Two Interesting Perspectives on the Challenges facing the Hobby
0

126 posts in this topic

1,833 posts
1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

 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.

What "appeals" to collectors is dependent on the collectors.  Not everyone thinks only bust half dollars in Very Fine are desirable and collectible.  There are actually people who collect Chuck-e-Cheese tokens and some will pay good money for the rarities.  This is their choice and not yours, mine, or the current generation of collectors.  It's very difficult to say what the next generation will consider "appealing".  It's really not all that difficult to imagine almost anything become a focus of new collectors.  In ten  or fifteen years there won't be many old clad quarters surviving in circulation in better than G+ condition.  Why can't millions of new young collectors decide trying to put together VG/ F sets of quarters would be fun and educational?  Perhaps their VG 1969-D quarter had actually sat in Armstrong's NASA locker as he walked on the moon. 

Simply stated it's impossible to predict what future collectors will choose to collect.  Of course in aggregate they will collect every coin that exists outside museums and landfills but the question is what coins will experience greater demand than their supply.  And, of course, which coins will experience more demand than they do currently. If you believe that all existing trends must continue and that all future collectors will demand the same coins we want then you are believing in impossibilities.  All things are cyclical and all trends end or change.  Nobody is still trying to time the stock market to make a killing in buggy whips. 

I don't know what the future looks like any more than you or Nostradamus. But I still know for a fact that future collectors won't hate clads.  It's an aberration to hate inanimate objects or metal compositions  and it affects so many current collectors because of our experience.  The hobby was traumatized in 1965 and it will only recover as it is repopulated by new collectors. 

I understand your points but I don't agree with them because you are projecting trends and behavior that will not continue.  Things have changed and it's a brand new world.  Each day we'll wake up and more clearly see the changes and how the hobby is affected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
2 hours ago, cladking said:

What "appeals" to collectors is dependent on the collectors.  Not everyone thinks only bust half dollars in Very Fine are desirable and collectible.  There are actually people who collect Chuck-e-Cheese tokens and some will pay good money for the rarities.  This is their choice and not yours, mine, or the current generation of collectors.  It's very difficult to say what the next generation will consider "appealing".  It's really not all that difficult to imagine almost anything become a focus of new collectors.  In ten  or fifteen years there won't be many old clad quarters surviving in circulation in better than G+ condition.  Why can't millions of new young collectors decide trying to put together VG/ F sets of quarters would be fun and educational?  Perhaps their VG 1969-D quarter had actually sat in Armstrong's NASA locker as he walked on the moon. 

Simply stated it's impossible to predict what future collectors will choose to collect.  Of course in aggregate they will collect every coin that exists outside museums and landfills but the question is what coins will experience greater demand than their supply.  And, of course, which coins will experience more demand than they do currently. If you believe that all existing trends must continue and that all future collectors will demand the same coins we want then you are believing in impossibilities.  All things are cyclical and all trends end or change.  Nobody is still trying to time the stock market to make a killing in buggy whips. 

I don't know what the future looks like any more than you or Nostradamus. But I still know for a fact that future collectors won't hate clads.  It's an aberration to hate inanimate objects or metal compositions  and it affects so many current collectors because of our experience.  The hobby was traumatized in 1965 and it will only recover as it is repopulated by new collectors. 

I understand your points but I don't agree with them because you are projecting trends and behavior that will not continue.  Things have changed and it's a brand new world.  Each day we'll wake up and more clearly see the changes and how the hobby is affected. 

No, I don't know exactly what the future holds.  But I have already explained to you that preferences are not arbitrary.  In prior posts, I have described specific attributes which a coin either possesses or lacks which are directly linked to collector preferences.  This isn't recent either, in some instances going back to the beginning of modern collecting in 1500.   Any claim that preferences are likely to change substantially just because a new group of collectors will replace  current ones is unsubstantiated and has no merit whatsoever.  Among many examples, if this was remotely true, the discrepancy I included with the Jefferson nickel series right here in this thread would be impossible because the only difference within this series is with the Wartime silver dates where there isn't much of a demonstrated preference with the proximate dates anyway.  It has lasted for over 50 years.

Combined with any realistic extrapolation of economic conditions - in other words, one where most of the population is almost certainly going to be poorer or a lot poorer - and the internet which forces US coins to compete with every other coin on the planet on a more equal footing (being more available), yes it is an entirely obvious conclusion to reach that these coins are not very competitive except at nominal prices and are collectively (not every coin) almost certainly going to experience a decline in the collector base.

I am aware that every coin has to be owned by someone.  For most of the most widely collected US coins though, the supply is so vast it is almost certainly (much) larger than the collector base even now.  And by this, I am not referring to the highest grade moderns or obscure die varieties you always use as a rebuttal.  I am also not just referring to US moderns generally but also the coins you collected starting in 1957.

I haven't ever stated that these coins won't be appealing to anyone.  What I am telling you is that their relative appeal is almost certainly going to be less or a lot less than it is now, not in the immediate future but many years from now

Since collectors have a demonstrated tendency to prefer coins from their home country or country of origin, I expect most US collectors to continue to prefer the US coins they can afford today.   I expect the decline to occur at the margin but with a high likelihood that this marginal decline will be substantial in the aggregate, though not with every coin.  I expect the collector base to shrink (from a combination of economic conditions and alternative recreation activities) and the proportion of future collectors who choose these coins to also be somewhat lower, with a shift toward world coinage,  whether modern or "classic".

Another factor to consider is the future supply of US (and other world mint) products.  I presume since you believe the collector base will grow, you don't see much if any issue in absorbing this future incremental supply.  Well, since I hold the opposite opinion, I also expect this new supply to displace existing demand for the coins I am describing because recent (particularly post 2008) experience indicates it has already done so.

Edited by World Colonial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,833 posts
17 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 I presume since you believe the collector base will grow, you don't see much if any issue in absorbing this future incremental supply.  Well, since I hold the opposite opinion, I also expect this new supply to displace existing demand for the coins I am describing because recent (particularly post 2008) experience indicates it has already done so.

I don't as much expect the collector base to grow as I expect it to change.  It will change from a base that only finds old US silver and gold collectible to a base that enjoys the attributes and importance of all US and world coins.  Additionally, yes, I do expect it to grow significantly.  Most of the growth will be in foreign countries with countless millions of new collectors in China, India, Russia, Africa, and Europe as well as more collectors all over the world.  Even here in the US I'd expect more than modest growth as millions of states quarter collectors mature and have more knowledge, leisure time, and wealth. 

It is very safe to predict the hobby in twenty years will look far different than the hobby today.  Just as our experiences in the '50's and '60's shaped how we collect today this new generation and the hobby of the future will be shaped by what is happening now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

I believe it is more likely that the future of coin collecting will be shaped by the potential for profit.  If you want to predict the future of coin collecting (Will it be in US coinage or foreign coinage?) the prospect for financial gain will be the determining factor. Any desirable commodity inspires designs of potential profit, but it is the commodity that produces the most profit potential that thrives.

When it comes to coin collecting the hook that pulls in the most fish is the potential for profit, not the actual realization of the same, and this hook determines which country’s coinage garners the most attention, and which coin type and which attribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,833 posts
2 hours ago, Afterword said:

I believe it is more likely that the future of coin collecting will be shaped by the potential for profit.  If you want to predict the future of coin collecting (Will it be in US coinage or foreign coinage?) the prospect for financial gain will be the determining factor. Any desirable commodity inspires designs of potential profit, but it is the commodity that produces the most profit potential that thrives.

When it comes to coin collecting the hook that pulls in the most fish is the potential for profit, not the actual realization of the same, and this hook determines which country’s coinage garners the most attention, and which coin type and which attribution.

I've never been a big fan of investing in coins but collectors are well advised to try to collect in areas of potential growth.  It's more important to collect what you enjoy even if it's a poor choice from a growth standpoint but most of us have options and are not really committed to any specific series or country.  Everything has a time to be collected so waiting for the pendulum to swing can be a good idea when it's possible.  The important thing is to have fun and some people will only have fun collecting what is widely popular. 

This being said there are areas of the hobby that are simply exploding and this "explosion" could continue for years.  For instance the Republic of India made proof sets in 1954.  These sets languished in dealer inventory for decades because there was no demand.  Everyone was chasing everything else and no one wanted "common" examples of common coins especially since they were all base metal.  Then the unexpected happened and Indians wanted to collect their own coins.  Now this proof set that couldn't be given away a few years ago sells for $2500.  Indeed, it even turns out the coins made for circulation can be scarce or rare in nice BU condition and these can sell for hundreds and even thousands of dollars. 

I don't know what will happen in the future but it's a safe bet that collectors who collect the coins they like will make money and those who collect to make a profit will be lucky to break even.  Those who collect popular coins will do better if they continue to collect them even if they ever lose some of their popularity. 

The hobby is already big enough that it should be able to include everyone and all the new coins that are issued.  And it will be much larger in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,833 posts

And, yes, success breeds success. 

There will be lots of profits from gold, silver, and coins that will be plowed right back into coins and much of this will go into the areas that are hot.  This is what happened in 1980 when silver profits were used to bid up silver dollar profits. 

The more things change the more they are just the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:48 AM, cladking said:

I don't as much expect the collector base to grow as I expect it to change.  It will change from a base that only finds old US silver and gold collectible to a base that enjoys the attributes and importance of all US and world coins.  Additionally, yes, I do expect it to grow significantly.  Most of the growth will be in foreign countries with countless millions of new collectors in China, India, Russia, Africa, and Europe as well as more collectors all over the world.  Even here in the US I'd expect more than modest growth as millions of states quarter collectors mature and have more knowledge, leisure time, and wealth. 

It is very safe to predict the hobby in twenty years will look far different than the hobby today.  Just as our experiences in the '50's and '60's shaped how we collect today this new generation and the hobby of the future will be shaped by what is happening now. 

What exactly do you mean by "enjoying the importance and attributes of all coins"?  If it is anything other than financial, I have already explained to you that hundreds of thousands to millions (depending upon collector definition) already collect the coins you like.  The only difference would be that these coins are collected at much higher prices which has nothing to do with collecting.

I have a hard time responding to posts like this because you frequently alternate between casual collecting and the financial aspects.  In one of many instances, I previously told you that if you claimed one billion would collect out of pocket change, I would concede it to you.  This isn’t remotely related to the OP or any of our prior disagreements. 

If your claims are anything other than collecting predominantly out of circulation as the SQ collectors did, I have already explained to you that the supply of the coins doesn't exist in the quality that most collectors do or will want to buy because the financial aspects Afterword claimed absolutely are the most relevant and your implied number isn't about to spend any noticeable amount in contradiction to what I have told you.  In countries such as China and India at minimum, there aren't likely enough higher quality "moderns" (outside of NCLT) either now or in 20 years, not where hardly anyone will pay more than immaterial prices for it.

As for your last comment, look at the last 42 years since I started collecting.  I previously summed up the primary changes for you yet except for your "exploding" prices which are disproportionately financially immaterial, essentially nothing you claim has remotely occurred.  Your position is nothing more than a projection of your personal preferences onto most other collectors.  It is disproportionately unsubstantiated and the only thing it demonstrates is that you have little if any comprehension of collector behavior or motivation. You didn't explicitly state it here but this post once again implies that future collector preferences are open ended and collector age is the primary determining factor when both are false.

Edited by World Colonial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 1:12 PM, Afterword said:

I believe it is more likely that the future of coin collecting will be shaped by the potential for profit.  If you want to predict the future of coin collecting (Will it be in US coinage or foreign coinage?) the prospect for financial gain will be the determining factor. Any desirable commodity inspires designs of potential profit, but it is the commodity that produces the most profit potential that thrives.

When it comes to coin collecting the hook that pulls in the most fish is the potential for profit, not the actual realization of the same, and this hook determines which country’s coinage garners the most attention, and which coin type and which attribution.

Your general premise is correct but with one qualification.  There is no world coin market and no prospect for one in the foreseeable future.  The "market" (if can even be called that) is even more inefficient than more formal markets.  Financial buyers and collectors don't even have awareness of what exists to be bought because most can't be bothered to research the alternatives and for most coins, there isn't hardly any reference information which someone could use to do it.  For those who are US centric collectors, they have the benefit of participating in the most researched market on the planet with the only competitor to my knowledge being the UK.

Also, while in theory, any number of coins (primarily outside the US) can sell for much higher material prices, the reality is that absent a bubble or unsubstantiated assumptions of collector behavior, it either won't happen at all or it won't last. This is exactly what happened in South Africa up to 2011 and the US TPG bubble in the late 1980's.  An outsized proportion of financial buyers inflated the prices above what real collectors were willing to pay.  This matters because ultimately, only collectors derive any utility from collecting and not anyone else, regardless that many (US) buyers might collect as an alternative to participating in other asset classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 4:27 PM, cladking said:

And, yes, success breeds success. 

There will be lots of profits from gold, silver, and coins that will be plowed right back into coins and much of this will go into the areas that are hot.  This is what happened in 1980 when silver profits were used to bid up silver dollar profits. 

The more things change the more they are just the same. 

Let me guess, profits from gold and silver will noticeably be placed into the coins you like based upon your other claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,833 posts
22 hours ago, World Colonial said:

...I have a hard time responding to posts like this because you frequently alternate between casual collecting and the financial aspects.  ...

... you have little if any comprehension of collector behavior or motivation. You didn't explicitly state it here but this post once again implies that future collector preferences are open ended and collector age is the primary determining factor when both are false...

People in the future will collect what they want to collect and the hobby, the "financial aspects", is the vector sum total of all of these decisions.  This is the nature of ALL markets and the coin market is no different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

Without the potential for profit, coin collecting returns to its base existence as a means to alleviate idleness and as an academic pursuit.  This latter state of coin collecting is the foundation, upon which the former was constructed. It is also the more sustainable of the two, and will likely abide for many, many years to come.

I was attracted to coin collecting by both of these states, to alleviate boredom and also as a means to save money. While the latter meant I would not save as much money has I would have via other investments, I have never been satisfied with the sterile accumulation of money.

I am presently in the process of selling my collection of coins and bank notes. I do not expect to make a profit on either, but the entertainment I received collecting them has provided more than adequate compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,833 posts
4 hours ago, Afterword said:

Without the potential for profit, coin collecting returns to its base existence as a means to alleviate idleness and as an academic pursuit.  This latter state of coin collecting is the foundation, upon which the former was constructed. It is also the more sustainable of the two, and will likely abide for many, many years to come.

I was attracted to coin collecting by both of these states, to alleviate boredom and also as a means to save money. While the latter meant I would not save as much money has I would have via other investments, I have never been satisfied with the sterile accumulation of money.

I am presently in the process of selling my collection of coins and bank notes. I do not expect to make a profit on either, but the entertainment I received collecting them has provided more than adequate compensation.

It's certainly true that a large part of the motivation for most coin purchases is often for profit.  And this is EXACTLY why success feeds success so readily in coin collecting.  Once someone thinks that he might make a substantial profit on a coin he doesn't care if the coin if a Coronet $10 gold or a three cent nickel.  Indeed, future collectors would even consider copper nickel clad for profit.  Current collectors not only wouldn't buy clad because they believe it can't go up but also wouldn't want to sully their hands dealing in clad. 

If clad starts increasing there will likely be a piling on just as has always been typical in this hobby. 

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 9:41 AM, cladking said:

People in the future will collect what they want to collect and the hobby, the "financial aspects", is the vector sum total of all of these decisions.  This is the nature of ALL markets and the coin market is no different. 

Yes, all I am trying to tell you is that the future isn't as unpredictable as you imply.  The future preferences of individuals are certainly uncertain but the larger the group, the more predictable the outcome.  Let me give you an example.

Jewish Revolt coinage probably has as strong an affinity as any other due to the linkage to Judaism and Christianity.  The coins aren't remotely scarce and appear to be collected by at least several thousand at strong prices given the availability.  In 20 years or whatever timeframe you want to use, the prices may be lower and the owners will be different but there isn't any reason to believe the affinity will be noticeably different.  Not unless coin collecting ends, the coins are banned or both religions disappear.

The reasoning I used for this series, it can be applied to any other coin or series where the collector base has "critical mass".  The ZAR veld pond, practically all US coinage, Spanish colonials...I think you get the idea.  Each of these series and the coins in them has an appeal that isn't going to noticeably change in your timeframe just because a different of group collectors are buying them.  It is going to take a change in the underlying culture to change perceptions that is a lot more than just a function of the collector's age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 5:49 PM, cladking said:

It's certainly true that a large part of the motivation for most coin purchases is often for profit.  And this is EXACTLY why success feeds success so readily in coin collecting.  Once someone thinks that he might make a substantial profit on a coin he doesn't care if the coin if a Coronet $10 gold or a three cent nickel.  Indeed, future collectors would even consider copper nickel clad for profit.  Current collectors not only wouldn't buy clad because they believe it can't go up but also wouldn't want to sully their hands dealing in clad. 

If clad starts increasing there will likely be a piling on just as has always been typical in this hobby. 

If it happens, what reason is there to believe it will be any different than any number of other prior instances?  The US roll hoarding of the 1960's, the US TPG bubble of the late 1980's, periodic speculation in US Mint issues such as the 2014 gold Kennedy half and South Africa's own TPG bubble centered around the 2008 Mandela 5R.  Each of these was temporary and flamed out.

This financial buying isn't actually success though I presume practically everyone disagrees with me.  While the US price level was always inflated versus other coinage prior to the widespread buying of US coins as "investments" in the 1970's, the current level of speculation is simply an additional manifestation of the financialization of society and the economy.

The current financial mania has lasted a lot longer than I ever thought possible but ultimately, there is no free lunch in life.  When the financial levitation act ends, asset prices will crash back to earth and coins are going to crash with it.  I expect this process to last a long time but ultimately, coins are only collectible trinkets with no utility whatsoever and in a much poorer world, will lose most if not all of the incremental  inflated value from the credit bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393 posts
13 hours ago, World Colonial said:

coins are only collectible trinkets with no utility whatsoever a

WC, I share your pessimism to a degree, but there are many items being bought by the 1% today at prices that seem absurd to me and probably to the vast majority of folks who care what they do with their money. Take a look at Heritage's website and peruse their other auctions. Hermes purses are being auctioned at six figures. I can't imagine how much money I would need before I would consider buying my wife something like that. There are many egregious, to me, examples in illustration art, sports collectibles, the list goes on. That these things will crash in value seems certain to me, regardless of economic conditions. Coins that fall into the same category will likewise crash. However, I think that the collecting of things that are artistically appealing, represent history, etc. will endure unless we devolve into a Mad Max world. If one is selective and lucky, those things will be something of a repository of value, but should never be looked at as "investments".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,833 posts
13 hours ago, World Colonial said:

If it happens, what reason is there to believe it will be any different than any number of other prior instances?  The US roll hoarding of the 1960's, the US TPG bubble of the late 1980's, periodic speculation in US Mint issues such as the 2014 gold Kennedy half and South Africa's own TPG bubble centered around the 2008 Mandela 5R.  Each of these was temporary and flamed out.

This financial buying isn't actually success though I presume practically everyone disagrees with me.  While the US price level was always inflated versus other coinage prior to the widespread buying of US coins as "investments" in the 1970's, the current level of speculation is simply an additional manifestation of the financialization of society and the economy.

The current financial mania has lasted a lot longer than I ever thought possible but ultimately, there is no free lunch in life.  When the financial levitation act ends, asset prices will crash back to earth and coins are going to crash with it.  I expect this process to last a long time but ultimately, coins are only collectible trinkets with no utility whatsoever and in a much poorer world, will lose most if not all of the incremental  inflated value from the credit bubble.

There are two fundamental differences in out view of the world and its future.  For one you are projecting the rapidly increasing total wealth of the world will continue to flow only to the rich.  I doubt this trend is sustainable.  Eventually people will see the destruction being caused to enrich the few  and it will have to reverse. Another thing you see that I don't is that "historical" precedents on what is collectible and what is not have any sort of basis in reality.  There is nothing fundamental that makes modern "pocket change" uncollectible.  This is merely the perspective of the current market which is defined as the vector sum total of all buying and selling decisions.  That little money is being spent on clad at this time is far more indicative of the perspective of collectors than it is the "collectability" of modern "junk".  It is only uncollectible because current collectros deem it to be. 

But at the same time this is the most rapidly growing segment of the market in many countries.  It's new collectors putting pressure on the supplies of moderns.  With the many millions of new collectors this pressure is bound to increase as they mature and flesh out their collections. 

Watching trends gives insight into the future but it must be remembered that all trends will eventually reverse.  Everything is cyclical and this applies even to things that seem to be constant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
4 hours ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

WC, I share your pessimism to a degree, but there are many items being bought by the 1% today at prices that seem absurd to me and probably to the vast majority of folks who care what they do with their money. Take a look at Heritage's website and peruse their other auctions. Hermes purses are being auctioned at six figures. I can't imagine how much money I would need before I would consider buying my wife something like that. There are many egregious, to me, examples in illustration art, sports collectibles, the list goes on. That these things will crash in value seems certain to me, regardless of economic conditions. Coins that fall into the same category will likewise crash. However, I think that the collecting of things that are artistically appealing, represent history, etc. will endure unless we devolve into a Mad Max world. If one is selective and lucky, those things will be something of a repository of value, but should never be looked at as "investments".

There is a difference between collecting and financial buying.  I have never said that coins or other desirable objects will no longer be collected, only that the inflated values are destined to drastically decrease.  If most inflated coins and other objects lose over 95% of their real value adjusted for purchasing power which is hardly unrealistic given that these inflated prices can be almost entirely attributed to the credit mania, it's hardly a "Mad Max" world.  It just means that collecting will return to the hobby it disproportionately was instead of being used as an alternative asset class as it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393 posts
7 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

will return to the hobby it disproportionately was

It still is a hobby in many areas of numismatics. I'm mostly into early medals right now, which I think represent great value, although for me that's a secondary consideration. But, you and I agree that there are segments of numismatics, which include other than US coins as well, that reflect speculative buying, or perhaps ego-driven buying, which cannot last at current price levels. At least that's my intuition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
3 hours ago, cladking said:

There are two fundamental differences in out view of the world and its future.  For one you are projecting the rapidly increasing total wealth of the world will continue to flow only to the rich.  I doubt this trend is sustainable.  Eventually people will see the destruction being caused to enrich the few  and it will have to reverse. Another thing you see that I don't is that "historical" precedents on what is collectible and what is not have any sort of basis in reality.  There is nothing fundamental that makes modern "pocket change" uncollectible.  This is merely the perspective of the current market which is defined as the vector sum total of all buying and selling decisions.  That little money is being spent on clad at this time is far more indicative of the perspective of collectors than it is the "collectability" of modern "junk".  It is only uncollectible because current collectros deem it to be. 

But at the same time this is the most rapidly growing segment of the market in many countries.  It's new collectors putting pressure on the supplies of moderns.  With the many millions of new collectors this pressure is bound to increase as they mature and flesh out their collections. 

Watching trends gives insight into the future but it must be remembered that all trends will eventually reverse.  Everything is cyclical and this applies even to things that seem to be constant.

You might not believe me, but I am not trying to change you mind.  I find this subject to be of academic interest only, because it is nothing more.

The reason we don't agree isn't related to what you wrote in this post.  I don't presume the future is fixed "forever".  I presume that people will continue to act as they are known to do until presented with a reason or evidence to believe otherwise.

You hardly ever do this in any of your posts because your premises and claims disproportionately have no basis in reality.    An example is your demographic claim.  There is no evidence that this is more than an irrelevant factor now and no reason to believe it will remotely be the one you claim in the future either.  Since you haven't, this is why I told you that I see your claims as nothing more than a projection of your personal preference. 

The explanations I have given you on different aspects of this subject are either factually accurate or can be reasonably inferred.  An example is the one I just gave you on the Jewish Revolt coinage.  You know it is an accurate claim, it contradicts your theory and so you ignore it, just as you have with practically every other example I have given you.

In the above post, you continue to imply that collecting today is substantially a function of personal financial circumstances.  It isn't.  There is no shortage of affluent people which prevents a huge multiple from collecting right now.  It is more of a factor in the US and definitely a factor for existing collectors but not one at all in most countries with the general population.  Since it isn't a limitation, it's obvious the only reason is because they don't want to.

There is also no "trend" as you claim.  First, the buying habits of the very low number of collectors for the more expensive world "moderns" has no correlation.  Second, there is no evidence for the world "modern" generalist except the low budget buyer whose buying for 99%+ of all world coinage outside of NCLT is financially irrelevant.  The only generic collecting of world coinage as you imply is by "name" collections such as Eliasberg.  Everyone else either collects by series or from a very low number of countries because they can't afford it.  My collecting is typical of most non-US collectors and what I buy has no predictive value for any other series or coin either. 

Your usage of the term "modern" is also not reflective of how either anyone or hardly anyone collects outside the US.  I have used it in my post exchanges with you but it's an arbitrary US centric term.  I agree with you that collectors generally prefer gold and silver to base metal coinage but the price differences between comparable coins are financially irrelevant and there is nothing unusual in this preference either. 

As for the distribution of wealth, your comments provide no indication that you understand this subject either.  I have every confidence that various political schemes will be attempted to "remediate" wealth inequality, the most obvious one being a guaranteed universal basic income which is already in place on a trial basis in a few countries in Europe right now.  As is inevitable with all socialist economic management, the one thing that is completely predictable is that it will fail miserably and end up making any economy where it is tried even poorer.  The reason it will fail is because it presumes human behavior which is contrary to human nature, just like your premises.

Lastly, I have never said that moderns aren't collectible, yet you continue to insist that I do just because I disagree with your inflated opinion of the merits.  The price and the merits as a collectible are independent and one is not contingent upon the other.

Edited by World Colonial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
1 hour ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

It still is a hobby in many areas of numismatics. I'm mostly into early medals right now, which I think represent great value, although for me that's a secondary consideration. But, you and I agree that there are segments of numismatics, which include other than US coins as well, that reflect speculative buying, or perhaps ego-driven buying, which cannot last at current price levels. At least that's my intuition.

I agree with you but maybe with one qualification.  The prices in a field like medals also appear to be inflated from my limited experience, just a lot less than coinage. 

I don't expect just anyone to be able to afford to collect as those on this forum and PCGS typically do.  However, when a collection (regardless of which one) costs as much as a major life expenditure such as a new car but essentially has no distinction whatsoever except under a contrived standard, something is clearly "out of whack".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393 posts
1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

something is clearly "out of whack".

Not just with collectibles. My brother paid $300 to have his cat's aura read. A sea of money going to silly places these days, and not to where it's really needed. Alas, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts
On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 3:09 PM, World Colonial said:

However, when a collection (regardless of which one) costs as much as a major life expenditure such as a new car but essentially has no distinction whatsoever except under a contrived standard, something is clearly "out of whack".

 

It is as it should be. People are willing to pay for what they want. There is no correct price for a given coin, anymore than there is a correct grade for a given coin. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,833 posts
On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 3:05 PM, World Colonial said:

 

Your usage of the term "modern" is also not reflective of how either anyone or hardly anyone collects outside the US.  I have used it in my post exchanges with you but it's an arbitrary US centric term.  I agree with you that collectors generally prefer gold and silver to base metal coinage but the price differences between comparable coins are financially irrelevant and there is nothing unusual in this preference either. 

 

Your problem with this term might simply be reflective of your unwillingness to communicate on this issue.  Somehow you have gotten the notion that there will be few collectors in the future and they'll only want "historically significant" coins which you define as currently valuable coins that aren't moderns. 

"Modern" is just a word and it is the word I use to describe coins made since WW II that were never widely collected.  This means base metal coins made allover the world that replaced silver and gold coins that had been circulating. 

If you refuse to even understand the terms then communicating is impossible and I'll just have to throw in the towel. 

But I still disagree that the collecting base will shrink OR that future collectors will avoid moderns as do the current ones.  Combine these two concepts with the scarcity of many moderns and you should see why I believe modern prices will continue to rocket higher. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
59 minutes ago, cladking said:

Your problem with this term might simply be reflective of your unwillingness to communicate on this issue.  Somehow you have gotten the notion that there will be few collectors in the future and they'll only want "historically significant" coins which you define as currently valuable coins that aren't moderns. 

"Modern" is just a word and it is the word I use to describe coins made since WW II that were never widely collected.  This means base metal coins made allover the world that replaced silver and gold coins that had been circulating. 

If you refuse to even understand the terms then communicating is impossible and I'll just have to throw in the towel. 

But I still disagree that the collecting base will shrink OR that future collectors will avoid moderns as do the current ones.  Combine these two concepts with the scarcity of many moderns and you should see why I believe modern prices will continue to rocket higher. 

I am not avoiding anything.  Notice how you ignore all of the evidence I present against your claims and focus on one issue where you claim I misunderstand you?  I don't misunderstand you and I am not failing to communicate with you on anything.  I disagree with you.

I mean, it isn't like there is any independent reality for your view.  Why would I agree with anything you claim when you have provided no reason whatsoever to do so? 

What I am trying to tell you on this usage of "modern" is that there is little if any evidence that collectors outside the US think of their coinage as you do or as you claim.  How is this misunderstanding you?  It is you who misunderstand how collectors elsewhere generally collect, just as you do with practically everything else related to this subject.

Do you remember when you used the 1950 NZ shilling as an example ?  What evidence is there that collectors of this series make the distinction you claim?  The prices in Krause (worthless as it is) don't indicate one, as the differences between the silver and base metal dates for the King George VI dates (1937-1952) are immaterial.  Neither does my limited review of Heritage or Noble Numismatics.  So what evidence is there that collectors in NZ or Australia (which is likely most of them) think of these coins as you claim?  Given that NZ coinage only dates to 1933, why would these buyers make this artificial distinction and avoid the base metal dates, as it would leave them almost nothing to collect?  From what I can see from my limited knowledge of the NZ market, the division is between decimal and pre-decimal due to a change in the monetary system, not the artificial distinction you make using the metal composition.

As I told you at the beginning of this thread and just in my last post, when it suits your purposes, you continue to ignore that hundreds of thousands to millions of collectors do collect these coins.  Your complaint is on the price level, not anything else.  You claim otherwise but given your posting history, it is the only conclusion that makes any sense. 

Collectors are buying these coins and aren't remotely avoiding them.    I own a few if it is a coin I like enough, just as presumably most contributors here and PCGS also do. 

If it was really about collecting and not money, you would recognize what I am telling you.  Instead, you are the biggest complainer of any coin collector I have ever  encountered.  Do you see anyone else complaining that everyone else doesn't like the coins they collect as much as they do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,833 posts
21 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

 

As I told you at the beginning of this thread and just in my last post, when it suits your purposes, you continue to ignore that hundreds of thousands to millions of collectors do collect these coins.  Your complaint is on the price level, not anything else.  You claim otherwise but given your posting history, it is the only conclusion that makes any sense. 

 

I am not "complaining" about the price level of moderns.  I am merely observing that among the many millions of modern collectors there are relatively few who are comfortable spending a lot of money on a coin and that the total value of their collections is far lower than the total value of the collections of classic coin collectors.  Modern collectors tend to be younger and are more likely to live in other countries. 
 

Quote

 


What I am trying to tell you on this usage of "modern" is that there is little if any evidence that collectors outside the US think of their coinage as you do or as you claim.  How is this misunderstanding you?  It is you who misunderstand how collectors elsewhere generally collect, just as you do with practically everything else related to this subject.

Do you remember when you used the 1950 NZ shilling as an example ? 

 

"Modern" is just a word.  I use it to describe the base metal coins that replaced silver coinage all over the world after WWII.  "Silver coinage" is just a word too.  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. 

Coincidentally NZ is one of the few countries where I've spoken extensively with collectors.  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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
772 posts

As far as moderns go I've stated my opinion before about poor eye appeal due to low relief as well as striking problems with hard alloys. This eye appeal thing should be front and center when considering what direction future collectors will go. As for distribution of wealth affecting the collector base I think not. Socialist ideas fail every time they are tried and I'll bet some of you folks have inherited collections built during those times. No political intent here just historical fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,833 posts
26 minutes ago, numisport said:

As far as moderns go I've stated my opinion before about poor eye appeal due to low relief as well as striking problems with hard alloys. This eye appeal thing should be front and center when considering what direction future collectors will go. As for distribution of wealth affecting the collector base I think not. Socialist ideas fail every time they are tried and I'll bet some of you folks have inherited collections built during those times. No political intent here just historical fact.

So... what is the date between collectable and not collectable? 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
772 posts
On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:13 PM, cladking said:

So... what is the date between collectable and not collectable? 

 

I don't think there is any set date, just that I've set my own standards for eye appeal. For me I think its when modern issues had their relief lowered. Which would you rather own, a nice deep mirrored 1938 nickel in lets say proof 66 or a modern nickel in lower relief proof 70 with Jefferson smirking at you for about the same price ? Really I must say that I love early 20th century type we call 'Renaissance Coinage'. These issues will certainly be collectable down the road and are readily available for reasonable money.

Edited by numisport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 9:55 AM, cladking said:

I am not "complaining" about the price level of moderns.  I am merely observing that among the many millions of modern collectors there are relatively few who are comfortable spending a lot of money on a coin and that the total value of their collections is far lower than the total value of the collections of classic coin collectors.  Modern collectors tend to be younger and are more likely to live in other countries. 

I am aware of this but unlike you, see absolutely nothing unusual about it and I have never encountered anyone else who has indicated they do either.  I also don't see that it makes any difference to collecting.

The other thing I have told you numerous times is that most world "classics" or the predecessors to the coins you call "moderns" disproportionately sell for nominal prices as well.  Most of these coins aren't remotely expensive.  They are or may be proportionately a lot more expensive but the absolute price differences are financially irrelevant which you exaggerate, again.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0