Two Interesting Perspectives on the Challenges facing the Hobby

[cladking]

23 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

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.

It's not necessarily the magnitude of the collector base that is at issue.  Paul Green used to write about the great interest in coins in Costa Rica.  I'm sure many of these collectors were real "numismatists" or at least "budding numismatists" but the simple fact is they were mostly poor.  They didn't have the cash to purchase two or three dollar coins so their demand still hasn't materialized in our coin market.  It certainly hasn't materialized in the coins you call financially significant.  But these people are still poor and unless you can show a correlation between coin collecting and poverty it's hard to believe one causes the other. 

Greater wealth in a population always results in more money spent on coins and common sense dictates that a demographic group that hates clads being replaced by one that collects clad should necessarily increase relative demand for clads. 

This is what the argument comes down to and this is what you can't seem to see.  You are predicting the past where everyone like old, large, gold, and US coins even though it is a fact that there is a new demographic coming and they are arising all over the world and especially in countries where wealth is increasing rapidly. 

 

When we started this argument a few years ago I also used the Chinese 50's era aluminum coins s an example of coins that were difficult to find.  NOW these sell or prices up to $900!!!   Of course this is for nice choice Gem coins but being high grade isn't the problem with these; they are simply hard to find in Unc and when you do find one they tend to be high grade or very high grade.  I'd say the BU's are grossly undervalued still and the Gems might be overvalued.

This process won't stop but will only accelerate. 

[World Colonial]

7 hours ago, cladking said:

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. 

I don't expect you to agree with me if you have a difference of opinion and I know you won't.  I expect you to accept verifiable facts and not ignore it. In the past, you have told me my claims are illogical yet there is almost no logic in any of your claims.

My position includes verifiable facts which contradict or refute your claims, you have no rebuttal and then you proceed to repeat the same unsubstantiated premises.  Your demographic claim is one, your claim about wealth being a noticeable factor in the size of the collector base is a second, your "natural state" is a third and your claim that collector preferences are unpredictable when I show you it isn't is a fourth.

As for this aspect, which has nothing to do with my last post, are we going to revisit this again as well?  Are you going to claim yet again that your personal experience or of those you have been in contact with is representative of the scarcity and availability?  Because if you are, I'm going to tell you that it isn't, just as I did before.  I can't tell you exactly how scarce any individual coin is but I can absolutely demonstrate to you that there is every reason to believe these coins are universally (not specifically) almost certainly a lot more common than you claim and believe.  This is especially likely given your generic habit of exaggerating practically everything in your theory.

The other point I will make here since you bring it up again is that your posting history doesn't give me any reason to believe you know the real prices either.  Remember the 1954 India proof set which you have used many times as support for you claim? 

Well, it isn't worth the $2500 price you claimed earlier in this thread, just as it wasn't worth the $4000 you claimed in 2014.  It took me a few minutes to find multiple sales in the last few years where the price is much less.  First, there is Maru actions in early 2014 for about $1500 which I provided before ,  Stephen Album also sold partial sets in 2014, one six coins for $510 in NGC PR 62-64 and a second three coin lot in PR 66-67 for $730.  London coins also sold a full set ungraded "FDC" for 550 GBP late last year.  There are also three coins listed on eBay now for months unsold from $129 to $400+. The set sells at a respectable price but the value of the individual coins is still nominal, regardless that it has "exploded" by your definition.  Not only do I not believe you knew of this data now, I don't believe you have any idea what the set was worth in the past either.  My guess is that like South Africa Union, it is probably worth more in India (the $1500) than elsewhere because local collectors have a much higher affinity for it.

Lastly, like I told you before, some of the coins you consider rare may not be available now because they never existed, ever.  I suspect they were never actually struck.  I have identified a few possible candidates from the series I collect.  Krause is wrong on the prices and there is no reason to believe that other factual errors exist as well, such as from borrowed but inaccurate data which was never verified.

 

[World Colonial]

33 minutes ago, cladking said:

Greater wealth in a population always results in more money spent on coins and common sense dictates that a demographic group that hates clads being replaced by one that collects clad should necessarily increase relative demand for clads. 

This is what the argument comes down to and this is what you can't seem to see.  You are predicting the past where everyone like old, large, gold, and US coins even though it is a fact that there is a new demographic coming and they are arising all over the world and especially in countries where wealth is increasing rapidly. 

 

My argument comes down to the fact that your premises have no merit whatsoever, yet you act as if they do.  Lack of infallibility on my part doesn't remotely lead to any accuracy on yours.  I mean, it isn't like any of your claims are credible because your premises are completely contrary to how people are known to act.  You expect me (or anyone else) to accept your premises when there is no basis for any of them whatsoever.  

I have already demonstrated to you that your premises are either flat out false, such as your demographic claim.  Or, they are unsubstantiated and there is no reason to believe it either, such as with your claim about preferences being unpredictable.  Why do you think I bothered to give you the example for the 1839 UK proof set and the probability of this preference under your claims?  Same applies for the numerous other examples both now and before?  Do you think I wrote it just to hear myself?

There is no common sense in your "hate" claim either but even if there was, it doesn't remotely lead to your unstated but utterly absurd future claims for the popularity of moderns and the future price level.  That is yet another logical fallacy.

Greater wealth in a population does not always lead to more money spent on coins, except to the extent it occurs in the existing collector population.  This is exactly what you are claiming now and I have already concurred with this self-evident and obvious truism, long before you wrote this post. No, what you have attempted to claim to this point is that future wealth increases will lead to your hugely inflated future collector base globally and for you to claim otherwise is revisionist history.

Let me tell me the most ironic part of our ongoing debates.  It is evident that you never "connected the dots" between your premises because if you did and remotely understand how people actually act, you wouldn't ever make the claims you have.  During the Krause thread, I had to sort through your disjoined and illogical premises to compile a comprehensive picture of your theory for you.  One I might add, which you have never disputed.

In summary:

Is there room for a legitimate difference of opinion on the size of the collector base?  Yes

Is there room for a legitimate difference of opinion on the future financial scale?  Yes

Is there room for a legitimate difference of opinion on the future price level?  Yes

Is there a reasonable basis to believe moderns (world or US) will become somewhat more popular and sell for somewhat higher prices across the board?  Yes

Is there any basis for your claims on these four attributes?  No, absolutely not.  I could (and have in my posts) literally write a book or research paper refuting your claims because it isn't and hasn't been difficult to do at all.

If space aliens exist on another planet and collect their version of coinage, your theory may apply to them.  However, I have no problem telling you that it will never apply to human beings on planet earth.

[cladking]

17 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

Is there room for a legitimate difference of opinion on the size of the collector base?  Yes

Is there room for a legitimate difference of opinion on the future financial scale?  Yes

Is there room for a legitimate difference of opinion on the future price level?  Yes

Is there a reasonable basis to believe moderns (world or US) will become somewhat more popular and sell for somewhat higher prices across the board?  Yes

Is there any basis for your claims on these four attributes?  No, absolutely not.  I could (and have in my posts) literally write a book or research paper refuting your claims because it isn't and hasn't been difficult to do at all.

 

If I could follow your arguments I believe I would find them to be semantical in nature. 

I believe I have done pretty well financially on a significant number of coins and this number will grow into the future.  Of course for the main part these are merely paper profits on coins in safety deposit boxes and actual sale prices might be substantially lower even absent market risks going forward.

I believe demand is still remarkably low even on the coins with significant gains so even more gains are possible. 

I'll say this though.  Even if your arguments are sound and logical it's still impossible to predict the future.  One of the reasons I got into moderns was that I believed I could predict that collectors will never change and they'll always want what was once common in the long run.  My prediction could be largely wrong as well or might not apply in every country.  Of course it won't apply to every individual. 

[World Colonial]

5 hours ago, cladking said:

I believe I have done pretty well financially on a significant number of coins and this number will grow into the future.  Of course for the main part these are merely paper profits on coins in safety deposit boxes and actual sale prices might be substantially lower even absent market risks going forward.

I have never questioned how you will perform financially.  I don't see where you get this from my posts.

My suspicion is that because you almost certainly don't know the actual prices except maybe for a very low number of coins and seem to refer to the Krause guide for value, that you will possibly find that most of your world coins are worth less or a lot less than what you believe.

As you know, with most coins being very illiquid with a limited number of buyers, it depends a lot upon timing.  Not just of market conditions but being able to match what you own with one or more buyers who happen to want what you have and will pay the "real" value.

This is what I had to do when I sold most of my South Africa collection (value wise) in 2009 and 2010.  Fortunately, I knew two collectors in South Africa who either bought the coins directly from me or helped me sell it.  Otherwise, I would have likely just sold all (instead of only some) on eBay and likely for less.  Even so though, I know I left a lot of money "on the table" in some instances because I couldn't sell the coin for the SA price, still didn't know the real value and didn't want to take a chance with a real auction instead of at a fixed price, whether with eBay or elsewhere such as Heritage.

[World Colonial]

5 hours ago, cladking said:

If I could follow your arguments I believe I would find them to be semantical in nature. 

I believe demand is still remarkably low even on the coins with significant gains so even more gains are possible. 

I'll say this though.  Even if your arguments are sound and logical it's still impossible to predict the future.  One of the reasons I got into moderns was that I believed I could predict that collectors will never change and they'll always want what was once common in the long run.  My prediction could be largely wrong as well or might not apply in every country.  Of course it won't apply to every individual. 

I have no idea how you claim my arguments are hard to follow.  My posts are predominantly a description of how people actually act and nothing more.  Unlike you, I haven't interjected my personal preference into my claims.  If there was a reason to believe your theory or any of your premises, I would admit it.  I disagree with you because you haven't provided any reason to believe your claims.

As for the future, I will tell you exactly what I told you before.  There is a difference between believing everything is "fixed forever" as you insist I do and your claims.  It isn't an "either" or an "or" and to claim it is yet another logical fallacy.  I have never said the future is fixed. 

Concurrently, there is no basis to believe your theory because your premises are not valid.  I have never read a single post of yours where you gave anyone a reason to believe your assumptions underlying your theory while I have provided specific evidence and arguments contradicting every single one of your premises.

As I told you in the Krause thread at the end of our discussion, I disagree with you for two reasons, timing and scale.  The scale you imply is contradicted by practically everything known of both collector and human behavior.  Your implied price level especially for moderns also requires an outcome contrary to how collectors are known to act. 

Even with the internet which accommodates more rapid change, your ever shifting timeframe of 20 years makes no sense.   The internet has been a collecting tool for about 20 years now yet doesn't remotely support the change you imply.  You can't even explain self evident contradictory data away such as the 50 year discrepancy in the Jefferson Nickel series and the current preference between ASE and clad quarters. 

If you can't even do that, why would I or anyone else believe people will behave with the future preferences you claim when you have absolutely nothing to support it?