Is the Clad Quarter Market Strong?

[cladking]

1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

I don't need to use my anecdotal experience to make this claim because there is verifiable data to prove it.  It is called the price level and population reports. 

Are you actually going to tell me that it's predominantly older collectors who prefer the ASE, modern US commemoratives and world NCLT?  Because if this is your claim, why should I believe it?  

If your claim is true, why isn't it reflected in the prices of US moderns now? 

And this is exactly what I mean by "predicting the present".  This is what most pundits do.  They either take current trends and project them ad infinitum or they look to see how things are at present and extend it forward.  These techniques never work.  I would have a better chance throwing darts at a dartboard. 

Literally nothing we can directly experience or is palpable lasts forever. 

[World Colonial]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

And this is exactly what I mean by "predicting the present".  This is what most pundits do.  They either take current trends and project them ad infinitum or they look to see how things are at present and extend it forward.  These techniques never work.  I would have a better chance throwing darts at a dartboard. 

Literally nothing we can directly experience or is palpable lasts forever. 

You presume your premise is true when it isn't.  By your own prior admission, you have been almost 100% wrong for 45 years with your claims.  If this claim were true, you should have at least a 50% chance of being right.

You aren't predicting anything.  There is no trend in your claims.   It doesn't deserve any serious consideration because it isn't based upon anything as it is nothing more than your personal preference projected onto other collectors. 

But to go back to this claim about gold and silver, the initial post to which you replied, I didn't make it in this context.  From a financial aspect, though it's largely driven by the buying of gold and silver coinage, it isn't exclusive to it.

The reason there will never be any financial scale to the collecting of US circulating moderns is because of the preference scale and the attributes these coins possess.  Collectors just don't like them and it has nothing to do with age.  The public disproportionately doesn't like them either.

The comparison I made to the ASE, I have a four year old niece.  If I were to offer her an ASE on the one hand and any US circulating modern except maybe the Ike which is the same size, she and anyone else near her age would pick the ASE almost every single time, just as collectors overwhelmingly prefer it now.  It isn't random and has nothing to do with generations or age.  "Big" trumps "small" by a lopsided proportion in the past, now and in the future.  

With anyone old enough to make  a more critical evaluation, its a combination of factors.  To go back to the Mercury and FDR dime, the primary difference in perception between these two coins is artistic.  Until society collectively determines that the portrait of a long dead president (whom much of your history challenged “new demographic” potentially doesn’t even know anyway) has greater appeal than classical style art, you will be wrong.  Even among non-collectors, you could have asked 1000 random people at any point in time since 1946 and at least 95% will and would find the Mercury design more appealing.  

[cladking]

12 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 By your own prior admission, you have been almost 100% wrong for 45 years with your claims.  If this claim were true, you should have at least a 50% chance of being right.

 

And?

If you never stick your head out and be wrong about something you'll never really be right either.  We are adept at using language to acquire each others knowledge but of what use is a fact if we can't use it to solve a problem or better see a question?  Nobody can predict the future and no accumulation of fact is likely to ever change this.  I pride myself in my ability to be wrong in all things and have had a long history of failures and successes. 

But you are misapprehending the point in this instance.  I am suggesting I was mostly wrong about clads for 45 years but events since November of 2016 appear to be unfolding in such a way as to show I've been right all along.  I often used to say this isn't 1965 any longer but now I can say this isn't 2015 any longer. 

Simply stated there are many millions of new collectors coming on board right now and hundreds of nice attractive BU Ikes available at a few dollars each.  Demand is beginning to outstrip supply and I can't imagine what force would stop it getting worse. 

You see, I always just took a new generation of collectors as a given.  Of course I didn't expect my generation to act in such ways to hold them at bay.  And I certainly never expected it would take so long or there would be so very few of my demographic that collected moderns.  There are so few that only the highest graded coins have substantial premiums in most cases.  I concentrated more on finding nice attractive coins because the highest grades were so scarce. 

Everything will unfold in ways that are determined by the past, present, and future so, as always, it remains invisible. 

[cladking]

12 hours ago, World Colonial said:

To go back to the Mercury and FDR dime, the primary difference in perception between these two coins is artistic.  Until society collectively determines that the portrait of a long dead president (whom much of your history challenged “new demographic” potentially doesn’t even know anyway) has greater appeal than classical style art, you will be wrong. 

No.  The primary difference between the merc and roosy is that the former was very lightly saved until 1931 and then they were both heavily saved starting in 1939.  By 1964 millions were set aside each year. 

The clad dimes were not saved.  They are in circulation still except for the 60%+ that have been destroyed through misadventure.  Of course, you will no longer find nice pristine well made 1971 dimes in circulation.  You'll be lucky to find a nice attractive VF and it will take you some time to find one at all. 

 

[numisport]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

The clad dimes were not saved.  They are in circulation still except for the 60%+ that have been destroyed through misadventure.  Of course, you will no longer find nice pristine well made 1971 dimes in circulation.  You'll be lucky to find a nice attractive VF and it will take you some time to find one at all. 

Mint sets hold thousands of these dimes although they are hacked up. Certainly these coins exist also in rolls, collectors just have to want them.

[cladking]

53 minutes ago, numisport said:

Mint sets hold thousands of these dimes although they are hacked up. Certainly these coins exist also in rolls, collectors just have to want them.

There are thousands in mint sets but these won't be nearly enough to even prime the pump for a mass market.  For the main part there are no rolls:  More accurately very few were saved except the '82 and '83 and most of these have been busted up to make sets.  The few original rolls that do exist are mostly very poor quality especially in many specific dates.  The rolls you see advertised for sale are almost all mint set rolls and Gems have been removed from these. 

In aggregate there's a lot of clad out there but there are not very many at all of numerous dates.  Even where supply is decent there is often a problem with quality.  

[World Colonial]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 11:11 AM, cladking said:

But you are misapprehending the point in this instance.  I am suggesting I was mostly wrong about clads for 45 years but events since November of 2016 appear to be unfolding in such a way as to show I've been right all along.  I often used to say this isn't 1965 any longer but now I can say this isn't 2015 any longer. 

Simply stated there are many millions of new collectors coming on board right now and hundreds of nice attractive BU Ikes available at a few dollars each.  Demand is beginning to outstrip supply and I can't imagine what force would stop it getting worse. 

I don't miss anything in your claims, given that I had to explain your premises previously and did a much better job of it than you ever have.

As usual in our discussions, the details of your claims get lost in our post exchanges.  I am not disputing the price claims for MS-60 to MS-63 you provided before (unless it is in current purchasing power which would make it nonsensical) because $8 to $20 won't be worth "squat" in 30 to 40 years, neither of us will be around to see it and it is irrelevant to anyone reading our post exchanges.

I am disputing anything remotely resembling (regardless of when it is) your projected collector base of 500,000 to 1M "serious" collectors if by "serious" you are referring to a base which will pay more than a "noticeable premium" for this series, clad eagle reverse quarters.  The reason I do is because it defies common sense and once again here is how.

First, let's start with the factors I already gave you on collecting trends.  If I need to elaborate on these six factors, I can support every single one.

One:  I believe low budget recreational collecting is decreasing due to the competing options which exist now versus the past.  I expect it to decrease for the same reason in the future.  But if not, there is no basis to believe this series will be so "popular" since only Wheat cents are today and have been since inception. The idea that clad quarters will be more "popular" than the others I listed in intrinsically absurd and no post you have ever written has remotely given anyone a reason to believe it.

Two: There is no basis to believe that any critical mass will have a financial motivation to buy this series, none whatsoever.  Your claim that preference for gold and silver is random and subject to substantial decrease has no merit.  This isn't the only basis of my claim (see below) but part of it anyway.  My claim is actually based upon the very low position in the preference scale.  The preference scale is valid regardless that it isn't "fixed forever" and this evidence is certainly much better than any claim you have made.

Three:  The demographic trends I gave you.  A forecasted decrease in the white population bodes very poorly for collecting generally, especially recreational collecting which includes 99.999% of clad quarter collectors.  But even if minority participation increases (noticeably), there is absolutely no reason to believe they will have remotely the same affinity for clad quarters (an already very weak one) as current collectors.  The idea that anywhere near an equivalent number of Latin collectors (the largest projected increase) will want clad quarters and pay substantially higher prices is nonsensical.

Four:  The internet.  With 250,000 coins (at minimum) and from around 10,000 series, there is no reason to believe both the number and proportion who collect this series won't decrease.  The options will only increase in the future making this series even less competitive.

Five:  The end of the credit mania, upcoming asset price collapse and decline in living standards.

Six:  The elimination of one or all currently circulating denominations.

Now I move on to the attributes of these coins from the preference scale:

One: The design is overwhelmingly artistically inferior and I already explained to you it is a cultural preference for classical style art versus presidential portraits.  I can't prove to you it won't change but don't need to because it is incumbent on you to do so and your age claim and random chance don't remotely do it.

Two: The metal content (see my above comments).

Three: The coins are as common as a grain of sand on the beach, outside of the contrived and imaginary "scarcity" invented by US collectors to which you also subscribe (and exaggerate).  As a series, eagle reverse clad quarters are more common than 99% of all series ever struck, excluding NCLT.

These are specific factors contradicting your claims and yes, every single one is relevant.  In the past, I have estimated that the US collector base approximates 2MM but even if the recreational base paying more than FV exceeds it now, there is no basis to believe that it will be so large in the future and this series will be so "popular" that your claims in this thread will be remotely correct.

[World Colonial]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 11:16 AM, cladking said:

No.  The primary difference between the merc and roosy is that the former was very lightly saved until 1931 and then they were both heavily saved starting in 1939.  By 1964 millions were set aside each year. 

The clad dimes were not saved.  They are in circulation still except for the 60%+ that have been destroyed through misadventure.  Of course, you will no longer find nice pristine well made 1971 dimes in circulation.  You'll be lucky to find a nice attractive VF and it will take you some time to find one at all. 

 

It doesn't make any difference, though you consistently claim otherwise.

I don't dispute that clad dimes are scarcer in "gem" or a quality which is a few TPG grades below it.  I'm telling you that regardless of the low survival rate, it is still more common than 99% of all circulating coins and series ever struck, regardless of what quality you have in mind.  Outside of specialization, in the "undergrade" (generally an MS-66) clad dimes are almost certainly mostly if not entirely an R-1 on the Judd scale with at 1250+ and a noticeable to huge multiple in slightly lower grades.  That isn't remotely scarce.

Regardless, contrary to your claim, collectors and the public don't only have current perception because of the perceived scarcity.  It's because of what I told you.  All three from 1939 forward (per your post) are so incredibly common that only those who care about your "gems", "full strikes", a handful of die varieties and a low number of errors (such as the missing "S" proofs) will care, as they do now.

For the lower grade or "collector coin", the perception isn't going to change except as I told you.  You claim it will.  Since preferences are not arbitrary, collector age is irrelevant and you have provided no reason to believe otherwise outside of your personal preference, I am telling you it won't.

[World Colonial]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 12:26 PM, numisport said:

Mint sets hold thousands of these dimes although they are hacked up. Certainly these coins exist also in rolls, collectors just have to want them.

You can see my response above this one.  The coins, with the exceptions I listed, are very common.

Only by assuming a huge increase in the collector base for what is probably the US series with the 2nd weakest affinity (after small dollars) does this even matter.  My response two posts above equally applies to clad dimes, just as it does to clad quarters.  I have no problem stating this series will retain its basement level rank on the preference scale for as long as it will matter to anyone reading this thread.

[cladking]

12 hours ago, World Colonial said:

Since preferences are not arbitrary, collector age is irrelevant and you have provided no reason to believe otherwise outside of your personal preference, I am telling you it won't.

It appears that we'll just have to disagree then. 

If I am right it will be apparent to all observers soon enough. 

But make no mistake about it, whether millions of new collectors continue to collect clad quarters from pocket change or seek higher grade examples elsewhere these will always be one of the greatest collectables of all time.  I'm about ready to start my third set from circulation just to see what I can get.  There's always something new to see and learn because the coins travel randomly back and forth across the country. 

I started watching circulating coins in 1957 and I never got to see this as well since all the good dates had been removed by that time.  Today it almost all is circulating; the scarce right next to the common.   

[World Colonial]

7 hours ago, cladking said:

It appears that we'll just have to disagree then. 

If I am right it will be apparent to all observers soon enough. 

But make no mistake about it, whether millions of new collectors continue to collect clad quarters from pocket change or seek higher grade examples elsewhere these will always be one of the greatest collectables of all time.  I'm about ready to start my third set from circulation just to see what I can get.  There's always something new to see and learn because the coins travel randomly back and forth across the country. 

I started watching circulating coins in 1957 and I never got to see this as well since all the good dates had been removed by that time.  Today it almost all is circulating; the scarce right next to the common.   

The reason I disagree with you is because you have provided no evidence which can be extrapolated to support your claims.  You have no evidence to support that collector preferences are arbitrary or that your demographic claim based upon age has any predictability at all.  Your prior examples of art bars, tax tokens and Chuck-E-Cheese token certainly do not.  So yes, we will continue to disagree, including on your inflated claim that this series is one of the greatest collectibles of all time.  The data proves that over 99% of all collectors disagree with you as evidenced by how they spend their own money

To restate what I said before, I have never claimed that the collector base and prices for this series won't increase somewhat.  I am telling you that there isn't any reason to believe your claims for the scale you provided in this thread and the price level you have implied previously.

[cladking]

16 hours ago, World Colonial said:

So yes, we will continue to disagree, including on your inflated claim that this series is one of the greatest collectibles of all time. 

You are ignoring all the evidence and logic I have always cited and then calling my prediction "personal preference".  It is merely a prediction based on the extrapolation of numerous trends and continuing observations. 

Clad quarters most certainly are one of the greatest collectables of all time as I've defined numerous times in the past.  Remember these definitions include things like having been ubiquitous and hated. 

No coin in history has been as deeply or widely hated as clad quarters.  It has also been roundly ignored. 

Now there is more demand than the paltry supply and demand is still increasing and might for decades. 

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

You are ignoring all the evidence and logic I have always cited and then calling my prediction "personal preference".  It is merely a prediction based on the extrapolation of numerous trends and continuing observations. 

Clad quarters most certainly are one of the greatest collectables of all time as I've defined numerous times in the past.  Remember these definitions include things like having been ubiquitous and hated. 

No coin in history has been as deeply or widely hated as clad quarters.  It has also been roundly ignored. 

Now there is more demand than the paltry supply and demand is still increasing and might for decades. 

Give me a break.  Where is this evidence and logic you have cited?

We certainly do not have to have these discussions anymore if you are not interested.  If you don't want me to respond to your posts, I won't as long as you don't initiate it.  I don't do this with anyone else because it is evident they have no interest.  I'll ignore your posts as unsubstantiated hyperbole because that's what it is.

But if we are going to have these discussions, don't expect me to agree with your claims that don't make any sense because I won't.  In this thread as in the past, I provided specifics while you provide generalities and anecdotal personal experience.  I don't arbitrarily disagree with your claims just to disagree.  I disagree because you don't support your claims.

I am aware your claims are only a prediction.  I call your claims personal preference because your entire theory is unsubstantiated from start to finish and I have contradicted every single one of your premises with arguments and evidence reflecting observable collector behavior numerous times.  Your anecdotal evidence doesn't support your most of claims (certainly not your primary theme) and your premises contradict observable evidence and common sense.

The reason why your claims have been wrong from the beginning is because your theory contradicts how people actually act, something which you will not accept.  Since you can't provide any evidence from the past or present to support your claims, this is why you claim the future is open ended and uncertain.  As I told you at least once before, I don't need to be a fortune teller to refute your premises, I just need to provide better arguments and evidence which is exactly what I have done.

Nothing you have ever written has ever given anyone a reason to believe your forecasts.  In this thread, your claim that 500,000 to 1MM will collect eagle reverse clad quarters at anything more than irrelevant premiums to face value is a complete fantasy.  This should be obvious given observable evidence from the reasons I provided to you, yet you apparently still believe it anyway.

[cladking]

...And you say things like 40,000% gains are not financially significant. 

Our differences are chiefly perspective and have little or nothing to do with logic and evidence. 

For that matter though logic and evidence have little or no direct impact on future events or their prediction. 

 

But the fact remains that it's not excessive supply that makes most desirable moderns inexpensive but rather the lack of demand. 

[World Colonial]

14 minutes ago, cladking said:

...And you say things like 40,000% gains are not financially significant. 

Our differences are chiefly perspective and have little or nothing to do with logic and evidence. 

For that matter though logic and evidence have little or no direct impact on future events or their prediction. 

 

But the fact remains that it's not excessive supply that makes most desirable moderns inexpensive but rather the lack of demand. 

Our differences absolute have to do with logic and evidence, you just refuse to admit that it does and the idea either has little or no impact on future events or their prediction is nonsensical.  With nonsensical reasoning like this, no wonder we can hardly agree on anything.  This relativist thinking of yours underlies your entire theme.

As an example, I specifically described nine factors in a recent post in this thread which I claim as evidence against your prediction.   As usual, you didn't address any of them, but then, the next thing I am going to hear from you is that none are relevant.  My claims on these factors don't have to be infallible to refute your claims which is the standard you demand, they just have to much better than yours which is exactly the case.  It is not a matter of certainties, but probabilities.  You would have everyone believe that the future is a "toss up" and any claim is equally valid versus present reality, no matter how preposterous the underlying premises used to defend it.  There is no basis for your claim I disputed in this thread, none whatsoever.

On this 40,000%, let me guess, it's one of these US modern "gems" or for that 1954 Indian proof set where you have no clue what the real value is, right?  Regardless, I have told you my primary argument against this specific claim is that your "trend" doesn't exist and the absolute financial amounts are financially irrelevant anyway because the scale you claim will never exist.  I also told you that I have made more from South African coinage (Union and ZAR) than 99% of modern collectors will ever make in their entire life, so why would I be impressed with this data?

As for your last comment, that is a simple truism.  But then, the whole basis of my disagreement with your position is that the scale you claim won't remotely materialize.  The evidence I provided against it both in this thread and previously demonstrates that your claim has about as much likelihood as someone being struck by lightning on a clear day.

[cladking]

All future events necessarily hinge on events that will occur in the future.  I probably shouldn't have said that the prediction of such events are independent of logic and evidence but, frankly, I just slipped when I was considering that no two experts ever agree on predictions of the future or explanations of the past.  We each certainly strive to be logical even though we may not see much logic in someone else's argument.  I certainly don't want to get into a metaphysical or semantical argument though it often seems these are much of the difference between our perspectives. 

I believe massive percentage increases are relevant and I believe these increases often are mere precursors for what is coming.  Of course you think these are just isolated events caused by imbalances in supply or demand or are not relevant to the most moderns because you believe that most moderns are common.   The reality is most of the moderns you see are common.  The reality is that most rare moderns aren't seen very often and these last two facts get right back to definitions; if nice well made '82 quarters were common then you'd see them a lot.  If beaten up XF New Jersey quarters were rare they wouldn't be in nearly every roll of quarters at the bank. 

I believe I understand your position far better than you understand mine.  I can see exactly why you predict moderns will never be valuable or widely collected but I can see they are already valuable and more widely collected day by day.  I see the value because I've been searching them or many years.  I see those which have soared in value because, believe it or not, I own many of them and several choice examples of a few of them.  

It's entirely possible that moderns will never experience the kind of demand I project.  It's even possible that they have already peaked and will begin to fall back to being worthless.   But the fact remains that I've been watching for the roadsigns for decades and I believe I've seen the last one.  I believe we are there as of November, 2016.   It will take at least a couple years to prove me wrong and then you can gloat about my Gems dropping out of sight. 

[World Colonial]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

I believe massive percentage increases are relevant and I believe these increases often are mere precursors for what is coming.  Of course you think these are just isolated events caused by imbalances in supply or demand or are not relevant to the most moderns because you believe that most moderns are common.   The reality is most of the moderns you see are common.  The reality is that most rare moderns aren't seen very often and these last two facts get right back to definitions; if nice well made '82 quarters were common then you'd see them a lot.  If beaten up XF New Jersey quarters were rare they wouldn't be in nearly every roll of quarters at the bank. 

The only reason I can see that you have these inflated opinions for the future price prospects is because you do exactly what you claim I do, you project these price increases indefinitely into the future.  This is extremely ironic given that it is you who claim the future is so uncertain.  The future claims I have made are a lot more certain than any claim you have ever made.

Speaking of the future, the reason this projection is nonsensical is because it assumes that a much larger number will have a much larger preference than remotely makes any sense based upon everything I have told you.

As for believing most US circulating moderns are common, of course I do because this is either the reality or there is a much better reason to believe it than otherwise.  You claim otherwise because:

1) You use the same contrived scarcity claims as US collectors based upon quality and specialization where there is no actual significance to this whatsoever.  This is the "participation trophy" standard just for showing up.

2) You disproportionately rely on your personal experience and that of other collectors whom you know, even though I have repeatedly explained to you why it is generally not representative.

3)  You exaggerate the almost certain scarcity and I presume it is primarily because you like these coins a lot.  You compare the scarcity to the immediate US classic predecessor coinage which is an aberration in its availability and not remotely representative, whether of US coinage or otherwise.

In the past, I have also provided you my estimates of the survival rates below "grade rarity" for the undergrade, usually an MS-66.  I have explained to you that, primarily based upon the price level and the TPG population reports, most moderns are almost certainly a Judd R-1 (1250+) with most of the remainder an R-2 (501-1250).  This is a very conservative estimate given the virtually non-existent motivation for anyone to bother with the effort of having these coins graded.  These coins are more common than over 99% of all coins and series ever struck, excluding NCLT.

If I used the same contrived standards of significance and scarcity which you share with US collectors, I would agree with you.  I don't because the coinage I collect is disproportionately at least somewhat scarce or absolutely.  It may be somewhat more common than is apparent (something I have admitted on numerous occasions) due to the price level but it's evident that these coins are a lot scarcer than those you claim to be and this scarcity is an actual one.

So no, I don't agree with this claim of yours either because it isn't remotely correct.

[World Colonial]

3 hours ago, cladking said:

I believe I understand your position far better than you understand mine.  I can see exactly why you predict moderns will never be valuable or widely collected but I can see they are already valuable and more widely collected day by day.  I see the value because I've been searching them or many years.  I see those which have soared in value because, believe it or not, I own many of them and several choice examples of a few of them.  

It's entirely possible that moderns will never experience the kind of demand I project.  It's even possible that they have already peaked and will begin to fall back to being worthless.   But the fact remains that I've been watching for the roadsigns for decades and I believe I've seen the last one.  I believe we are there as of November, 2016.   It will take at least a couple years to prove me wrong and then you can gloat about my Gems dropping out of sight. 

No, I don't believe you understand my position at all because if you did, it would be evident to you that the evidence and arguments I provide are consistent with how people are known to act while your claims contradict practically everything that is known of both the general public and collectors related to collecting.

I understand your position completely and you should be aware of it.  As I told you before, I had to sort through your disjointed and illogical premises to make sense out of your incoherent theory because you certainly have never done it.

The whole basis of my claim is that until demonstrated otherwise, people should be expected to behave as observed, both in the present or the past.  This doesn't mean that the future is "fixed forever", it only means that there is absolutely no reason to believe your claims which contradict observed behavior.

As an example, I have stated that I expect the popularity of Latin coinage to increase somewhat because of the projected increase in the Latin population.  Doesn't mean it will happen but there is a direct relationship of cause and effect based upon how culture is known to impact collector preferences.  Conversely, I reject your demographic claim based upon age because it isn't correlated to anything in coin collecting.

Here is a list of your claims with which I disagree where I have provided detailed explanations and evidence to support my position and contract yours:

1) Your "natural state" or what you termed an "aberration" in this thread.  It is the basis of your entire theme and other premises.

2) Your "regression to the mean".

3)  Your claim that collectors "hate" moderns.  They may have in the past but they don't now, as evidenced by the size of the collector base.

4)  Your claim that future collector preferences are random or unpredictable when I have provided specific examples using predictable attributes which have a proven correlation over time, back to the beginning of modern collecting in 1500.

5)  Your demographic claim based upon collector age which has zero demonstrated correlation to collector preferences.

6)  Your belief that the importance of the metal content will decrease substantially in the future.

7) Your hugely inflated opinion of the appeal of coin collecting to the broader population, both in the US and elsewhere.  You have repeatedly claimed it is the lack of wealth and income which restricts the size of the collector base when the facts prove otherwise.

8) Your exaggeration of trivial quality differences in US circulating moderns.

9) Your "trend" in world "moderns".

10) Your exaggeration for the scarcity of moderns, both US and world.

11)  Your belief that there is no reason that obscure die varieties won't become a lot more popular.

Considering that I have commented on each of the above items numerous times with much repetition since you insist on bring up the same premises repeatedly, I'd say I understand your position a lot better than you think.  On one occasion, I also clarified where I partially agree with your claims.

I disagree with you because you have provided no reason to agree with any of the items in the above list.

[World Colonial]

4 hours ago, cladking said:

It's entirely possible that moderns will never experience the kind of demand I project.  It's even possible that they have already peaked and will begin to fall back to being worthless.   But the fact remains that I've been watching for the roadsigns for decades and I believe I've seen the last one.  I believe we are there as of November, 2016.   It will take at least a couple years to prove me wrong and then you can gloat about my Gems dropping out of sight. 

My claims are not on your gems and never have been.  You also won't see me gloating.  No one is completely objective but I attempt to write my posts impartially.  I have nothing against moderns and I am not an advocate for the coins I like, as you have been in our post exchanges. 

[cladking]

We've been through every single one of your points 100 times before.  Someone could write a book about each of them.  Though we really haven't spoken much about #11.  I am not even a fan of obscure die varieties except to the degree they can help me visualize the distribution of coins by the FED and banks.   I did save 100's of these just because I thought collectors might have some interest.   I always liked to save at least one coin from every bag even if every coin was a dog.  

I do like major varieties, mules, and types but of course I didn't find very many of these.  I believe that major variety collecting will grow and prices increase dramatically. 

Collectors seek quality and rarity.  Many factors go into what any individual collects but as a rule of thumb "every" collector prefers rarity and value.  

[World Colonial]

25 minutes ago, cladking said:

We've been through every single one of your points 100 times before.  Someone could write a book about each of them.  Though we really haven't spoken much about #11.  I am not even a fan of obscure die varieties except to the degree they can help me visualize the distribution of coins by the FED and banks.   I did save 100's of these just because I thought collectors might have some interest.   I always liked to save at least one coin from every bag even if every coin was a dog.  

I do like major varieties, mules, and types but of course I didn't find very many of these.  I believe that major variety collecting will grow and prices increase dramatically. 

Collectors seek quality and rarity.  Many factors go into what any individual collects but as a rule of thumb "every" collector prefers rarity and value.  

These points are yours, not mine.  I identified them from your claims in your prior posts.  I am not trying to argue with you, I was explaining why I am well aware of your position since you somehow found a way to think I am not.

The reason we have been over each one "100 times" is because, in our post exchanges, you bring up the same points while either not being aware of or ignoring evidence which proves your premises aren't valid or contradicts them.

The most obvious evidence you don't seem to know are the TPG population counts and historical auction prices for graded coins, both for US moderns and other coins where the prices and apparent availability contradict your scarcity claims and implied future prices. 

On one occasion, you did tell me you have limited experience with graded coins.  However, even though I disagree that it has any numismatic significance, the TPG grade and potential counts are still the relevant benchmark for the vast majority of moderns which are or ever will be worth any financially meaningful price.  To support your claims, you should be aware of both.

As for die varieties, I included it in the list because on numerous occasions, you used some 1972 quarter as an example of one which should be worth a lot more.  It is yet another instance where you exaggerate the future popularity of both collecting generally and affinity for moderns.

As I explained to you numerous times, die variety collecting is only widespread in a handful of series and this doesn't include the immediate US classic predecessor coinage.  If this type of collecting has any realistic and noticeable growth prospects financially in moderns, it should be far more evident in these series now, yet it is not.

 

[cladking]

1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

 

The reason we have been over each one "100 times" is because, in our post exchanges, you bring up the same points while either not being aware of or ignoring evidence which proves your premises aren't valid or contradicts them.

 

 

I don't recognize of any of your evidence for why people won't collect moderns, quality, base metal, rarity, varieties, or even common coins as being factual.   In my experience people collect what they want and what they want has nothing to do with your artificial parameters.   In my experience one of the many primary drivers of what specific things someone chooses to collects is nostalgia.   It is largely this that makes things that were ubiquitous in use popular later.   Nice attractive AU '69-D quarters used to be everywhere and people hated them.  Now they are gone and even beat up VF's are hard to find.   Between being so widespread and being so hated it seems to assure at least half a million collectors someday. 

My guess is "someday" started a little more than a year ago. 

[World Colonial]

1 minute ago, cladking said:

I don't recognize of any of your evidence for why people won't collect moderns, quality, base metal, rarity, varieties, or even common coins as being factual.   In my experience people collect what they want and what they want has nothing to do with your artificial parameters.   In my experience one of the many primary drivers of what specific things someone chooses to collects is nostalgia.   It is largely this that makes things that were ubiquitous in use popular later.   Nice attractive AU '69-D quarters used to be everywhere and people hated them.  Now they are gone and even beat up VF's are hard to find.   Between being so widespread and being so hated it seems to assure at least half a million collectors someday. 

My guess is "someday" started a little more than a year ago. 

I have never stated or implied even once that people don't collect what they want. I have also never said collectors won't collect moderns, not even once yet you continue to make this claim.  A few posts ago, you claim to understand my position yet now I hear this from you.  As I told you numerous times before, my disagreement is on your future implied price level and scale. 

I have provided explanations to you contradicting your claims using independently verifiable facts that you won't accept.  I have also provided counterarguments with specifics which you either never or almost never even attempt to counter.  You reply with generalities or your personal experience which isn't representative and has (almost) no predictability.

Your claim of nostalgia has no general applicability and has absolutely no predictability on how much anyone will pay.  It is no better than random chance.  Well, at least now I know that this is the basis of your demographic claim since you finally confirmed it.

If my parameters are so artificial, why does it reflect reality and if you claim it doesn't, why don't you provide specific arguments and evidence in your replies?  As I told you in one post here, I made nine specific claims contradicting one of your posts and you didn't even try to answer even one. 

Let me guess?  The future is completely unpredictable when I make claims using observable evidence yet predictable enough for you to make your forecasts.

As for your claim on 69-D quarters, this just goes to show how unfamiliar you are with your own data.  The PCGS population count is 781 with 348 in 66 and 94 in 67.  The NGC census is 661 with 303 in 66 and 170 in 67.  Recent eBay sales are slightly over $20 for a 66 and about $60 for a $67.  The price is respectable given availability but doesn't support more than a minimal proportion of duplicates. 

Right now on eBay, one seller is offering 23 "BU" rolls for $47 each.  I can't tell you whether it is accurate as to exact quality but it's obvious just from this one listing that your claim for this coin is a total exaggeration.  You either know it and claim it anyway or don't know your facts.   The population data, price level and this one listing provide much better evidence than your claim that this coin isn't remotely as scarce as you state.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-D-BU-Original-Washington-Quarter-Roll/122366238499?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

Your claim that moderns are "hated" is also contrary to observable evidence.  As I told you before, there are hundreds of thousands to millions collecting US moderns right now, depending upon definition of "collector".  So how can you claim it?

Let me answer it for you.  Collectors in the aggregate don't agree with your assessment of the merits and don't pay the prices you insist these coins should be worth.

 

[cladking]

1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

 

If my parameters are so artificial, why does it reflect reality and if you claim it doesn't, why don't you provide specific arguments and evidence in your replies?  As I told you in one post here, I made nine specific claims contradicting one of your posts and you didn't even try to answer even one. 

 

 

You are describing the current events and I'm saying that everything changes.  

I do understand your contentions about demographics etc but I don't share your predictions that things will get so much worse.  Just because we are making so many mistakes does not assure that the future will be so bleak or that few people in a bleak future will collect coins.  As I pointed out countless times the biggest single cause of numismatics becoming a mass market was that the depression of the 1930's gave people lots of leisure time.   You are extrapolating the madness in DC and in our schools to mean only the worst is possible and I keep saying that the future will be determined by events in the future.  Cycles repeat but there are too many cycles to project the future and cycles themselves manifest differently under different conditions.  We can't predict because of the complexities involved but this inability to predict hardly means clad can't become more widely collected. 

This is why I accuse you of "predicting the present".  Wall street brokers get rich predicting the present and a few by predicting the past but very few have a good track record predicting the future.  It's impossible to predict the future for me and everyone else.   I am saying that a strong modern market is developing in the present.   I would add I've been predicting this for many years but then nobody can really predict the future.  

 

 

[World Colonial]

36 minutes ago, cladking said:

You are describing the current events and I'm saying that everything changes.  

I do understand your contentions about demographics etc but I don't share your predictions that things will get so much worse.  Just because we are making so many mistakes does not assure that the future will be so bleak or that few people in a bleak future will collect coins.  As I pointed out countless times the biggest single cause of numismatics becoming a mass market was that the depression of the 1930's gave people lots of leisure time.   You are extrapolating the madness in DC and in our schools to mean only the worst is possible and I keep saying that the future will be determined by events in the future.  Cycles repeat but there are too many cycles to project the future and cycles themselves manifest differently under different conditions.  We can't predict because of the complexities involved but this inability to predict hardly means clad can't become more widely collected. 

This is why I accuse you of "predicting the present".  Wall street brokers get rich predicting the present and a few by predicting the past but very few have a good track record predicting the future.  It's impossible to predict the future for me and everyone else.   I am saying that a strong modern market is developing in the present.   I would add I've been predicting this for many years but then nobody can really predict the future.  

 

 

The prior claim to which you refer with a reference to economic and financial conditions is one of nine claims from my prior post.  You could be right about this one, I could be completely wrong and it still doesn't remotely get us from "here" to "there" under your claims.

To go back to your analogy with the depression, recreational collecting was a lot more competitive then than it is now due to the options which did not exist in the past.  There is no doubt that these new competing options are a negative for collecting, whether it decreases it or not.  It isn't a matter of certainties that these new alternative options will reduce recreational collecting, but the idea that collecting will increase as you claim (to an order of magnitude) is beyond credibility and contradicts common sense.  There is no basis for it whatsoever and neither you nor anyone else can remotely support it.  And it certainly won't happen at your implied future price level if economic conditions get much worse, even if much better than I expect.

My claim for recreational collecting is not contingent upon either economic or financial conditions.  I certainly believe it is for financial buying but that is a secondary consideration.  The only reason I included it in this thread is to contradict any potential response from you that this will ever be "material" for moderns in any timeframe where it will matter to anyone reading this thread.  This isn't directly related to your inflated future collector base but absolutely to your prior claims on the price level.

Your claims on predicting the future are inherently nonsensical.  There is absolutely no reason to believe this premise, as there is no "cycle" in collecting as you imply that will lead to your outcome.  You can't point to single cycle from real world experience to support this claim since the examples you listed previously have zero relevance to moderns.

Literally almost nothing you have claimed in our post exchanges remotely reflects real world human behavior, yet somehow you believe your claims are a realistic expectation for the future.  Whether I am "predicting the present" or not, lack of infallibility or accuracy on my part doesn't remotely equate to any accuracy on yours, as proved by your 45 year track record which is far worse than Wall Street's.

Not only are all of your premises totally wrong, so is your supposed supporting evidence.  As I have demonstrated numerous times both in this thread and previously, you don't indicate any knowledge of prices and you exaggerate scarcity.  If you can't even get these simple facts right, what reason is there to believe your claims?

[cladking]

2 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

Literally almost nothing you have claimed in our post exchanges remotely reflects real world human behavior, yet somehow you believe your claims are a realistic expectation for the future. 

OK.  Let me try one last time and then you can have the last words.

...Every single coin made by the US mint up until 1964 has been popular at one time or another. 

 

This is the mother all trends.  

[World Colonial]

7 minutes ago, cladking said:

OK.  Let me try one last time and then you can have the last words.

...Every single coin made by the US mint up until 1964 has been popular at one time or another. 

 

This is the mother all trends.  

I am not trying to have the last word.  I am attempting to explain my claim on cycles.

You are comingling popular and preferred or don't notice the difference.  My time on coin forums indicates that most collectors don't seem to understand this difference.  They appear to presume that "popularity" as measured by the size of the collector base is a lot more highly correlated with an actual preference when it usually isn't.  This is evident from the price level and availability date.

Preferred means that collectors can generally be presumed to buy coins they like over others, if they can afford it.  Most collectors do not actually buy the coins they prefer the most because they don't have the money.  I also state "generally" because:

One: No collector has perfect knowledge of what is available to bought.  I'd say the majority of US collectors have no idea that the coins I collect even exist, though this is a lot less true of collectors who have an equivalent outlay (or more) to mine.  The same applies to many coins in your collection.

Two: Many coins that are actually preferred aren't available in sufficient supply even when the market value is comparable.  As in, if more collectors preferred pillar minors, the coins don't exit to be bought in any noticeably larger number.

Three:  Collectors may actually prefer a coin or series but don't buy it because of financial considerations....less liquidity.

Back to your point though, when were the least "popular" classic series such as 2C, 3CN, Shield nickels and 3CS a lot more "popular" than now?  To my knowledge, the answer is literally "never".  There was limited financial buying of higher TPG grades during the late 80's bubble but that wasn't real collecting.  These series are more preferred over moderns since 1965 but that's only because clad didn't exist prior to this date.  To my knowledge, these series hold the same preference and are exactly as "popular" since inception.

Regardless, when I replied to your cycle comment (your equivalence to trends), you can't point to a single relevant example where it happened.  The examples you have provided in the past have no applicability to moderns because the "popularity" of these niche fields is limited to a very low number of buyers and effectively random chance.  

The whole basis of your theory goes back to your presumption that these coins are required to have some minimal level of preference among collectors, despite the overwhelming evidence against this claim and nothing to support it.

This is why I call it your personal preference and this is why I have told you that your complaint is on the price level, not anything else.  Moderns are "popular", just not preferred over other US coinage by most collectors.

Anyway thanks for the conversation.

[Mohawk]

Interesting discussion guys!  But I thought I may chime in here with some things I've noticed that will likely impact pricing for clads and other circulating moderns.  The first is changing modes of collecting among collectors of the Millennial generation (according to my research for my Doctor of Education program, birth year range from 1980 to 1996).  Being born in 1980, I'm one of the first Millennials and I know some collectors in my age group, quite a few actually.  One thing that collectors in this age group do not seem to do in any large numbers is series collect.  I do not know of any Millennial collectors that series collects in any sort of serious way.  I'm sure there are some who do, but I haven't met them.  Collectors in my generational group couldn't seem to care less about having a full set of anything, be it Morgan Dollars or Clad Washingtons.  Most collectors in this age range either collect by type or they collect thematically.  I myself collect coins with birds and other dinosaurs on them.  One of the employees at my favorite coin shop, who is in his early 30's, collects coins with ships on them.  My girlfriend, who is 29, is thinking of starting a collection of outer space and sci-fi themed coins.  Going back to my favorite coin shop, the owner's son, who is the other main employee, is working on a US Type Set.  And talking with the guys at the shop, and employees at other shops, they have noticed the same thing.  Thematic and type collecting is on the rise among collectors of the Millennial generation and I can't even say series collecting is on the decline among collectors of this generation because I don't feel that it was ever a big thing with many collectors of this age group.  I myself tried my hand at series collecting in my younger years and found it less than satisfying.  Also, when I was series collecting, I was an oddball among collectors in my age group.  No one my age or younger got why I was doing it, and spending serious money on it.  Eventually, I realized I agreed with them and gave series collecting up, which was a good move for me as I enjoy thematic collecting better.   However, there are still plenty of collectors who are of different generations that are keeping series collecting alive.

However, that is not to say that series collecting doesn't happen at all among younger collectors, however it is not where the younger collector's main financial resources go.  Many younger collectors I know that search rolls and pocket change do build sets in Whitman folders.  I do this myself with Canadian Small Cents and other Canadian denominations out of my 80% Silver bullion purchases.  But I certainly do not spend serious money on it.  The cents are all found in rolls or in circulation.  I have about 19 spots in my two Whitman folders to fill, and if I find them in my circulation hunting, great.  But if I don't, I certainly do not plan to go spending money that I could use for my thematic dinosaur collection on buying a 1985 Pointed 5 Cent or a 1947 Blunt 7 Maple Leaf cent.  It's a fun project, but its fun in the parameters of low cost and a lack of seriousness.  It's not something I would ever start spending serious money on.  But I do spend serious funds on my thematic collection, both in buying coins and grading them so I can share them on here.  Going back to the clad Washingtons,  I'd say that's probably what is happening to a lot of the coins Cladking was talking about.  They're going into people's not very serious, just for fun Whitman folder collections.  However, does this mean that these coins will rise in value from these Whitman folder collectors moving into a serious, high-grade series collection of Washington Quarters?  I'd say no, not unless the collecting tastes of younger collectors change which I highly doubt will happen.  I can't predict the future, so I cannot say it definitely will not happen at some point, but I honestly cannot think of what would spur that kind of a change.

As far as younger collectors, from what I've observed, NCLT is king.  There are so many beautiful and amazing coins coming from the mints all over the world that push the limits of technology, offer diverse themes, and offer a beauty beyond what most regular circulation coins can offer.  I see many series collectors complain about the large number of issues, but I think the mints are evolving to survive and that means catering to the tastes of the younger generation of collectors.  If you look at the large number of NCLT issues from a series collector mindset, the mindset of needing to have everything, it IS frustrating.  But if you look at this diversity from a thematic collector's standpoint, it's exciting!  There's a few new things for your thematic collection coming out every year from a variety of mints, allowing for amazing diversity within a thematic collection, allowing one to construct a truly unique collection.  I'd say the mints are evolving with the tastes of the younger generation and the younger generation is continuing to collect in ways that allow them to make the most of collecting the NCLT issues they enjoy.

So I agree with you World Colonial.  I do not think high grade Clad Washingtons will ever have their day.  Series collecting is declining among younger collectors and compared to the NCLT issues that most younger collectors enjoy now, a Clad Washington is very bland and boring.  The Gen X and Baby Boomer collectors who do series collect view them with disdain because they have no silver content and extremely high mintages while Millennial and Gen Z collectors view them with disdain because they are bland and boring compared to NCLT along with having almost no interest in serious series collecting.  So the clad Washington loses on both sides.  

[World Colonial]

Tom,

I believe that NCLT is popular among low and mid budget collectors because the coins are large, silver, with better designs than most circulating coinage (at least US) and much better financial values since much or most of the value is in the metal content. Its evident form the TPG counts that NCLT is overwhelmingly preferred over contemporary circulating coinage.  Going by accounts I have read on coin forums, the popularity of NCLT is also coming at the expense of the immediate US classic predecessors.

One point I have attempted to make abundantly clear is that a series such as Washington clad is not numismatically competitive in the internet age, not even close.  The Heritage data I provided in a recent thread a month ago shows that at the two price points I provided (above $1000 and above $100 to $1000), it isn't even competitive versus its silver counterparts, with the silver being favored by about 33-1 and 15-1 by volume and even more by value.  This is cumulative data back to 1994

It is somewhat competitive below $100 but only in the highest grades or with the lowest budget collectors.  Otherwise, there is no basis to believe that in a world where someone can choose from in the vicinity of 250,000 coins and likely at least 10,000 series that either metal will be as competitive in the future as it has been to this point.  The same applies to every single one of the most widely collected US series, to one degree or another.

The design is overwhelmingly viewed as mediocre, the coins are common to incredibly common and the higher/highest grade examples are overpriced for the relative merits.  This isn't exactly the greatest combination of attributes to even maintain current interest, much less increase it in the future.

So what is it that has maintained its current popularity to this point?

First, probably the known tendency of collectors to prefer coins from their home country or country of origin.   Second, overwhelming ignorance on the part of most US collectors of the existence of other coinage.  Third, lack of reference material.  Fourth, many collectors prefer coins that are easy to buy and Washington (clad) quarters certainly fit this description.

The time for the series came and went with the SQ program.  If that couldn't lift its prospects which the price level proves hasn't happened since about 2006, what else is going to do it?

[cladking]

43 minutes ago, Mohawk said:

 Most collectors in this age range either collect by type or they collect thematically.

Yes.  This has been a growing trend for years now.  I saw it even back when I was active in the mid-90's.  It was easier to find material for theme collectors than for specialists.   Anecdotal evidence for this is staggering. 

This theme collecting goes far beyond just coins and into exonumia and related arenas.   For instance younger collectors who collect telephones will also collect phone cards, telephone tokens, telephone related items of all sorts which might include period coins and coins that depict telephones.  

Time marches on but a lot of older collectors are still in 1964.  

In surprisingly few years younger collectors will own virtually all the collections that exist today.