Two Interesting Perspectives on the Challenges facing the Hobby

[World Colonial]

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 9:55 AM, cladking said:

In EVERY OTHER country collectors tell me the moderns aren't available except in circulation and those coins no longer exist because of melting.  But, you're right, in NZ they draw the line at decimal/ pre-decimal.  The decimal coinage isn't nearly as widely collected but even it is collected by some. 

In the real world every thing is unique and we lack the vocabulary to define every single coin,  nation of issue, or type. Trends and processes are far more complex than a simple word like "modern" but this still plays out in almost every country in the world; they used silver and then they stopped between WW II and around 1968.  In almost every single country in the world these later coins were not saved, are still not collected, and are relatively scarce.  This is "unnatural" but there you have it, just another word. 

You can go back to my last prior posts for additional comments on your "natural" claim.  As I told you before, it is nothing more than a projection of your personal preference onto everyone else.

Obviously, since I have told you about the limited supply of earlier coinage in most countries, it will be a problem for expanding the collector base if "moderns" aren't collected in greater or much greater numbers but that is one of the primary points I have been trying to make.  It isn't going to happen and if you disagree, you disagree.

I don't know who you corresponded with but to reiterate yet another point AGAIN, our (yours, mine, or anyone else) personal experience is generally NOT representative of the survival rates, availability or scarcity of practically any coin.  You have made this assumption for any number of coins but as a general rule, there is no reason to believe it.

Also, when you use the term "relatively scarce", given that you consistently exaggerate scarcity, I don't believe hardly any of these coins are actually scarce.  Out of the 50,000 to 100,000 you define as "modern", maybe 500 to 2000 are somewhat scarce to rare but almost never so versus older coins that are known to actually be rare or scarce.

If you have read my other posts (those not in reply to yours), you will know most of the coins I collect because my focus is narrow.  Now, it is predominantly pillars but I also have collected South Africa Union, South Africa ZAR (in isolation), Bolivia Republic decimals (1864-1909) and Lion and Castle 1/4 real (1796-1823).

Of these series, ZAR is generally not that scarce and Union is more common than the rest I named.  Union is still almost certainly by an overwhelming margin scarcer or vastly scarcer than practically every single modern series, at least in a quality that anyone would really want to buy.  However, these coins are a lot more available than previously because TPG contributed to a bubble and inflated the price level. 

The primary if not only reason you and those others you corresponded with believe and claim these "moderns" are "scarce" or "rare" is because the low prices make it pointless to offer it for sale.  Also, it is a logical fallacy to assume that even with the internet, that if as many as several hundred, 500 or even several thousand exist in "high grade", that the coins will come up for sale often enough and in a venue where you or I will be aware of it.  In the past, I have estimated that the SA Union QE II shillings and florins are probably available as an "UNC" in a range of maybe 200 to 500.  This isn't common but not remotely scarce either, much less rare.  These coins are likely easier to find than most others with comparable numbers but mostly because they are concentrated in South Africa while almost all other world coins from less collected series are dispersed all over the planet with concentration in the US and maybe Europe.

[World Colonial]

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 2:27 AM, Afterword said:

Capitalistic and socialistic concepts become corrupt when the human element is added to the equation. Both are workable in theory but not in practice. Our propensity for corruption has no bounds.

 

Isn't that the truth.

[World Colonial]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:13 PM, cladking said:

Not allowing the wealthy to appropriate all the money by using government to curtail liberty and rig the game  is not "socialism". 

I was using guaranteed universal basic income as an example since you weren't specific.  I am opposed to crony capitalism which is what you describe but even if it ends, given that most of the populace wants some form of socialism but just at someone else's expense and especially paid for by "the rich", have absolute zero faith in the political system to correct the problem you describe.

Additionally as I told you, it is a logical fallacy to believe that wealth is an obstacle for the general population to participate in the "hobby".  It is somewhat of a factor in the US with the male Caucasian demographic group since this is where the collector base is overwhelmingly concentrated but makes little to zero difference for any of the others, none of which have shown more than minimal interest even though there is certainly no shortage who can do so right now.

[World Colonial]

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 9:55 AM, cladking said:

New Zealand never had "good silver" in circulation made in their own country.  Their "silver" starting in 1933 was just .500 fine so the transition to cu/ ni was far less eventful.  But still in 1983 the 1935 shilling (.500) was listed at $200 and the comparable mintage 1950 (cu ni) was $50.  Obviously there was a large preference for "silver".  When you consdider a lot of the 1950 mintage wouldn't be considered "unc" by their standards when it left the mint this preference can be seen to be even larger.  As an insider and collector it was quite obvious that finding the silver in Unc was far easier than finding cu/ ni.  This implies very little demand for the cu ni. 

 

 I have never disagreed with you that the silver coinage is more common, more available and more expensive for the scarcity.  I don't know for a fact that it is but I agree with you because it makes sense.

I don't know exactly what the coins are worth because the Krause price is not accurate and there is limited sales history.  You can go look in the Noble Numismatic archives where a 1950 shilling is recorded as selling at 300 AUD in July 2016 which is not out of line of all other dates; more than most and less than a few,  However, the quality and eye appeal is not exact between different coins, so a direct comparison is difficult.  Also, you should be aware that Noble didn't even identify it as scarce and I would place a lot more reliance on their opinion than most though not all collectors of the series.

[cladking]

On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 3:30 PM, World Colonial said:

 

Do you remember when you told me you don't believe in "intrinsic" value for gold and silver?  Well, like I told you before, practically every single other collector on the planet does and this almost certainly also applies to the general public as well.  It certainly does in the developing countries where you expect an outsized increase in your projected collector base to occur.  So why exactly would expect any other preference?

Your "natural state" is simply a reality of the polar opposite of how you view collecting versus practically everyone else.  But instead, you act as if there is something unusual about it when there isn't.

Going back to the switchover to base metals in the 20th century whether in the US or elsewhere, collectors and the public had disproportionately or exclusively been using silver for the denominations which were changed in the 1940's to 1960's for  a LONG TIME.  In the US, since 1794 and in the UK (as an example only) for what?  At least 700 years?

Do you actually believe that people didn't mind having their currency debased?  If so, based exactly upon what?  This is why they saved or hoarded silver coinage prior to the switchover and didn't do so for base metals, including US clad.  There certainly was no financial motive to save these base metal coins intentionally, yet somehow, you think it is unusual.

Today, it is evident collectors overwhelmingly still prefer silver coins.  There is nothing unusual about this either.  At the same time, base metal coinage has generally (not always) still been set aside and likely in proportionately much greater numbers than you claim.  These coins aren't usually remotely scarce and there is no reason for more than a very low proportion to sell for more than irrelevant amounts.

"Intrinsic value" is merely what people deem something to be worth.  This is a matter of perception and highly ephemeral; it change directions on a dime.  If it were announced tomorrow that there was no gold in Ft Knox then the price of gold would soar as the dollar plummeted.  It instead it were announced the US government had been pinching pennies for decades and buying gold on the sly so that Ft Knox was stuffed to the rafters and they needed another storage facility then gold would plummet and the dollar soar.  No announcement need be made because people can panic for virtually no reason at all. 

Gold has no "intrinsic value".  It is merely deemed to have value at this time of ~$1200/ Ozt.  Tomorrow an ounce might be worth a gallon of milk or a dairy farm. 

Our generation prefers coins with "intrinsic value" but this is based on the beliefs of those who grew up with silver in circulation.  The new generation never saw silver in circulation because it was gone before they were born. 

Silver dropped so low in 1935 that a quarter had only six cents worth of silver in it!!!  How many people spent their Unc liberty cap quarters since they had become "junk".  How many rolls of '32-S were hauled off to the bank to get good money for them? 

I believe it's you who are missing the point. Everything is cyclical and all human activity is based on individual beliefs.  When a new generation with different beliefs comes around things are ALWAYS going to change.  It's my contention that some of these changes are highly predictable. Gold will never be as valuable again as it was 600 years ago and future collectors will collect more base metal coins because they didn't learn to hate them when silver was removed from circulation.   These things seem to be virtual certainties which simply means they will obtain in the foreseeable future.  Of course the "foreseeable future" can be far briefer than we can predict. 

[cladking]

23 hours ago, World Colonial said:

  Also, you should be aware that Noble didn't even identify it as scarce and I would place a lot more reliance on their opinion than most though not all collectors of the series.

"Scarce" is a relative thing. 

You're right that my estimation of the scarcity of moderns may or may not be accurate.  Some coins exist in hoards and some will tend to be clustered geographically, demographically, or segregated in any number of way.  It appears Russian coins are far scarcer than my estimates and Indian a little less scarce.  But even now with higher prices it will take time to get everything out of the woodwork.  The coins simply have never gotten attention before now so it will take time and demand to sort it all out.  When coins are made in the hundreds of millions it's rather absurd to believe every one of them was lost or degraded.  It is very difficult to even get a feel of availability by seeing what can be found in the US. 

There are some coins I always found to be common that have much higher prices as well. 

Time will tell. 

[World Colonial]

18 hours ago, cladking said:

"Intrinsic value" is merely what people deem something to be worth.  This is a matter of perception and highly ephemeral; it change directions on a dime.  If it were announced tomorrow that there was no gold in Ft Knox then the price of gold would soar as the dollar plummeted.  It instead it were announced the US government had been pinching pennies for decades and buying gold on the sly so that Ft Knox was stuffed to the rafters and they needed another storage facility then gold would plummet and the dollar soar.  No announcement need be made because people can panic for virtually no reason at all. 

Gold has no "intrinsic value".  It is merely deemed to have value at this time of ~$1200/ Ozt.  Tomorrow an ounce might be worth a gallon of milk or a dairy farm. 

Our generation prefers coins with "intrinsic value" but this is based on the beliefs of those who grew up with silver in circulation.  The new generation never saw silver in circulation because it was gone before they were born. 

Silver dropped so low in 1935 that a quarter had only six cents worth of silver in it!!!  How many people spent their Unc liberty cap quarters since they had become "junk".  How many rolls of '32-S were hauled off to the bank to get good money for them? 

I believe it's you who are missing the point. Everything is cyclical and all human activity is based on individual beliefs.  When a new generation with different beliefs comes around things are ALWAYS going to change.  It's my contention that some of these changes are highly predictable. Gold will never be as valuable again as it was 600 years ago and future collectors will collect more base metal coins because they didn't learn to hate them when silver was removed from circulation.   These things seem to be virtual certainties which simply means they will obtain in the foreseeable future.  Of course the "foreseeable future" can be far briefer than we can predict. 

More of your nonsense.  I don't miss anything in your theory and claims.  I know the historical context you posted and I am fully aware of the psychology of participants in financial markets, as I have demonstrated a lot better than you in my prior posts.

The price of gold 600 years ago is irrelevant to this discussion because you and I will be long dead before your claims occur, if ever.  In your example, if the US government were secretly buying gold, it may or may not make any difference because it would just mean they owned it instead of someone else.  There are lot of people who believe in linear cause and effect in financial markets, many of them smarter than both of us.  This belief is also wrong because this mechanical correlation doesn't exist as people are not robots and don't behave this way..  The believers in hyperinflation and future collapse of the USD almost universally seem to believe people act like robots and what they have in common with this claim you just made is that they have been totally wrong also.

Your implication is that gold and silver can or will lose most of its value in your perpetually ever shifting 20 year time period.  It won't because if your claim was remotely accurate, the overwhelming preference for NCLT both now and since base metal coinage replaced silver wouldn't exist.   Your demographic theory has no merit whatsoever, yet you continue to pretend it does.

Do you remember when you once asked me if your anecdotal data didn't create dissonance on my part?  Well, let me as ask you this question.  How it is that at least 31 years of being almost totally wrong about everything in your theory doesn't  create any for you?  Has it ever occurred to you that everyone's else behavior isn't "unnatural" but your views are almost totally wrong?  Apparently not and you will never see it either..

The idea that people's view of "intrinsic value" is ephemeral as in transitory is utterly absurd and neither you nor anyone else can remotely demonstrate it.

[World Colonial]

17 hours ago, cladking said:

"Scarce" is a relative thing. 

You're right that my estimation of the scarcity of moderns may or may not be accurate.  Some coins exist in hoards and some will tend to be clustered geographically, demographically, or segregated in any number of way.  It appears Russian coins are far scarcer than my estimates and Indian a little less scarce.  But even now with higher prices it will take time to get everything out of the woodwork.  The coins simply have never gotten attention before now so it will take time and demand to sort it all out.  When coins are made in the hundreds of millions it's rather absurd to believe every one of them was lost or degraded.  It is very difficult to even get a feel of availability by seeing what can be found in the US. 

There are some coins I always found to be common that have much higher prices as well. 

Time will tell. 

Most coins are a lot more common than is apparent.  Let me give you two examples.

Krause lists the 1977 Rhodesia 1/2 cent at $1500.  Five years or so ago, Heritage sold an NGC AU-55 for $1645.  In writing this post, I found a Noble Numismatics listing where they sold one ungraded in 2004 for $680 AUD where they also claimed less than 10 are known.  Both stated most were melted and didn't enter circulation.  Well, the NGC census has 10 in it right now and I doubt any are duplicates because the price difference doesn't make it worthwhile.  By common sense, this coin is still scarce but almost certainly exists in a noticeable multiple to this 10 estimate.

A second is the 1941 Sarawak cent, not a "modern" by your definition but believed to be scarce with a Heritage listing claiming 50.  There are now 42 in the combined population reports including two detail coins with most MS and practically all AU or better.  This coin probably has in the vicinity of several hundred and the price isn't that low either.

[cladking]

22 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

The price of gold 600 years ago is irrelevant to this discussion because you and I will be long dead before your claims occur, if ever. 

It seems we not only disagree on reality itself but its very nature.  You seem to reject the nature of cause and effect altogether.  These are fundamental to the way I organize knowledge and think. 

I'm just a passenger on this old earth but it went along for a very long time without me and it will go on long after I'm gone.  In the meantime I'm just trying to ride the waves. 

I guess I'm just riding waves in the kiddy pool though since you consider price increases from dimes to thousands of dollars to be "financially insignificant".  Perhaps these prices will never increase further and I'm confident they won't in our lifetimes but who knows what things will look like in 50 or 100 years? 

[cladking]

22 hours ago, World Colonial said:

Most coins are a lot more common than is apparent. 

You're singing to the choir.  Only some 25,000 '16-D dimes have been graded but almost all of them were pulled from circulation before the date would have been worn off. Attrition is significant of course but to presume most have been lost before or after issue is nonsense.  It's the same with moderns as well.  You can't make hundreds of millions of something and really expect them to all be lost and destroyed.  They will show up in foreign lands and safety deposit boxes and they will literally come out of the woodwork.  The '16-D's are out there, they simply aren't graded yet. 

[Djurgens]

Coin collecting is not dying out but it is gaining popularity.  It just not gaining popularity where the older generations would like it to be.  Modern coin markets are heating up, why ? Two main reasons, price and availability.  The need to collect has to be fueled by the ability to acquire.  It is not possible to assemble a complete collection of classics without spending 1000’s of dollars or even 10’s of thousands of dollars and many examples don’t even exist in gem condition leaving a new collector with an expensive and impossible mountain to climb.  Moderns are abundant and inexpensive.  Easy to assemble a complete collection of high quality examples at what is affordable to the average person or even a teenager with a part time job.  Most people new to collecting are not going to start collecting a series knowing that they are going to have to shell out $6,000 dollars for one coin at some point if they want to be able to complete an album or most coins in a series start at $500 plus even for a mid grade example.  The market is not dying but evolving into an affordable hobby.  Which is what it was always supposed to be. 

[cladking]

22 hours ago, Djurgens said:

Coin collecting is not dying out but it is gaining popularity.  It just not gaining popularity where the older generations would like it to be.  Modern coin markets are heating up, why ? Two main reasons, price and availability.  The need to collect has to be fueled by the ability to acquire.  It is not possible to assemble a complete collection of classics without spending 1000’s of dollars or even 10’s of thousands of dollars and many examples don’t even exist in gem condition leaving a new collector with an expensive and impossible mountain to climb.  Moderns are abundant and inexpensive.  Easy to assemble a complete collection of high quality examples at what is affordable to the average person or even a teenager with a part time job.  Most people new to collecting are not going to start collecting a series knowing that they are going to have to shell out $6,000 dollars for one coin at some point if they want to be able to complete an album or most coins in a series start at $500 plus even for a mid grade example.  The market is not dying but evolving into an affordable hobby.  Which is what it was always supposed to be. 

A lot of newbies are collecting moderns.  Personally I find many of them preferable in many ways but one of the chief ones is "value".  Not only are they affordable but they're scarcer and more desirable for the money. 

I've collected just about everything and I like the old coins and still collect some but the moderns are terra incognita.  There is no accurate pricing on them and they are not well cataloged yet. 

Old coins will never "go out of style" but most of the growth will be in moderns for a time.  This is coming to US coins finally.  Many world coins are already experiencing the explosive growth. 

Welcome aboard, by the by. 

[cladking]

On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 9:59 AM, World Colonial said:

 

Do you remember when you once asked me if your anecdotal data didn't create dissonance on my part?  Well, let me as ask you this question.  How it is that at least 31 years of being almost totally wrong about everything in your theory doesn't  create any for you?  Has it ever occurred to you that everyone's else behavior isn't "unnatural" but your views are almost totally wrong?  Apparently not and you will never see it either..

 

I have lots of wild and crazy ideas and I can be wrong about anything at all. 

But I've been wrong about moderns for quite a lot longer than just 31 years.  I predicted that they would  someday soar suddenly as far back as 1972 when it became obvious no one was saving them and the FED and mint  started rotating their stocks assuring there'd be none that escaped degradation and eventual loss in circulation.  I thought it would be soon and no later than 1982. 

Boy was (am) I wrong! 

I believe this "sudden move" started back last November and I've been selling into the strength.  It's not real obvious yet but the supplies are so thin it should become obvious very soon.  As soon as the wholesalers can't lay in enough 1996 eagles or 1969 mint sets the only thing that will bring them in is price increases.  Since the supply is almost non-existent the increases will have to be substantial. 

[mdacoin]

New to this forum and cannot wait to dive in and get caught up. So quick background, I have collected "stuff" ever since I was a kid. My dad was a coin collector and so I caught the bug. I did not start heavily collecting until last 10 years. I follow all the auction sites daily and yes ebay. I started collecting more modern coins and weird stuff like pirate coins from elemental and then started diving into the "classic" stuff. I am addicted to it. I am very picky and starting to turn into a snob in regards to grades. I agree with one post that there are so many modern coins, mostly silver that eventually these modern collectors will want a few cornerstones of the past to round out their collection. That is where I am at. I am all into the Morgans, Peace Dollars, St. Gaud, buffalos and hopefully a real nice Indian Gold Coin (MS66 please, the snob in me). I have not attended a coin show, I find it easier (kids, schedules etc) to jump on the auction sites. I subscribe to a coin magazine and try to read as much as possible. I am jumping into some paper currency but looking for certain pieces. Hope this gives some insight to a collector in early 40's. I hope the hobby thrives, its fun and nice to talk about it when you do find another collector. 

[numisport]

When I cut grass I have coin dreams. Yesterday it was deep red cameo proof Lincolns. Tomorrow probably early proof Jeffersons. These are real day dreams and I too am addicted (for about 40 years). Whatever direction the hobby goes I'm there.

[World Colonial]

On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 9:34 AM, cladking said:

It seems we not only disagree on reality itself but its very nature.  You seem to reject the nature of cause and effect altogether.  These are fundamental to the way I organize knowledge and think. 

I'm just a passenger on this old earth but it went along for a very long time without me and it will go on long after I'm gone.  In the meantime I'm just trying to ride the waves. 

I guess I'm just riding waves in the kiddy pool though since you consider price increases from dimes to thousands of dollars to be "financially insignificant".  Perhaps these prices will never increase further and I'm confident they won't in our lifetimes but who knows what things will look like in 50 or 100 years? 

What cause and effect?

If you are referring to the comment I made on financial markets, yes I disagree with the conventional view, such as the Efficient Market Hypothesis and those of market commentators who use external events to supposedly explain financial market price action because it is false.

As for the price increase from dimes to thousands of dollars, are you referring to the low proportion of moderns?  If you are, I'm not rejecting self-evident facts, as the prices are what they are.

I am disagreeing with your claim of cause and effect which you claim for your theory because it is also false.  There is no evidence for your premises.

I'm also not referring to 50 or 100 years from now because this is irrelevant to both of us and practically anyone who will ever read our post exchange.  I am referring to your prior claim of 20 years, a claim which I might add, keeps on moving.  In 2013 when we first discussed this subject, it was 20 years then as well.  Will it always be 20 years?

[World Colonial]

On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 9:41 AM, cladking said:

You're singing to the choir.  Only some 25,000 '16-D dimes have been graded but almost all of them were pulled from circulation before the date would have been worn off. Attrition is significant of course but to presume most have been lost before or after issue is nonsense.  It's the same with moderns as well.  You can't make hundreds of millions of something and really expect them to all be lost and destroyed.  They will show up in foreign lands and safety deposit boxes and they will literally come out of the woodwork.  The '16-D's are out there, they simply aren't graded yet. 

You are the one who has been exaggerating the scarcity of moderns, not me.  I have also never claimed any of the most widely collected US classics are remotely scarce either.  I agree with you that all of them are common, most practically as common as dirt.  However, the combined population count for the 16-D dime isn't 25,000.  It is still a lot less.

[World Colonial]

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 3:55 PM, cladking said:

I have lots of wild and crazy ideas and I can be wrong about anything at all. 

But I've been wrong about moderns for quite a lot longer than just 31 years.  I predicted that they would  someday soar suddenly as far back as 1972 when it became obvious no one was saving them and the FED and mint  started rotating their stocks assuring there'd be none that escaped degradation and eventual loss in circulation.  I thought it would be soon and no later than 1982. 

Boy was (am) I wrong! 

I believe this "sudden move" started back last November and I've been selling into the strength.  It's not real obvious yet but the supplies are so thin it should become obvious very soon.  As soon as the wholesalers can't lay in enough 1996 eagles or 1969 mint sets the only thing that will bring them in is price increases.  Since the supply is almost non-existent the increases will have to be substantial. 

I didn't write the extract from the post you quoted to be difficult.

What I have been trying to tell you in all of our post exchanges on this subject is that if you put your whole theory together, the "math doesn't add up".  I don't think you have ever done that.

Let me go back to your comment about future preferences for gold.  There is nothing that requires humans to view gold as they do and have.  I am aware of this as it is self evident.

At the same time, this doesn't remotely mean that the public and collectors are about to just wake up one day and randomly abandon an inherited cultural viewpoint built over 5000 years for no reason.  This is exactly what you claimed is probable.  They aren't going to do it now and they aren't going to do it in the next 20, 50 or 100 years.  And if this is going to happen, then you need to be able to explain what else can realistically replace it which you didn't do.

Is it going to be copper, nickel or some other base metal?  All are far more common than gold or silver, so there is no reason to believe it.  Is it going to be paper currency or electronic debits and credits which is what politicians, conventional economists and the financial services industry would like?  Not voluntarily, that is for sure.  Is it going to be nothing?  No, because that doesn't make sense either.

What I didn't include in my response but should have is the recent price history, recent as in post-1965 since clad was introduced in the US.  if your hypothetical was realistic, then this should be evident in a decreasing preference for gold in the spot price.

Is this evident?  Does the financial market or even the public show any indication that they prefer gold (or silver) less than in 1965?

The answer is no.  Since at least 1979, gold has been at or near multi-century highs measured by relative value, definitely in terms of other commodities, most other physical goods and many though not all services.  Silver much less so as evident in the gold-silver ratio but it hasn't lost value either.  But even when it crashed to about $3.50 in both 1999 and 2001, I am aware of no evidence that this decreased the preference of coin collector for silver coinage versus base metal counterparts.  More recently, sales of bullion NCLT have been strong as the most preferred option for retail buyers to own the metal.  All are not collectors but many are.

I can't post it here but the data I reference is included in two publications by Elliott Wave International, "At the Crest of the Tidal Wave" published in 1995 (when gold was relatively much cheaper than now) and in an issue of the Elliott Wave Theorist, sometime in late 2011 or during 2012 I believe.  I'd have to find it.

 

[cladking]

15 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 I am referring to your prior claim of 20 years, a claim which I might add, keeps on moving.  In 2013 when we first discussed this subject, it was 20 years then as well.  Will it always be 20 years?

Actually I first predicted this change in 20 years back around 2003.  It's an inside joke that I keep it "unchanged" after all these years.  It's not really another 20 years from now though since we're at least 10 years into this cycle unfolding.  The reason I missed the timing by a few years is really very simple and was caused by a factor I might have predicted but failed; the length of the cycle is increasing.  People are living and working longer and baby boomers are collecting later in life than historical norms.  The oldest of us are in our 70's and often still working and collecting. 

The financial collapse of 2008 was even more severe than I expected and caused significant numbers of families to postpone retirement. 

While a few boomers will be collecting even in 30 years, we are even now beginning to sell our collections in significant numbers.  In only 8 or 10 years the peak of this selling will be behind us. 

Another factor which is likely to play out but in less than predictable ways is that retirees tend to be wealthier than historically.  This will allow some to continue collecting or to attempt to hold their coins for stronger markets.  Inflation, which is often associated with such demographic changes, will lead many to sell if it arises. 

There are no givens in life except death and taxes so if you don't factor these in you are just flying blind. 

[cladking]

20 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

At the same time, this doesn't remotely mean that the public and collectors are about to just wake up one day and randomly abandon an inherited cultural viewpoint built over 5000 years for no reason.  This is exactly what you claimed is probable.  They aren't going to do it now and they aren't going to do it in the next 20, 50 or 100 years.  And if this is going to happen, then you need to be able to explain what else can realistically replace it which you didn't do.

 

 

I never clamed such a thing.  I've said many times that the value of gold and silver can dramatically change (up or down) almost overnight because of changes in perception and this has happened many times globally and locally.  But even the day after a panic I'd still like gold and silver.  I'd just tend to sell if it went up and buy if it went down.  If you do the opposite, as humans are inclined to do, you will probably be locking in losses. 

It's current collectors who are so fond of silver and gold.  The issue here gets to the very definition of the word "collectors".  We call ourselves "coin collectors" but the reality is that we are somewhat more "gold and silver collectors" whose favorite form of  precious metals is coins.  There aren't nearly as many copper collectors or aluminum collectors or clad collectors.  This is apparently a generational condition and it will probably not persist into the future. If one wants to own  gold it does not mean he must collect only coins with gold or even gold coins at all. 

[CoinAuctions.net]

I think more young people have less time to collect coins or have many other distractions. Video games and even t.v. I just upgraded mine to a smart t.v. and can't believe how complicated and how many different programs and channels it has. Remember coin collecting was a big hobby many years ago because it was a pass time and there were few things for kids to do. So they would try to fill their coin albums. Now, most kids have phones and have many other distractions.

I'm sure new young kids will join the hobby probably because of marketing like the shop at home channels or marketers who promote new coins or coin as an investment. So, from those aspects there will probably still be many collectors especially since the population keeps increasing so say 2% of the population collected coins in 1940 but 1% of the population collects today, then that still means there are still more collectors today because of the population increase.

[World Colonial]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 9:48 AM, cladking said:

Actually I first predicted this change in 20 years back around 2003.  It's an inside joke that I keep it "unchanged" after all these years.  It's not really another 20 years from now though since we're at least 10 years into this cycle unfolding.  The reason I missed the timing by a few years is really very simple and was caused by a factor I might have predicted but failed; the length of the cycle is increasing.  People are living and working longer and baby boomers are collecting later in life than historical norms.  The oldest of us are in our 70's and often still working and collecting. 

The financial collapse of 2008 was even more severe than I expected and caused significant numbers of families to postpone retirement. 

While a few boomers will be collecting even in 30 years, we are even now beginning to sell our collections in significant numbers.  In only 8 or 10 years the peak of this selling will be behind us. 

Another factor which is likely to play out but in less than predictable ways is that retirees tend to be wealthier than historically.  This will allow some to continue collecting or to attempt to hold their coins for stronger markets.  Inflation, which is often associated with such demographic changes, will lead many to sell if it arises. 

There are no givens in life except death and taxes so if you don't factor these in you are just flying blind. 

There is no correlation between your demographic claim and collecting, not within collectors and not people generally.  You keep on acting as if your claim has predictive value but it doesn't and you have never provided any data to support it, except for your anecdotal claim of nostalgia which is irrelevant to your broader claim.  This applies to both the United States and even more elsewhere.

This is why I provided my prior explanation with my "seven questions" in the Krause thread, to show that there is nothing unusual about how collectors perceive moderns now or in the past.  Same principle applies to the current and historical preference for metals in my prior post here where a change in preference is the only possible way your theory can remotely be correct.

The reason you have been incorrect has nothing to do with an increased in life expectancy but that your premise isn't valid.

[World Colonial]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 10:01 AM, cladking said:

It's current collectors who are so fond of silver and gold.  The issue here gets to the very definition of the word "collectors".  We call ourselves "coin collectors" but the reality is that we are somewhat more "gold and silver collectors" whose favorite form of  precious metals is coins.  There aren't nearly as many copper collectors or aluminum collectors or clad collectors.  This is apparently a generational condition and it will probably not persist into the future. If one wants to own  gold it does not mean he must collect only coins with gold or even gold coins at all. 

Are you ever going to understand what determines collector preferences?  Apparently not.

This preference has nothing to do with generations or age.  You claim you aren't making this claim yet you are still making it now.  And if you aren't, then how else exactly do you expect moderns to remotely become as popular and preferred as you claim?  As a minimal precondition, the only way it is ever going to happen is if people come to prefer base metals over gold and silver, by a lopsided proportion since most of the coins you like are common except under contrived US standards.  I'm telling you it isn't ever going to happen while you or I are alive and what happens 50 or 100 years from now is irrelevant.

If preferences are so random as you claim, how do you explain historical preferences as a function of pure random chance?  Either preferences are random in which case good luck contradicting the data I include below in this post.  Or, the preference scale I have repeatedly explained to you is valid (which is exactly the truth) based upon specific predictable attributes which a coin either possesses or lacks. 

The 1839 UK proof set has 15 coins.  The mintage for the "Una and the Lion" 5 sovereign is 400 and it's 300 for the other 14 coins.  Currently, the 5Sov is worth about five times the other 14 combined in near or equivalent quality, even though it likely is still more common today due to the higher mintage and the almost certainty that collectors would have avoided losing it more often due to the higher value.  Using your 20 year period, there have been nine "new  demographics" in the last 178 years since the set was issued. 

By random chance, the probability that the 5 Sov will be preferred more than any single coin in the set since 1839 is one in 512 (2 to the 9th power).

By random chance, the probability that it will be more preferred than all other 14 combined now or any point in time is one in 16384 (2 to the 14th power).

Does this sound like random chance?  If your rebuttal is that its substantially due to the metal value, this is precisely my point because this isn't random either.  As I told you before, this preference is actually a combination of the metal content, larger size and reverse design. 

You can apply the same reasoning to any number of other examples which I gave you in the past and the message is exactly the same: Mercury vs. FDR dime, ancient Roman and Greek vs Byzantine, large coins versus smaller ones of the same design generically, similar or identical US patterns in different metals, Jewish Revolt versus any competitor, NCLT generically versus moderns.

You can attempt to rationalize it anyway you like and you are never going to be able to explain the preference scale away.  It isn't random and has nothing to do with a collector's age either. 

But then, the next thing I am going to hear from you is that, even though you have only have anecdotal data which doesn't support your premises, what I am telling you here has no predictive value in the future either.  Your unsubstantiated claim is more believeable than the entire combined history of coin collecting going back centuries.

[World Colonial]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 9:48 AM, cladking said:

While a few boomers will be collecting even in 30 years, we are even now beginning to sell our collections in significant numbers.  In only 8 or 10 years the peak of this selling will be behind us. 

Another factor which is likely to play out but in less than predictable ways is that retirees tend to be wealthier than historically.  This will allow some to continue collecting or to attempt to hold their coins for stronger markets.  Inflation, which is often associated with such demographic changes, will lead many to sell if it arises. 

There are no givens in life except death and taxes so if you don't factor these in you are just flying blind. 

Are you referring primarily to collectors or the general population?  If collectors, then maybe but otherwise no, because financial affluence has no predictive value on whether anyone will become a collector.  It is a necessary precondition but no causality exists.  A collector who is financially more affluent may certainly return to collecting or increase their budget but there is no evidence that except for financial buying, anyone else will do so except by random chance.

Unlike you though, I don't expect retirees to be wealthier in greater numbers because most supposed "wealth" today is an illusion from the greatest asset, credit and debt mania in the history of civilization.  It's lasted a lot longer than I ever thought possible but when it ends (and it will), most people (whether retiree or otherwise) are going to be poorer or a lot poorer. 

The only thing supporting today's artificially inflated living standards and asset prices are the loosest credit conditions in the history of civilization; a combination of artificially distorted low interest rates and absurdly lax credit standards.

As for their being "no givens", future preferences in coin collecting aren't remotely as unpredictable as you claim.

[Lord Harry]

On 10/6/2017 at 9:01 AM, cladking said:

I never clamed such a thing.  I've said many times that the value of gold and silver can dramatically change (up or down) almost overnight because of changes in perception and this has happened many times globally and locally.  But even the day after a panic I'd still like gold and silver.  I'd just tend to sell if it went up and buy if it went down.  If you do the opposite, as humans are inclined to do, you will probably be locking in losses. 

It's current collectors who are so fond of silver and gold.  The issue here gets to the very definition of the word "collectors".  We call ourselves "coin collectors" but the reality is that we are somewhat more "gold and silver collectors" whose favorite form of  precious metals is coins.  There aren't nearly as many copper collectors or aluminum collectors or clad collectors.  This is apparently a generational condition and it will probably not persist into the future. If one wants to own  gold it does not mean he must collect only coins with gold or even gold coins at all. 

The entire system of American coinage is a fraud perpetrated by the U.S Mint.  Coins were actually formed by natural processes in the earth.  They are in essence earth crystals.  The very scientific Native Americans understood this, and used these earth crystals as a means of understanding the scientific principles of the earth itself.  The so called "writing" on these coins are actually an intricate part of these natural processes, and are the very origins of the English word "God."

But the greedy U.S. Mint, which is profiting over the "minting" of these coins, is involved in a massive conspiracy to deceive the American people of the true nature of these earth crystals.  They would have us believe that coins were minted by stinky fingered bumpkins who trust in God.  They have no evidence for their claims!  Has anyone even been inside the U.S. Mint?  NO!  Tour groups are not allowed!  How very convenient!  Most people do not know this because they have been deceived by the federal government.  But historical records attest that these earth crystals were traded with the first English settlers at Jamestown in 1607.  Think about this.  The English word "God" isn't even attested until the writing of the King James Bible in 1611.  Why you ask?  Because the very origin of the English word has its root in the naturally created earth crystals, and the U.S. Mint is perpetrating a FRAUD TO DECEIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! They are getting rich by enslaving we the people into servitude to a system of coined currency!  It is about time people woke up and realized that these coins are earth crystals formed by the natural processes of the earth and NOT by stinky fingered bumpkins who trust in God!

[cladking]

22 hours ago, World Colonial said:

Are you referring primarily to collectors or the general population?  If collectors, then maybe but otherwise no, because financial affluence has no predictive value on whether anyone will become a collector.  It is a necessary precondition but no causality exists.  A collector who is financially more affluent may certainly return to collecting or increase their budget but there is no evidence that except for financial buying, anyone else will do so except by random chance.

Unlike you though, I don't expect retirees to be wealthier in greater numbers because most supposed "wealth" today is an illusion from the greatest asset, credit and debt mania in the history of civilization.  It's lasted a lot longer than I ever thought possible but when it ends (and it will), most people (whether retiree or otherwise) are going to be poorer or a lot poorer. 

The only thing supporting today's artificially inflated living standards and asset prices are the loosest credit conditions in the history of civilization; a combination of artificially distorted low interest rates and absurdly lax credit standards.

As for their being "no givens", future preferences in coin collecting aren't remotely as unpredictable as you claim.

Your definition of "wealth" is just as elusive to me as many of your others. 

I consider wealth to be very real and is the ability to produce, store, or transport item of value.  "Debt" is not wealth but a modern concept (and process) that allows people to procure consumer items which they otherwise can't afford.  It also allows government and industry to borrow from the future.   This is believed to be the primary cause of production running at full capacity. 

There is a great deal of real wealth even if it can be hard to see amidst the debt and actions of financiers. 

Nothing at all is predictable except that the nature of humans will remain essentially unchanged.  Watching things like demographics and the causes of individual behavior will provide insight into how current trends develop.  It is illogical to expect all conditions today to persist indefinitely.  The aggregate demand of any kind of collector is certainly one of the most ephemeral of all conditions to predict.  Coin collectors move enmass from one collecting specialty to the next and over the generation have collected everything from civil war tokens to silver art bars.  We've collected Lincoln cents, large cents, and 19th century proofs.  Silver dollars became king of the hill in the late '70's. 

All the popular collectibles since 1965 when the hobby was shaken by the withdrawal of silver from circulation have been silver.  To believe this will always be this way is "predicting the past" and this is where most would be Nostradamuses go wrong; they predict what they know.  They predict was already is or was. 

[World Colonial]

6 hours ago, cladking said:

Your definition of "wealth" is just as elusive to me as many of your others. 

I consider wealth to be very real and is the ability to produce, store, or transport item of value.  "Debt" is not wealth but a modern concept (and process) that allows people to procure consumer items which they otherwise can't afford.  It also allows government and industry to borrow from the future.   This is believed to be the primary cause of production running at full capacity. 

There is a great deal of real wealth even if it can be hard to see amidst the debt and actions of financiers. 

The whole point of my comment is that today's financial climate is not remotely normal which concurrently means that your comment about future wealth isn't remotely as significant to collecting as you imply because when the credit mania deflates, the purchasing power of most people is going to decrease with it if not collapse.

This is aside from the fact that there is effectively zero causality between financial affluence and collecting anyway, yet you continue to claim otherwise.  As I told you, in the United States, it has a somewhat higher correlation with white men but almost no correlation with anyone else or anywhere else. 

What exactly do you not understand about this concept and why do you keep on writing posts which imply this fiction has any merit whatsoever?

If your claim was true, how do you explain the effectively non-existent participation for women and African Americans in this country and the (almost) equally low participation among practically all demographic groups elsewhere outside of Europe and the Anglo Saxon countries?  The answer is that you can't because your premise isn't valid.

There are plenty of woman and minorities in this country who can spend a lot of money on coins if they wanted to do so.  The only reason they do not is because they choose otherwise and having more wealth isn't going to change this preference at all.  The same applies in every single country on the planet.

The whole idea that the collector base in most countries is as low as it is due to lack of wealth is nonsensical.  The only reason you fail to grasp this concept is because you don't understand what motivates people to become collectors.  Because if you did, you wouldn't continue to make the same repeated obviously inaccurate claim.

[World Colonial]

7 hours ago, cladking said:

Nothing at all is predictable except that the nature of humans will remain essentially unchanged.  Watching things like demographics and the causes of individual behavior will provide insight into how current trends develop.  It is illogical to expect all conditions today to persist indefinitely.  The aggregate demand of any kind of collector is certainly one of the most ephemeral of all conditions to predict.  Coin collectors move enmass from one collecting specialty to the next and over the generation have collected everything from civil war tokens to silver art bars.  We've collected Lincoln cents, large cents, and 19th century proofs.  Silver dollars became king of the hill in the late '70's. 

All the popular collectibles since 1965 when the hobby was shaken by the withdrawal of silver from circulation have been silver.  To believe this will always be this way is "predicting the past" and this is where most would be Nostradamuses go wrong; they predict what they know.  They predict was already is or was. 

All of your premises which I have had to identify for you in our prior message exchanges are unsubstantiated.  This is why you have been wrong since 1972 by your own admission.

As usual, you didn't try to answer the examples I gave or those in the past because you cannot.  To supposedly support your theory, you again write in the abstract.  If your claims had any validity, you would be able to provide specifics.

The idea that future collector preferences are unpredictable is totally false.  Here and in a in a prior debate, you listed art bars and tax tokens.  Earlier in this thread, Chuck-E-Cheese tokens.  Yes, these examples really support your claims and are predictive of the most widely collected and preferred coins for hundreds of thousands to millions of collectors, right? You cannot or refuse to see the difference between an actual preference and random chance.

The reason silver dollars became "king of the hill" wasn't by accident.  It was due to the removal of silver from US circulating coinage in 1965, the end of dollar convertability to gold in 1971 and the subsequent financialization of the coin hobby in the 1970's.  There is no possible believable scenario you can put forth here which is going to lead to the same result for clad coinage or world moderns.

Your demographic claim is also invalid.  Remember my prior comparison between the ASE and clad quarters?  If your theory was valid, then prior SQ collectors who in 1999 were maybe between ages of six to 18 and who are now 24 to 36 should be falling all over themselves to buy clad quarters today.  The lower prices for the series (both silver and clad) since 2008 prove that nothing of the sort has happened and it sure isn't because these collectors can't afford it.

Of the numerous logical errors in your theory, if I had to identify the single biggest one it is that you insist on lumping anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 coins into a group you call world "moderns".  No one collects these coins generically except at irrelevant prices, just like you do. There is also no reason to believe this will change in the future either because it doesn't exist for world "classics", except with a handful of high profile collections, as I told you right here in this thread.

There will be a low or very low proportion of individual coins or series from world "moderns" which will attain substantially increased popularity but still almost certainly not at the hugely inflated prices you imply.  Otherwise, most of these coins are going absolutely nowhere financially.

[Lord Harry]

4 hours ago, World Colonial said:

All of your premises which I have had to identify for you in our prior message exchanges are unsubstantiated.  This is why you have been wrong since 1972 by your own admission.

As usual, you didn't try to answer the examples I gave or those in the past because you cannot.  To supposedly support your theory, you again write in the abstract.  If your claims had any validity, you would be able to provide specifics.

The idea that future collector preferences are unpredictable is totally false.  Here and in a in a prior debate, you listed art bars and tax tokens.  Earlier in this thread, Chuck-E-Cheese tokens.  Yes, these examples really support your claims and are predictive of the most widely collected and preferred coins for hundreds of thousands to millions of collectors, right? You cannot or refuse to see the difference between an actual preference and random chance.

The reason silver dollars became "king of the hill" wasn't by accident.  It was due to the removal of silver from US circulating coinage in 1965, the end of dollar convertability to gold in 1971 and the subsequent financialization of the coin hobby in the 1970's.  There is no possible believable scenario you can put forth here which is going to lead to the same result for clad coinage or world moderns.

Your demographic claim is also invalid.  Remember my prior comparison between the ASE and clad quarters?  If your theory was valid, then prior SQ collectors who in 1999 were maybe between ages of six to 18 and who are now 24 to 36 should be falling all over themselves to buy clad quarters today.  The lower prices for the series (both silver and clad) since 2008 prove that nothing of the sort has happened and it sure isn't because these collectors can't afford it.

Of the numerous logical errors in your theory, if I had to identify the single biggest one it is that you insist on lumping anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 coins into a group you call world "moderns".  No one collects these coins generically except at irrelevant prices, just like you do. There is also no reason to believe this will change in the future either because it doesn't exist for world "classics", except with a handful of high profile collections, as I told you right here in this thread.

There will be a low or very low proportion of individual coins or series from world "moderns" which will attain substantially increased popularity but still almost certainly not at the hugely inflated prices you imply.  Otherwise, most of these coins are going absolutely nowhere financially.

Your entire premise is false.   These so called "coins" are in fact earth crystals created by the natural processes in the earth itself.  You are buying into the U.S. Treasury's lies hook, line, and sinker.  They would have us to believe that stinky fingered bumpkins who trust in God minted coins!  Where is the evidence for this!  The English word "God" isn't even attested before 1611, a good four years AFTER the first earth crystals were given to Jamestown colonists by the scientifically advanced natives.

[cladking]

15 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

As usual, you didn't try to answer the examples I gave or those in the past because you cannot.  To supposedly support your theory, you again write in the abstract.  If your claims had any validity, you would be able to provide specifics.

 

I'm not sure I know what you want.  Are you suggesting that if none of these series has gone up then I must be wrong? 

Take a look at Russian 15k made since 1961.  These little cu/ ni coins were made in large numbers but never saved.  Ten dates now list for over $100.  The Rouble  is less expensive but every date except the first year of issue is more than $25. 

You say I can't know the coins are tough but the fact is that the assumption a coin is common because it was made in large numbers is illogical when simple observation tells us people didn't save moderns.  They saved old coins, not new ones.  Most of the moderns that are never seen are never seen because they no longer exist.  Maybe you will find a bank bag of one of these but the odds are very much against it.