17

Modern errors (est)                             5,000               1,000

Total US moderns (est)                      25,428             4,309

 

[World Colonial]

On ‎8‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 9:27 PM, numisport said:

I certainly agree my friend and I fully expect to lose a little money in my pursuit of those '36 to '42 proof coins. I started this set 6 or 7 years ago and quickly targeted Pf 66 to Pf 67 coins mainly because many Pf 68 coins have shallow mirrors or unattractive toning and are overpriced without that eye appeal that is so important.

Let me make one thing clear,  I am not trying to intentionally single out moderns or any particular coin.  My comments come across as harsh sometimes but it is just my writing style.

To demonstrate this point, I will comment on the highest priced coins which can be viewed as among the least competitive, not just versus other coins but also other collectible fields since financial buyers almost certainly at least on occasion consider other collectibles and works of art.

On occasion, I have read comments indicating that coins are "under appreciated" or "cheap" versus art or other objects.  I find no reason to believe that non-collectors who buy the most prominent artworks would ever consider buying any coin as an alternative, except as financial buyers.  The most nonsensical example I ever encountered was a prior Coin Week article where the author compared "Scream" to the Brasher doubloon.

As an example, I will use Russian Faberge Imperial Easter eggs.  There are less than 50 available with a few unaccounted for and every one unique.  And by unique, I am not refer to the artificial concepts of "scarcity" used by collectors generally, never mind US collectors. 

No, I am also referring to date scarcity because the typical non-collector couldn't care less that the 1804 dollar or some other prominent coin is rare as a date for the obvious reason that there are usually thousands to millions of coins of the same type and denomination that look exactly the same.  More importantly, either no coin or hardly any coin is a status symbol except to collectors either.

Look at the most expensive coin, primarily US.  The worst to me are the 1861 Pacquet double eagle, 1920-S MS-67 eagle and 1907 PR-67 satin proof eagle.  Each is presumably still worth at least $1.5MM to $2MM.  Assuming anyone here had the money and could even buy a Faberge, the cheapest would likely be worth only somewhat more than these three coins combined.  Other coins such as the 1794 SP-66 dollar, J-1776 and J-117 (1849 double eagle) possibly are worth more than some Faberge.

Am I or the prospective big budget collector supposed to believe that these or any other coins are comparable to an object like that?  Seriously, why would anyone believe that?

The purpose of this post and all others I have written with a similar theme is not to denigrate collecting or what anyone likes, but to provide a reality check.  The coins we collect aren't compelling to most other collectors, they don't have aspirations to collect them either and non-collectors don't aspire to buy our collections (or any coin) so that we can make a profit, which is exactly what this topic is about.

 

[World Colonial]

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 8:46 AM, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I have followed you for many years, due to your dedication to the moderns, which is more than a passing interest of mine also. I concur with your statements.

You can read my prior post.  When I'm make these statements, I never claimed it applied to every collector or how US collectors in the aggregate perceive every coin. modern or otherwise.  When I make these statements, sometimes I am not clear but I don't just make things up.  I am able to support these claims which is exactly what I just did in my follow-up.

[World Colonial]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 11:36 PM, cladking said:

is another consideration entirely like to be told that your coins are uncollectable?  A case could certainly be made that SA coins are testaments to oppression. Maybe they could be banned right along with the Krugerrand. 

I couldn't care less what other people think about the coins I collect, whether here or elsewhere.  This has been true now and it has been true since I started collecting. 

If I had ever been interested in collecting moderns (US or otherwise), no one's opinion would have "discouraged" me or "chased me away" either.  Aside from the financial aspects, I also don't believe that hardly anyone cares what others think about their collecting preferences either.  I agree financially it makes a difference but then, this has been the entire point in my posts that this has little if anything with collecting anyway.  And this certainly includes the completely trivial numismatic minutia which you consider so important such as your quality criteria.

In our prior discussions, your prior complaint is not actually on collecting but on the difference in the price level.  Moderns are popular, though you have previously claimed they are not when it suits your purposes.  There are hundreds of thousands to millions collecting these coins.  That these collectors either can't or won't pay more is another consideration entirely.  I have stated this numerous times yet apparently, nothing other than collectors acknowledging moderns as equals by paying the prices you think these coins should be worth will be good enough for you.  I have explained to you why I disagree with your opinion and you don't like it.  I have never either stated or implied that anyone should not collect what they like, not now and not ever. 

As for your comment on South African coins, I have no idea what it has to do with this subject.  If these coins were banned as KR were until 1994, it wouldn't make any difference to me either.  Apparently, since you only pay attention to my comments looking for reasons to be offended when I say something about moderns you don't like, you missed my repeated statements that I am almost exclusively buying pillars anyway.

[Afterword]

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 8:41 AM, cladking said:

I'm always amazed to hear people say things like "Washington on the quarter has spaghetti hair ('1996) so all coins made after 1965 are uncollectable" or  "Quarters have little more value than chuck-e-cheese tokens so all coins made since 1916 are garbage" or "Moderns are all made in huge numbers so they are automatically all trash".  Of course the list goes on and on and on and then people wonder why so few newbies come around.  The reason there are so few who come round is those not chased out of the hobby by this attitude congregate elsewhere. 

 

Yes, when they have depleted their intellectual resources, some who frequent this message board will resort to juvenile taunts and belittlements in an attempt to quiet or run-off those who do not agree with their views or who are perceived to be attacking someone they like or admire. If you try to point this out to them, they will only attempt to redirect the blame toward you by claiming that you are too thin-skinned.

You can either ignore them or let them run you off. Sadly, too many choose the latter.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

32 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

You can read my prior post.  When I'm make these statements, I never claimed it applied to every collector or how US collectors in the aggregate perceive every coin. modern or otherwise.  When I make these statements, sometimes I am not clear but I don't just make things up.  I am able to support these claims which is exactly what I just did in my follow-up.

I am not certain what you interpret from my post to Mr.Cladking, but it certainly was not labeling you as fibbing or overstating, or that you can't back something up, or that your thoughts apply to every collector.

I concur with the thoughts of Mr. cladking. It does not mean I don't agree with any of your thoughts. It is simply that cladking has the pulse of moderns and moderns collectors and has for many years. I concur with cladking that the younger modern collector that comes to the boards appears to experience  an atmosphere that is less than supportive, and is inundated with economic  "why bother" comments, more often than not. I concur that there are many interesting aspects of moderns that are not known in general, and not discussed very often. I concur that there are many more moderns collectors than is generally believed.

I do not really concern myself with the investment/economic aspect of my pursuits, nor do I base my interests and purchases because of some perceived investment potential. I simply enjoy collecting. There is room for all.

[World Colonial]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I am not certain what you interpret from my post to Mr.Cladking, but it certainly was not labeling you as fibbing or overstating, or that you can't back something up, or that your thoughts apply to every collector.

I concur with the thoughts of Mr. cladking. It does not mean I don't agree with any of your thoughts. It is simply that cladking has the pulse of moderns and moderns collectors and has for many years. I concur with cladking that the younger modern collector that comes to the boards appears to experience  an atmosphere that is less than supportive, and is inundated with economic  "why bother" comments, more often than not. I concur that there are many interesting aspects of moderns that are not known in general, and not discussed very often. I concur that there are many more moderns collectors than is generally believed.

I do not really concern myself with the investment/economic aspect of my pursuits, nor do I base my interests and purchases because of some perceived investment potential. I simply enjoy collecting. There is room for all.

I agree that there are many modern collectors and have stated so many times.  I have also never questioned cladking's knowledge in this area.  I also like reading the threads on moderns both here and on PCGS, even if I disagree with the opinions and this includes cladking's posts.

[LINCOLNMAN]

This may have been pointed out before, but WC's astute comment on Faberge eggs reminded me of an important distinction between numismatic objects generally and other art objects and collectibles. My wife and I also collect art glass. Everyone visiting our home appreciates these objects. Even if I take the time to remove some of my cooler coins or medals from my safe to show a member of the family or a guest, the best I get is some polite interest. If I had a game used Babe Ruth bat, I'm certain I would get some very ego-boosting oos and ahs from all our male guests. Take a look at the number of people visiting the numismatic sections of major museums, if they have one, compared to other sections of the museum. Numismatics also has the pesky attribute that, to be fully appreciated, requires some study and at lease a passing knowledge of history. I could go on and on. The point is that coins or other numismatic objects cannot possibly compete with or be compared to most other art objects or collectibles and any comparisons are only valid from 30,000 feet; e.g. perhaps when measuring disposable income allocated to luxury items over time. Numismatics, or consistent, serious numismatics has a very narrow following and it will always be so simply because of the nature of these objects. 

 

[cladking]

3 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

In our prior discussions, your prior complaint is not actually on collecting but on the difference in the price level.  Moderns are popular, though you have previously claimed they are not when it suits your purposes.  There are hundreds of thousands to millions collecting these coins.  That these collectors either can't or won't pay more is another consideration entirely.  I have stated this numerous times yet apparently, nothing other than collectors acknowledging moderns as equals by paying the prices you think these coins should be worth will be good enough for you.  I have explained to you why I disagree with your opinion and you don't like it.  I have never either stated or implied that anyone should not collect what they like, not now and not ever. 

As for your comment on South African coins, I have no idea what it has to do with this subject.  If these coins were banned as KR were until 1994, it wouldn't make any difference to me either.  Apparently, since you only pay attention to my comments looking for reasons to be offended when I say something about moderns you don't like, you missed my repeated statements that I am almost exclusively buying pillars anyway.

I don't care one whit what moderns sell for.  I care about coins and the future of the hobby. 

I'm past the point in life that I care a lot about how much return I'll get on the coins in my safety deposit boxes and am merely trying to liquidate them in a logical order.  I'm still doing  little collecting. 

When I started I think I would have been dissuaded by a steady drumbeat of "buffalo nickels aren't collectable".  I'd have either tuned out or stopped collecting and collected Lincolns like everyone else .  Afterall Lincolns went all the way back in 1909 and buffalos were newer. 

Of course more people collect old coins and prices are higher.  All else being equal if the desirability and rarity of two coins is the same then the older coin will  always be more valuable.  The problem is the attitude that no modern coins are desirable.  The problem is older collectors still consider moderns to be uncollectible so those who don't give up tune out instead. 

I'm not suggesting that any specific site should suddenly be overrun with questions about moderns, just that the hobby needs to be more inclusive.  In the long run we'll be gone in any case but the newbies will still be around and still affected by their experiences.  In the long run the hobby will be more diverse, better off, and much larger if we welcome more of the younger and newer crowds.  People tend to do what otyhers around them are doing and they won't come if many aren't welcome.  

I started promoting moderns back in '86.  At that time it was for profit but now it's largely just inertia.  Old habits die hard.  One's perspective and interests change over time. 

[numisport]

I just grabbed my 2016 mint set and wow what nice coins. Half dollars better than MS 65 maybe MS 67. I'm just waiting for the series to end to maybe build a raw set including proofs. Boy that's a lot of volumes but hey, just another perspective from a serious collector of early moderns proofs.

[World Colonial]

On ‎8‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 1:47 PM, cladking said:

I don't care one whit what moderns sell for.  I care about coins and the future of the hobby. 

I'm past the point in life that I care a lot about how much return I'll get on the coins in my safety deposit boxes and am merely trying to liquidate them in a logical order.  I'm still doing  little collecting. 

When I started I think I would have been dissuaded by a steady drumbeat of "buffalo nickels aren't collectable".  I'd have either tuned out or stopped collecting and collected Lincolns like everyone else .  Afterall Lincolns went all the way back in 1909 and buffalos were newer. 

Of course more people collect old coins and prices are higher.  All else being equal if the desirability and rarity of two coins is the same then the older coin will  always be more valuable.  The problem is the attitude that no modern coins are desirable.  The problem is older collectors still consider moderns to be uncollectible so those who don't give up tune out instead. 

I'm not suggesting that any specific site should suddenly be overrun with questions about moderns, just that the hobby needs to be more inclusive.  In the long run we'll be gone in any case but the newbies will still be around and still affected by their experiences.  In the long run the hobby will be more diverse, better off, and much larger if we welcome more of the younger and newer crowds.  People tend to do what otyhers around them are doing and they won't come if many aren't welcome.  

I started promoting moderns back in '86.  At that time it was for profit but now it's largely just inertia.  Old habits die hard.  One's perspective and interests change over time. 

The reason you received my prior reply is because you disputed my claim which is an accurate one.  I have never said moderns aren't collectible, that they are "junk" as you have claimed or implied in the past and that no one should collect them. 

If you don't care how much moderns sell for, it sure isn't confirmed by your posting history.  You are the biggest complainer of anyone I have ever exchanged posts with or whose posts I have read on any coin forum. 

As you know, desirability is a relative term.  I consider some moderns desirable, but not remotely to the extent you claim.  I have never encountered any collector who remotely exaggerates the merits of the coins they like as much as you do.

In the aggregate, US collectors have really low standards of significance.  I call it marketing which is fine but when it comes to the subject of the OP - the future of the "hobby" - it is disproportionately nonsensical.  There is no reason to believe that the collecting aspects discussed most often on this forum or PCGS create any distinction or will create any interest for the prospective collector, except for the financial aspect.  Yet apparently, this is exactly what most of the collectors of the more expensive and highest grade coins seem to believe.  What I describe here, it equally applies to moderns and your posts.

Interest by US collectors is much better than my experience with South African collectors but too much of the emphasis is still on the TPG grade, CAC, exaggeration of trivial differences in actual quality and specialization represented by minor differences.  None of this is of any interest to most prospective collectors, except as it relates to the price.  To paraphrase what I have told SA collectors, if existing collectors show this type of interest in actual collecting, what reason is there to expect any from anyone else?

Yes, I know the hobby is also a business but for long term success, I don't believe that exaggerating the merits in an attempt to inflate the price (the actual though unstated objective) is a winning strategy, whether for coins or anything else. 

The problem for the hobby is that I don't believe it is really very competitive for the time and budget of the non-collector, regardless of what the hobby's financial promotors claim or want to believe.  For US coinage in particular, there is a real affordability problem.  If anyone read Charles Morgan's article linked in the OP, he admits it for that Barber quarter but apparently doesn't see it at a much lower price point, even though this is the reality for most prospective collectors.  I have mentioned it here but don't see any indication that hardly anyone believes it either.

What I just described for the hobby with non-collectors, it is equally a challenge with moderns, for both collectors and non-collectors.  Your apparent approach is to also exaggerate the merits, just like US collectors generally.  It isn't going to make anyone like these coins any more than they do now.

As for being inclusive, I'm not sure what you mean.  There appears to be decent proportional representation in the topics for moderns, if not here then on PCGS. 

[cladking]

11 hours ago, World Colonial said:

...

What I just described for the hobby with non-collectors, it is equally a challenge with moderns, for both collectors and non-collectors.  Your apparent approach is to also exaggerate the merits, just like US collectors generally.  It isn't going to make anyone like these coins any more than they do now.

As for being inclusive, I'm not sure what you mean.  There appears to be decent proportional representation in the topics for moderns, if not here then on PCGS. 

Perhaps what you're describing is the tendency of US collectors to collect only US coins.  I'm not sure this is any more true here than elsewhere.  Obviously there are also flaws with the credo many US collectors espouse, "Buy the finest", and these flaws run the gamut from the finest are often little better than the also ran and the services don't always properly identify the finest. 

But all these things, things other people do and believe are far beyond my control.  All I can do is point out where I believe our behavior is affecting others and ourselves negatively.  You and I actually have quite a few points where we are in close agreement.  I was paying "exorbitant" premiums for the best coins back in the mid-'70's but when these premiums began exceeding 50% and there was still doubt that I was even getting the finest coins I was simply driven into areas of the market that had no competition; foreign and modern. 

Nobody has to collect anything and there are still boundless opportunities in all these markets that have been left mostly untapped.  This is actually a good time for young collectors to get in the markets but one needs to be cautious and must stay out of any popular coins, and yes, this would include many modern pop tops.  Opportunities are simply boundless throughout numismatics and exonumismatics for newer collectors of modest means and more of these opportunities are in moderns and 18th century coins than most other areas.  There are still ancients that go begging!

 

[Afterword]

12 hours ago, World Colonial said:

For US coinage in particular, there is a real affordability problem. 

 

People collect within their financial means. Coins have a price range broad enough to accommodate any budget.  I see affordability as a limiting factor, but not a deterrent.

I doubt there are many potential golfers that never tee off a ball because they cannot afford the best set of golf clubs.  

[cladking]

16 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 For US coinage in particular, there is a real affordability problem.

I strongly disagree with this assessment.  Complete sets start at little more than $1 for Lincoln cents and even if you buy folders clad quarters can be completed for only about $100. 

In today's money a Lincoln set started at about $10 in 1957 and several of the coins were unobtainable. 

Saying US coins are unaffordable is just another way of saying moderns don't count and are uncollectable. 

[World Colonial]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 1:31 PM, cladking said:

I strongly disagree with this assessment.  Complete sets start at little more than $1 for Lincoln cents and even if you buy folders clad quarters can be completed for only about $100. 

In today's money a Lincoln set started at about $10 in 1957 and several of the coins were unobtainable. 

Saying US coins are unaffordable is just another way of saying moderns don't count and are uncollectable. 

Why do you assume I am referring primarily much less exclusively to moderns when I am not?

To address Afterword's comment to which you responded, yes collectors collect within their budget, but to a point only.  They only buy what they can afford IF it is also something they like.  Only a financial buyer will buy coins they don't like anyway and it certainly won't be low budget coins.

One of the points I have been making in this entire thread is that US collector affinity is likely not as strong as is apparent.  Sure, collectors presumably like what they collect, they just like it a lot less when they are losing money.  My prediction is that most collectors are going to be losing more money and will like what they collect now less in the future.

One of the strong suits of US numismatics is the extensive variety in the broader US series, in contrast to most countries such as for example, South Africa.  Since I have not performed a count, there are probably in the vicinity of three times as many coins (date, denomination, proofs, circulation strikes, patterns, commemoratives and bullion) in the US but the variety is much greater because all ZAR and Union denominations have the same portrait for a total of four obverses.  The supply multiple for concurrent dates in collectible grades ranges from the thousands to one million in some instances, depending upon quality.

However, a disproportionate percentage of US coins are not affordable.  No one can argue this point.  To date, US collectors have circumvented this obstacle through creative specialization practices: die varieties, special designation strikes such as FS and FH, toning and registry sets.  Otherwise, these series are so easy to complete thew whole set could probably be bought in one day or at most a few weeks in "high quality" which traditionally would have satisfied most collectors.

Are the series which most collectors can afford interesting enough to them where they will retain this interest as most of these coins lose value?  My answers is that this will be true for a lower or much lower proportion of the collector base.

To the point of the OP, are these coins interesting enough to a large enough number of prospective future collectors so that they will replace or increase the size of the collector base?

Aside from NCLT bullion which I don't even describe real collecting, the answer appears to be "no".  I make this comment because the information available to me indicates that prices for most US "collector coins" (the ones most collectors have bought in the past) have been losing value for at least a decade (with brief interruption).  The number, mintages and population data for NCLT concurrently indicate that most additional funding (if there is any) is going to these coins at the expense of those traditionally collected.

Much and maybe most of this collecting is not collecting at all but financial buying.  I know that some of these buyers also collect other coinage and still others transition to other series later.  Of those who do buy other coins, I believe most of this funding is going to other "investment" substitutes such as Morgan and Peace dollars and generic gold.  I make this assumption because I don't see that the buyer who prioritizes NCLT is likely to usually (notice I didn't say ever) buy the coins most lower budget collectors buy.

[World Colonial]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 1:31 PM, cladking said:

In today's money a Lincoln set started at about $10 in 1957 and several of the coins were unobtainable. 

In 1957, most collectors built their sets out of pocket change.  This isn't how most (active, "serious" or what ever term you want to use) collectors collect today and if the proportion remotely returns to what it is was in 1957, I expect the collector base to be a lot smaller.

As I have told you before, the evidence also indicates that these collectors didn't have a strong affinity for what they collected either.  I don't think you agree with me but your prior posts stated that when clad entered circulation in 1965.  a large proportion quit collecting which supports my point.

Yes, I know they didn't and to a large extent still don't like moderns but the only logical explanation for this outcome is that they refused to pay ANY premium, even though by current standards it was financially immaterial.

[cladking]

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 6:23 PM, World Colonial said:

 

However, a disproportionate percentage of US coins are not affordable. 

There are more than a quarter of a trillion US coins in circulation: 250,000,000,000,000+.

Significant percentages of obsolete US coins made since the 18th century can be purchased for less than a dollar. 

Disproportionately few US coins are "unaffordable" unless you define the term to mean coins that are scarce, high grade, and traditionally considered to be of historical interest. 

 

[World Colonial]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

There are more than a quarter of a trillion US coins in circulation: 250,000,000,000,000+.

Significant percentages of obsolete US coins made since the 18th century can be purchased for less than a dollar. 

Disproportionately few US coins are "unaffordable" unless you define the term to mean coins that are scarce, high grade, and traditionally considered to be of historical interest. 

 

i am aware of what is and isn't affordable to most collectors.  This still doesn't change the fact that the proportion of US coinage affordable to most US collectors is lower or much lower than everywhere else.  That's what I meant in my prior posts and it is an accurate statement.  I can itemize it for you if necessary.

What you appear to be claiming is that what is affordable is and will be of sufficient interest to both current and prospective future collectors, something I just addressed in my last post.

For the current collector, at the margin, I already explained that this is only likely to be true if these coins don't lose noticeable proportional value.  The recent preference for silver NCLT seems to confirm this point and the generic preference for the highest TPG  grades and specialization does as well.

For the prospective future collector, I disagree that there will be anywhere near enough buyers who will have interest in the US coins most collectors can afford and buy to maintain much less increase the collector base.  Based upon our prior post exchanges, I presume you disagree but I have yet to see any plausible reason to believe it from anyone.  Concurrently, I can provide you or anyone else with numerous reasons why it won't happen, both economic and collecting.  The low or very low relative appeal of what is actually affordable in one reason.