“Or perhaps those collecting at FV aren't collectors?”
In my example, collecting S Mint quarters for FV is virtually impossible as the coins do not circulate. So, it’s a nonissue. But, I agree you can be a collector of FV coins- why not!
When I first moved to CA in 1983, I answered an ad in the local newspaper of an older woman selling a near complete large cent collection (1794-1856) where she pulled every single coin out of the cash register of her parents store when she was a very young girl. She could never find a 1793 in all the years she did it. I still have the collection to this day (37 years later) exactly as she sold it to me as I thought the story was so cool and I still do.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@cladking said:
But many of those junky sets are just sold to someone who plunks down $99.99 and shoves it in a drawer or in a box of junk to never be seen again.
disparage[ dih-spar-ij ]
verb
-to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle:
-to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of:
@cladking said:
I'm not disparaging coins or collectors.
Good to hear it! Based on the first quote above, it appeared you might be.
@wondercoin said:
“Or perhaps those collecting at FV aren't collectors?”
In my example, collecting S Mint quarters for FV is virtually impossible as the coins do not circulate. So, it’s a nonissue. But, I agree you can be a collector of FV coins- why not!
When I first moved to CA in 1983, I answered an ad in the local newspaper of an older woman selling a near complete large cent collection (1794-1856) where she pulled every single coin out of the cash register of her parents store when she was a very young girl. She could never find a 1793 in all the years she did it. I still have the collection to this day (37 years later) exactly as she sold it to me as I thought the story was so cool and I still do.
“But the collecting of moderns as a percentage of the total hobby is still incredibly low. It is ILLOGICAL to believe this will persist indefinitely.”
I agree with this. But imo this will change naturally. Many of us started by collecting coins from circulation. We were filling albums. I believe many started with Lincoln cents before moving on to other series. While I believe there are fewer young people collecting than a generation ago, it makes sense that many who do start will be pulling coins from circulation while they are young.
When I was a youngster collecting, it wasn’t unusual to find coins 50 years old in pocket change. Nowadays, it is still easy to find 50+ year old coins in circulation. At some point, whether 50 years 100 years or somewhere in between, people will save coins just because they are old. And the cycle begins again. Hopefully, the influx of state quarter collectors will contribute to that.
Here, I disagree with you that collectors ever "hated" moderns. But even if they did in the past, they don't now. As I told you, hundreds of thousands to millions (depending upon definition of "collector") do collect this coinage, then and now. Why would someone collect something they hate?
Your complaint (which is exactly what it is) is that the consensus doesn't see this coinage as you think it should. It's as simple as that. Collectors declining to pay what you believe this coinage should be worth isn't remotely "hating" anything, as no one has to share your preferences.
None of this is true.
There were virtually no collectors of moderns before 1980. Yeoman was first, Herb Hicks was second, and John Jay Pittman was third. I don't know how many other got there first but I started in 1972 because I had hated clad so much before that. They were a manifestation of sloppy work, the cessation of real money, and the utter destruction of the coin market in 1965 as well as a reminder of what Congress and the mint had done to me personally by wrecking the collecting of coins from circulation.
NOBODY needs to collect moderns. But the collecting of moderns as a percentage of the total hobby is still incredibly low. It is ILLOGICAL to believe this will persist indefinitely.
Your definition of collector is different than mine. One way or another, someone saved a lot of these coins in "high quality" because none are remotely even close to being scarce. If you insist on using the 1960's as your baseline for how things should be, you're invariably going to be wrong as you have been.
If anything is illogical, it's your insistence on extrapolating your preferences to other collectors. I have explained how collectors perceive this coinage in this thread. It has nothing to do with not liking it, it's just what is evident in the data.
The 1960's where US collecting focused on a such a small proportion of the coinage was an aberration. Change has been slow but there is no reason to expect that primarily because collectors chose this coinage in the past, that anywhere near the number you have claimed will choose US moderns later.
The 31-S cent isn't relevant to your point. What I am telling you is that the circumstances which led to the price of the 31-S cent and other common 20th century key and semi-key dates are done and never coming back.
>
You couldn't be more wrong.
What "led to the price of the '31-S cent" was there more demand than supply. Coins like this and the far more common '50-D nickel are merely indicators of potential demand. Supply for these is fixed and known and demand is the variable.
Indeed, "demand" is paramount in fixing the price of virtually all collectibles. Unless supply dwarfs potential demand the price of ANYTHING can go far higher.
>
It's self evident it's always supply and demand. It's my inference that the desirability and therefore demand was higher than it otherwise would be if collectors had an incorrect perception of scarcity. This happens all the time, as evidenced by increasing populations in the TPG data.
"Collectors also now have access to in the vicinity of 95% of all coins ever struck (at minimum) and aren't limited to what US collectors could mostly buy in the 1960's. "
>
Again you are missing my point. There are millions of old time classic coin collections. These all come back on the market eventually and constitute "supply". There are no old clad collections. Supply must come almost solely from raw coins.
You make the internet and the ability to find quality coins at the most affordable price seem like a liability to collecting moderns even though it's actually one of the greatest strengths for all coins.
It doesn't matter where the supply comes from, these moderns are common except as I have conceded to you both in this thread and the past. There is plenty of supply, except for the collector base you think should exist.
To my knowledge, the future collector base you imply for US moderns doesn't exist for any coinage except common 20th century US classic series. Most of this collecting (the vast majority) is also at nominal prices and where the value of most collections isn't financially material either. You may consider the prices of this classic coinage and the collection values to be more material than I do, but that is something else entirely.
The internet isn't a liability to collecting. My point is that current and future collectors aren't going to choose common 20th century US coinage in the same proportion when there is so much more variety available which wasn't before. The internet enables them to find what they could not before.
@wondercoin said:
“As I told you, hundreds of thousands to millions (depending upon definition of "collector") do collect this coinage, then and now. Why would someone collect something they hate?”
This makes no sense to me. Take, for example, the current S Mint quarters that can only be purchased in rolls or bags. If “hundreds of thousands to millions” of collectors collect these coins, then why is the Mint only selling a few thousand bags and rolls of these coins? And, I suspect a great many to dealers as opposed to true collectors as well. For example, I, personally, buy about 1% of the $25 bags of each S Mint quarter the Mint sells. With all due respect, the collector base is a tiny % of this exaggerated amount.
Just my 2 cents.
There are many ways to see how lightly collected moderns really are.
The '70-S sm dt cent is a great coin and one of my favorites but it is just a variety. It is very common in the mint set and sells for as much as $40. But the '70-S lg dt cent is even tougher in nice condition and a roll of these sells for $3.
If people were paying attention to moderns everyone would know the '82-P is a tough coin is true chUnc condition. Most of these look like poorly made junk that was turned into roadkill in the handling equipment.
People aren't paying attention. They are not collecting moderns.
verb
-to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle:
-to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of:
I have never disparaged any collector of anything at all. I'm not even disparaging the individuals who buy moderns they don't understand and never bothered to look at. I am disparaging the GROUP of CONSUMERS who plunk down $99.99, throw the coins in the closet, and call themselves "collectors". Well, I'm not even doing that: I am merely saying this is NOT THE DEFINITION of either "coin collector" or "numismatist". People can do as they choose with their money but buying a rope doesn't make them a mountain climber.
“But the collecting of moderns as a percentage of the total hobby is still incredibly low. It is ILLOGICAL to believe this will persist indefinitely.”
I agree with this. But imo this will change naturally. Many of us started by collecting coins from circulation. We were filling albums. I believe many started with Lincoln cents before moving on to other series. While I believe there are fewer young people collecting than a generation ago, it makes sense that many who do start will be pulling coins from circulation while they are young.
When I was a youngster collecting, it wasn’t unusual to find coins 50 years old in pocket change. Nowadays, it is still easy to find 50+ year old coins in circulation. At some point, whether 50 years 100 years or somewhere in between, people will save coins just because they are old. And the cycle begins again. Hopefully, the influx of state quarter collectors will contribute to that.
I've seen a lot of people looking at their change over the last 20 years after going 35 years with no one looking except to see if there was any silver in it. I've seen lots of folders sold for circulating coinage.
A lot of collectors in 30 or 40 years will be older folks who were pulling coins out of their change in 1999.
It's just the cycle of life. Everything is perspective to the individual and everything is demographics to the society. It's just this simple. Don't swim on the wrong side of the tide and don't jump in when it goes out.
@cladking said:
I have never disparaged any collector of anything at all. I'm not even disparaging the individuals who buy moderns they don't understand and never bothered to look at. I am disparaging the GROUP of CONSUMERS who plunk down $99.99, throw the coins in the closet, and call themselves "collectors". Well, I'm not even doing that: I am merely saying this is NOT THE DEFINITION of either "coin collector" or "numismatist". People can do as they choose with their money but buying a rope doesn't make them a mountain climber.
My original comment:
@MasonG said:
That sounds awfully elitist, but maybe that's just me. I don't think the coins people choose to collect should be disparaged because they're not up to somebody else's standards.
In one of your subsequent replies:
@cladking said:
But many of those junky sets are just sold to someone who plunks down $99.99 and shoves it in a drawer or in a box of junk to never be seen again.
"Junky sets, shoved into a box of junk" is pretty disparaging, if you ask me. YMMV, I guess.
The internet enables them to find what they could not before.
>
Yes. Bingo!
The internet allows them to find nice choice attractive clad. If this were still 1985 it would be exceedingly difficult to find even a chUnc '82-P. You'd have had to check lots of coins to find one and finding any coins to check was quite difficult.
This is why I keep telling you that collecting moderns was extremely labor intensive in the old days.
@WCC said:
One way or another, someone saved a lot of these coins in "high quality" because none are remotely even close to being scarce. .
You are simply mistaken.
Very few coins were high quality when they left the mint and very few of any were saved.
You just keep repeating they are common. They are inexpensive only because there is no demand.
This is by your grading standards, not PCGS or NGC which are what practically everyone else uses. Only a very low number (an irrelevant fraction of the collector base for this coinage) really cares about your criteria. Hardly any of these people are going to "pay up", just as you won't and have not.
Guess what? The coins I collect are disproportionately also rare in "gem" or fully struck. In my primary series now, few if any exist at all. There is nothing unusual about it.
The internet enables them to find what they could not before.
>
Yes. Bingo!
The internet allows them to find nice choice attractive clad. If this were still 1985 it would be exceedingly difficult to find even a chUnc '82-P. You'd have had to check lots of coins to find one and finding any coins to check was quite difficult.
This is why I keep telling you that collecting moderns was extremely labor intensive in the old days.
I never disagreed with you that the coins are or were easy to find from circulation in the quality you will accept. Where I did and still do disagree with you is that this coinage is disproportionately anything other than common in the quality practically everyone else will collect.
@cladking said:
I have never disparaged any collector of anything at all. I'm not even disparaging the individuals who buy moderns they don't understand and never bothered to look at. I am disparaging the GROUP of CONSUMERS who plunk down $99.99, throw the coins in the closet, and call themselves "collectors". Well, I'm not even doing that: I am merely saying this is NOT THE DEFINITION of either "coin collector" or "numismatist". People can do as they choose with their money but buying a rope doesn't make them a mountain climber.
My original comment:
@MasonG said:
That sounds awfully elitist, but maybe that's just me. I don't think the coins people choose to collect should be disparaged because they're not up to somebody else's standards.
In one of your subsequent replies:
@cladking said:
But many of those junky sets are just sold to someone who plunks down $99.99 and shoves it in a drawer or in a box of junk to never be seen again.
"Junky sets, shoved into a box of junk" is pretty disparaging, if you ask me. YMMV, I guess.
Oh, perhaps our disagreement is about the sets themselves. I've seen many of these sets and most really are "junk". Many of these sets have sliders for the '82 and '83 issues because wholesalers have trouble getting these and they can be pricey. Many dates are always a mess so the '69 quarter will be awful. As I said before most moderns are UGLY in MS-60. If saying that makes me "elitist" then so be it. There is a strong tendency for copper to have carbon spots and many clads to be tarnished. There will be a few nice choice coins in them but these will ONLY be dates where choiceBU are common. The sets won't be matched for quality. They are simply assembled from rolls of coins.
Don't get me wrong here. Everybody assembling these sets are not making them from junk and some sets can be fairly attractive but this is the exception rather than the rule. The sets are usually very inexpensive so can be a great start to a real collection. Many people buying even the ugliest sets will study the coins and learn about them.
There's nothing wrong with buying a rope but this doesn't make you a mountain climber.
I never disagreed with you that the coins are or were easy to find from circulation in the quality you will accept. Where I did and still do disagree with you is that this coinage is disproportionately anything other than common in the quality practically everyone else will collect.
>
This is one of our points of disagreement.
I don't expect MS-60 moderns to ever be very widely collected. I could see XF and AU becoming pricey and nice chU being highly sought after but not MS-60.
I could be wrong about the future, but I'm right about this SO FAR.
Some clad will not be very common in MS-60 to MS-63 anyway for the reasons previously stated.
@cladking said:
As I said before most moderns are UGLY in MS-60. If saying that makes me "elitist" then so be it.
Not liking MS-60 coins because they don't meet your standards doesn't make you elitist. There's nothing wrong with setting a level for the sort of quality you are looking for in your collection. Disparaging what others choose to collect...
"I've seen many of these sets and most really are "junk"
because you don't like the coins those people chose does, IMO, come pretty close to "elitist", though.
How would you like having people dismiss the coins you collect as "modern crap"?
I never disagreed with you that the coins are or were easy to find from circulation in the quality you will accept. Where I did and still do disagree with you is that this coinage is disproportionately anything other than common in the quality practically everyone else will collect.
>
This is one of our points of disagreement.
I don't expect MS-60 moderns to ever be very widely collected. I could see XF and AU becoming pricey and nice chU being highly sought after but not MS-60.
I could be wrong about the future, but I'm right about this SO FAR.
Some clad will not be very common in MS-60 to MS-63 anyway for the reasons previously stated.
As in many prior debates, I'm not sure now where I disagree with you and where I don't.
In this thread, I'm not sure what your price expectations are or when (the future date) you project it. We've had this confusion many times before, as prices you consider material I do not.
@cladking said:
As I said before most moderns are UGLY in MS-60. If saying that makes me "elitist" then so be it.
Not liking MS-60 coins because they don't meet your standards doesn't make you elitist. There's nothing wrong with setting a level for the sort of quality you are looking for in your collection. Disparaging what others choose to collect...
"I've seen many of these sets and most really are "junk"
because you don't like the coins those people chose does, IMO, come pretty close to "elitist", though.
How would you like having people dismiss the coins you collect as "modern crap"?
Most of the buyers of this junk aren't "choosing" to "collect" lower grades. They are sending off $100 to acquire a complete set without knowing in advance that most of the coins in the set and all of the coins of specific dates will look like they came off the floor of the Cracker Jack factory. If this makes me "elitist" then color me a snob.
If someone chooses to collect MS-60 then more power to him. Indeed, finding typical examples of many quarters made for circulation is a very tough job and would be very educational and a very worthy endeavor, I'd love to see the set and speak to the collector. Finding a "typical" 1969 would be very very tough because nobody saved rolls of this garbage. Those few who set aside any coins at all chose mint set coins and these are invariably well struck and well made from good dies (relatively). Try finding a BU 1966 quarter from the most heavily worn and poorly aligned dies. They made 200,000,000 of these but you can't go down to your corner coin shop and ask for a roll, or even one. Indeed, many shops wouldn't even have an SMS in stock.
Everybody seems to think that there are mountains of supply of every modern but this has never been true. If you want a roll of '74 cents then this won't be too hard but if you want the ugliest examples of every modern still in BU then buying complete sets is the perfect place to start your collection. If you want a nice attractive and well matched set of moderns then you can start with these sets as well but you might find you'll need to upgrade nearly every coin.
As in many prior debates, I'm not sure now where I disagree with you and where I don't.
In this thread, I'm not sure what your price expectations are or when (the future date) you project it. We've had this confusion many times before, as prices you consider material I do not.
I have the same problem. I think mostly our differences are related to perspective and definitions and one of our biggest disagreements is that as a collector I don't care that people will collect these or not. As an investor I'd be happier having a 1000% increase in very low value coins than a 500% increase in one very valuable coin. It was a mistake "investing" in these coins for numerous reasons but I have had very significant gains in most of it. It was a mistake for many reasons including having to dispose of a lot of $5 coins that I paid 50c for. I've had a lot of fun but I might have had a lot more if I had stuck closer to collecting and farther from investing. A lot of what I did was almost like "work" whereas a collector might never need to work. There's a lot less heavy lifting in coin collecting and you won't need large numbers of safety deposit boxes.
I've always liked all coins and even "working" with coins.
In this thread, I'm not sure what your price expectations are or when (the future date) you project it. We've had this confusion many times before, as prices you consider material I do not.
My expectations have evolved significantly over the years. I expected nice attractive better date clads to be worth twenty or thirty dollars each within fifteen years when I started in 1972. By '75 I found Gems and stopped even saving lower grades except for scarce dates. I thought these would be worth twice as much. Over the years as I've learned more about the supply my expectations are continuing to evolve. The demand has always been changing as more and more people collect moderns in ever more sophisticated ways. There are variety collectors and all sorts of type and theme collectors. This aggregate demand is still quite tiny compared to any classic coin but there are also tens of thousands of casual modern collectors. Many of these collectors will become sophisticated going forward.
I believe there is already ample demand to push the price of keys far higher but the price guides list unrealistically low prices for many of the coins and the services which principally supply registry collectors tend to underweight strike and die condition making rare coins seem much more common. This is part of the reason that the price guides are so laughably low; if every coin that isn't banged up is graded MS-64 then the high quality coin with marking doesn't stand out in the grade. Most of the reason the guides are low is intent but there are good reasons as well. People look at the grade distribution of graded coins and simply assume that the lower grades (like MS-64) must be distressingly common because so many have been graded despite its low "value" in the guide. The guide writers see these numbers too but don't spend much time cruising eBay seeing what choice coins actually sell for.
I believe NOW that most coins with availability of a couple million pieces probably won't exceed 4 or $5. I once thought such "scarce" coins could approach the '50-D nickel but if moderns haven't gotten so popular by now they probably never will. Coins with an availability of 200,000 could do much better since it's not too late but this probably means states quarters rather than older moderns. Below this I still think there is great potential. Coins with availability of 20,000 can still achieve prices in excess of a few hundred dollars where that limited availability is in actual demand. I don't think people will ever compete for the finest 20,000 '72-D for instance because there are lots of beautiful coins of this date in lower grade. But I can see all of the '82-NMM dimes going to much higher prices as collectors have to compete for them. Coins with availabilities of 2000 and fewer could go as high as comparably scarce classics or even higher. Some people are going to want to collect things like PL moderns and all of these are scarce enough to get onto the radar.
So far the increase in demand that began in 1980 has been rather low. It might stay low forever or could even reverse. I would expect that at some indefinite point in the future there will be enough increases in the price of "common coins" to start getting everyone's' attention. At this point I would expect at least a small spike in demand. Peoples attention will come when people see they actually own one of these more valuable coins.
While the magnitude of the increase in demand isn't great the rate of increase in demand has been accelerating since 1999 when the states coins were begun. I would be surprised if this acceleration ends anytime before 2040 for demographic reasons. Just fixing the price guides would go a long way toward making these markets more viable and providing true price discovery.
Just fixing the price guides would go a long way toward making these markets more viable and providing true price discovery.
Indeed, it might also increase the sales of Redbooks and the total size of the hobby. Why should a rare 1969 quarter in AU that readily sells on eBay not even be listed? Where are the entry level coins for beginners? How can a beginner be expected pay multiples of catalog prices to get something at market price?
Raw moderns are a wholly different market than classics for numerous reasons, many of which have been cited in this thread. Many aspects tend to exclude beginners but in the future a large percentage of all collectors will have started with moderns. Aren't we still excluding future collectors by our behavior today?
In this thread, I'm not sure what your price expectations are or when (the future date) you project it. We've had this confusion many times before, as prices you consider material I do not.
I believe there is already ample demand to push the price of keys far higher but the price guides list unrealistically low prices for many of the coins and the services which principally supply registry collectors tend to underweight strike and die condition making rare coins seem much more common. This is part of the reason that the price guides are so laughably low; if every coin that isn't banged up is graded MS-64 then the high quality coin with marking doesn't stand out in the grade. Most of the reason the guides are low is intent but there are good reasons as well. People look at the grade distribution of graded coins and simply assume that the lower grades (like MS-64) must be distressingly common because so many have been graded despite its low "value" in the guide. The guide writers see these numbers too but don't spend much time cruising eBay seeing what choice coins actually sell for.
I believe NOW that most coins with availability of a couple million pieces probably won't exceed 4 or $5. I once thought such "scarce" coins could approach the '50-D nickel but if moderns haven't gotten so popular by now they probably never will. Coins with an availability of 200,000 could do much better since it's not too late but this probably means states quarters rather than older moderns. Below this I still think there is great potential. Coins with availability of 20,000 can still achieve prices in excess of a few hundred dollars where that limited availability is in actual demand. I don't think people will ever compete for the finest 20,000 '72-D for instance because there are lots of beautiful coins of this date in lower grade. But I can see all of the '82-NMM dimes going to much higher prices as collectors have to compete for them. Coins with availabilities of 2000 and fewer could go as high as comparably scarce classics or even higher. Some people are going to want to collect things like PL moderns and all of these are scarce enough to get onto the radar.
So far the increase in demand that began in 1980 has been rather low. It might stay low forever or could even reverse. I would expect that at some indefinite point in the future there will be enough increases in the price of "common coins" to start getting everyone's' attention. At this point I would expect at least a small spike in demand. Peoples attention will come when people see they actually own one of these more valuable coins.
While the magnitude of the increase in demand isn't great the rate of increase in demand has been accelerating since 1999 when the states coins were begun. I would be surprised if this acceleration ends anytime before 2040 for demographic reasons. Just fixing the price guides would go a long way toward making these markets more viable and providing true price discovery.
Given the sentiments you have expressed here, we are always going to disagree.
As I explained to you, the only way what you describe is going to happen is first, if collectors completely ignore the price of all other coinage and totally abandon existing and historical preferences. Second, the collectors base would have to increase to an order of magnitude, far beyond what it is today.
This coinage generally isn't competitive to most collectors anywhere near the prices you claim or imply. As an example, common date MS-64 Barber quarters sell for about $300 right now but are probably about 100 times scarcer at minimum versus some common modern with 20,000 which you think should be worth hundreds. Why would some modern which is so common sell for about the same price? The same concept applies to literally thousands of other coins. The 82 w/out MM dime is already relatively overpriced. On what basis is this coin going to be worth so much more? It's a very common coin in the US series with the absolute lowest preference.
What you are projecting is your perception of 1960's US collector preference toward the immediately preceding US classics, but to an order of magnitude. The difference though is that, outside of some key and semi-key dates, collectors didn't prefer this coinage like you think they did. This is easy to demonstrate.
Here is my prediction. Decades from now, practically all of this coinage (common classics and moderns) will sell for less than it does now in 2020 value. Given how common most of it is, it would make a lot more sense for it to sell for less than the slab fee or somewhat more than silver spot, even in grades up to MS-66.
100 years after the passing of all persons who were alive on during the year that coinage and currency stopped (voluntarily or involuntarily) being used in daily commerce around the world, human experience with, familiarity with and interest in collecting these items will vanish (except for a limited number of items kept as historical artifacts).
At that point in time all of the coins and currency which hobby participants collect, trade, buy and sell will become worthless (except for those with precious metal content and they will be melted). The arguments in this thread pro and con "moderns" being worthy or not will have no meaning or purpose.
When our sun burns through its fuel supply and in its terminal stage explodes, earth and the other inner planets of the solar system will be destroyed, along with any humans, coins and currency then residing on our home planet.
Until either of the above happen, collect what you want, enjoy the hobby, read threads like this one and try not to let the spirited discussions contained therein disrupt your daily life and all of the good things contained therein.
Common sense says avoid Modern crap, but if you are to compare the Barber Quarter to Washington Quarters (50 states, territories, ATB) then ol' Georgie in MS68 is priced 10 to 20X to it next lowest grade MS67 in most cases.... around $1500.
The MS68 NJ Quarter has similar pop reports to more generic Barber Quarters. The Barbers are in turn several multiples (up to 10x).
To me, there is far more appeal to coinage with ever changing designs.
It would not take much to spur that market.
Graded coins could dry up quickly and interest could come from anywhere... major variety discovery, China, Millenials.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
@SanctionII said:
100 years after the passing of all persons who were alive on during the year that coinage and currency stopped (voluntarily or involuntarily) being used in daily commerce around the world, human experience with, familiarity with and interest in collecting these items will vanish (except for a limited number of items kept as historical artifacts).
At that point in time all of the coins and currency which hobby participants collect, trade, buy and sell will become worthless (except for those with precious metal content and they will be melted). The arguments in this thread pro and con "moderns" being worthy or not will have no meaning or purpose.
When our sun burns through its fuel supply and in its terminal stage explodes, earth and the other inner planets of the solar system will be destroyed, along with any humans, coins and currency then residing on our home planet.
Until either of the above happen, collect what you want, enjoy the hobby, read threads like this one and try not to let the spirited discussions contained therein disrupt your daily life and all of the good things contained therein.
Whether you look at things from the perspective of the distant past or distant future what we do is of little consequence. Of course like the butterfly in China every little thing we do reverberates all through the future and galaxies will collide. One of the reasons I set aside nice coins over the years is I want people in the future to see these times in a positive light. We may waste resources and our actions may wreck the future but there are good things about our time too. People love one another and try to do the right thing. Some go to work and try to be productive and do a good job and every once in a while you can see this in coins that come from the mint. The average man is just as great as he ever was; there are just fewer average men.
In this thread, I'm not sure what your price expectations are or when (the future date) you project it. We've had this confusion many times before, as prices you consider material I do not.
I believe there is already ample demand to push the price of keys far higher but the price guides list unrealistically low prices for many of the coins and the services which principally supply registry collectors tend to underweight strike and die condition making rare coins seem much more common. This is part of the reason that the price guides are so laughably low; if every coin that isn't banged up is graded MS-64 then the high quality coin with marking doesn't stand out in the grade. Most of the reason the guides are low is intent but there are good reasons as well. People look at the grade distribution of graded coins and simply assume that the lower grades (like MS-64) must be distressingly common because so many have been graded despite its low "value" in the guide. The guide writers see these numbers too but don't spend much time cruising eBay seeing what choice coins actually sell for.
I believe NOW that most coins with availability of a couple million pieces probably won't exceed 4 or $5. I once thought such "scarce" coins could approach the '50-D nickel but if moderns haven't gotten so popular by now they probably never will. Coins with an availability of 200,000 could do much better since it's not too late but this probably means states quarters rather than older moderns. Below this I still think there is great potential. Coins with availability of 20,000 can still achieve prices in excess of a few hundred dollars where that limited availability is in actual demand. I don't think people will ever compete for the finest 20,000 '72-D for instance because there are lots of beautiful coins of this date in lower grade. But I can see all of the '82-NMM dimes going to much higher prices as collectors have to compete for them. Coins with availabilities of 2000 and fewer could go as high as comparably scarce classics or even higher. Some people are going to want to collect things like PL moderns and all of these are scarce enough to get onto the radar.
So far the increase in demand that began in 1980 has been rather low. It might stay low forever or could even reverse. I would expect that at some indefinite point in the future there will be enough increases in the price of "common coins" to start getting everyone's' attention. At this point I would expect at least a small spike in demand. Peoples attention will come when people see they actually own one of these more valuable coins.
While the magnitude of the increase in demand isn't great the rate of increase in demand has been accelerating since 1999 when the states coins were begun. I would be surprised if this acceleration ends anytime before 2040 for demographic reasons. Just fixing the price guides would go a long way toward making these markets more viable and providing true price discovery.
Given the sentiments you have expressed here, we are always going to disagree.
As I explained to you, the only way what you describe is going to happen is first, if collectors completely ignore the price of all other coinage and totally abandon existing and historical preferences. Second, the collectors base would have to increase to an order of magnitude, far beyond what it is today.
This coinage generally isn't competitive to most collectors anywhere near the prices you claim or imply. As an example, common date MS-64 Barber quarters sell for about $300 right now but are probably about 100 times scarcer at minimum versus some common modern with 20,000 which you think should be worth hundreds. Why would some modern which is so common sell for about the same price? The same concept applies to literally thousands of other coins. The 82 w/out MM dime is already relatively overpriced. On what basis is this coin going to be worth so much more? It's a very common coin in the US series with the absolute lowest preference.
What you are projecting is your perception of 1960's US collector preference toward the immediately preceding US classics, but to an order of magnitude. The difference though is that, outside of some key and semi-key dates, collectors didn't prefer this coinage like you think they did. This is easy to demonstrate.
Here is my prediction. Decades from now, practically all of this coinage (common classics and moderns) will sell for less than it does now in 2020 value. Given how common most of it is, it would make a lot more sense for it to sell for less than the slab fee or somewhat more than silver spot, even in grades up to MS-66.
It seems to me that if you made these same arguments in 1955 you would have been spectacularly wrong by 1965.
Things change. The past may be no predictor of the future but neither is the present. The trends ALL favor moderns. This will be true be true at least for another ten years probably. The real question may be if these coins will make their move in the next ten years or not.
@cladking said:
It seems to me that if you made these same arguments in 1955 you would have been spectacularly wrong by 1965.
Things change. The past may be no predictor of the future but neither is the present. The trends ALL favor moderns. This will be true be true at least for another ten years probably. The real question may be if these coins will make their move in the next ten years or not.
I know things change. In prior exchanges, I specified actual trends which everyone knows are reflected in the price level. This includes: buying coins as "investments" to a much greater extent starting in the 70's, TPG, registry sets and increased specialization.
I wouldn't make the same claims in 1955 if it didn't make any sense. The past or present doesn't predict the future. Collector preferences predict behavior which is reflected in the relative "popularity" between coinage and to a great extent, relative prices. The aggregate preference between series hasn't changed or only changed minimally precisely because collectors still view the attributes I listed mostly the same.
I look at collector behavior which doesn't have anything to do with your claims. There are no trends favoring moderns as you imply, as none of your assumptions reflect actual collector behavior. Without stating it, you assume future collector preferences will align with yours to result in your outcome.
The relevant question is, what's going to change to alter collector preferences to align with your claims?
As one example, the one you mentioned here covering demographic turnover will never lead to your outcome. There is no basis to believe that new collectors replacing current ones will ever prefer this coinage to the extent you claim. Absent a cultural change which drives the preferences I described, they aren't going to agree with you, even if they no longer "hate" this coinage.
Whether you look at things from the perspective of the distant past or distant future what we do is of little consequence. Of course like the butterfly in China every little thing we do reverberates all through the future and galaxies will collide. One of the reasons I set aside nice coins over the years is I want people in the future to see these times in a positive light. We may waste resources and our actions may wreck the future but there are good things about our time too. People love one another and try to do the right thing. Some go to work and try to be productive and do a good job and every once in a while you can see this in coins that come from the mint. The average man is just as great as he ever was; there are just fewer average men.
I look at collector behavior which doesn't have anything to do with your claims. There are no trends favoring moderns as you imply, as none of your assumptions reflect actual collector behavior. Without stating it, you assume future collector preferences will align with yours to result in your outcome.
Look at the trends that do have something to do with my claims.
In 1980 there were a dozen modern coin collectors (not including specialty collectors like Full Step Jeffs).
By 1985 there were 100.
In 1995 the number of sophisticated modern collectors was approaching 300 as the rest of the hobby stagnated.
In 2000 there were 1500 sophisticated collectors and 10,000 casual collectors.
In 2010 there were 3000 and 20,000 casual collectors,
Today there are about 5000 and 30,000.
There are also dozens of sophisticated registry collectors starting in 2000.
I like these trends and believe they will continue and accelerate.
That a plummeting percentage of collectors hate clad and a rapidly increasing number of collectors are nostalgic for old clad are also real trends. Every year there are more and more interesting and collectible moderns in circulation and there still no bust half dollars in any cash register.
Time itself is a trend and time itself is on the side of noderns.
@wondercoin said:
“As I told you, hundreds of thousands to millions (depending upon definition of "collector") do collect this coinage, then and now. Why would someone collect something they hate?”
This makes no sense to me. Take, for example, the current S Mint quarters that can only be purchased in rolls or bags. If “hundreds of thousands to millions” of collectors collect these coins, then why is the Mint only selling a few thousand bags and rolls of these coins? And, I suspect a great many to dealers as opposed to true collectors as well. For example, I, personally, buy about 1% of the $25 bags of each S Mint quarter the Mint sells. With all due respect, the collector base is a tiny % of this exaggerated amount.
Just my 2 cents.
There are many ways to see how lightly collected moderns really are.
The '70-S sm dt cent is a great coin and one of my favorites but it is just a variety. It is very common in the mint set and sells for as much as $40. But the '70-S lg dt cent is even tougher in nice condition and a roll of these sells for $3.
If people were paying attention to moderns everyone would know the '82-P is a tough coin is true chUnc condition. Most of these look like poorly made junk that was turned into roadkill in the handling equipment.
People aren't paying attention. They are not collecting moderns.
Sorry @cladking , I disagree with you here.
70-S large date is common in gem, even common in superb gem.
They commonly come very nice, cartwheel luster and attractive.
Not scarce conditionally until 67 in my opinion.
Sorry @cladking , I disagree with you here.
70-S large date is common in gem, even common in superb gem.
They commonly come very nice, cartwheel luster and attractive.
Not scarce conditionally until 67 in my opinion.
I certainly agree that the '70-S is common in Gem. But with most of these tarnished now days and so few 1970 sets left Gems are tougher than the 11% incidence of the sm dt in mint sets. Obviously many of these small dates are not attractive but this is a variety and most (80%) of the sm dts that were in sets still exist. That's somewhere in the 150,000 area for a really neat variety. But I doubt there are nearly that number of Gems of the lg dt that survive because most of these were just spent.
But, yes, you're right that the lg dt is hardly scarce in Gem. This date does have a problem with a little scratching and finding full steps can be tough but MS-66 isn't that tough and was much easier in the past. It's the dichotomy between a regular collector coin and a variety that surprises me so much. 11% are the variety but even back in the days only about 3% were spectacular Gems and they just got spent. Rolls of this date are tougher than most cents though easier than the '69-S and '71-S.
Have been following this thread. I would like to offer my input purely from the viewpoint of my own interests. I have no interest in moderns whatsoever. Only if they encompass errors. I find the designs being of bland presentation. Whether they are of MS whatever does not intrigue me. This is just my personal viewpoint and does not disparage any collectors who may collect said coinage. And is not a critique of anyone's comments within this thread.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@WCC vs. @cladking discussion on moderns. Even if you don't collect them, topics/discussions like this is when the forum is at its best, and makes for great reading and education, while allowing others to put in their 2 cents as well.
I only dabble in moderns and can concur on how hard it is to get certain post 1965 business strikes in attractive gem condition. I did search for some of the elusive ones, like a blazing gem 1969 quarter, or fully lustrous gem 1973-S or 1974-S cents, only to find out these didn't simply exist in any quantity. The dates themselves were easy enough to find, but most had some sort of issues. That's not to say that these will become ultra-expensive in the future, but with the right promotion and interest, who knows?
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Have been following this thread. I would like to offer my input purely from the viewpoint of my own interests. I have no interest in moderns whatsoever. Only if they encompass errors. I find the designs being of bland presentation. Whether they are of MS whatever does not intrigue me. This is just my personal viewpoint and does not disparage any collectors who may collect said coinage. And is not a critique of anyone's comments within this thread.
It's hardly unusual, typical really, for collectors to have little interest in whatever is modern at the time. History and beauty are extremely important characteristic to most coin collectors and most will perceive moderns as having little history and even less aesthetics. It's very natural for collectors to concentrate on old or older coins with attractive designs and used during interesting periods.
All of these problems with moderns have always been self-correcting. In time "all" art has become more appreciated. just being on coins likely influences what people consider art so the designs seem to suit the times better every year. I'm not a great fan of most of the designs either but the Jefferson nickel design is beginning to look quite 'classical" to me. It's really an excellent example of the "art deco" style. As in everything; beauty is in the eye of the beholder and as Serling also said "stay in your own backyard".
"Historic" also very much takes care of itself in time. Clads have been around more than half a century now and have witnessed man landing on the moon and the advent of the internet and dissemination of knowledge and ideas at virtually the speed of light. Even coins can now travel at hundreds of miles an hour and be selected from images that travel at breakneck speed.
As time goes by more and more people will consider moderns "historic". Each new generation has a new perspective that generally considers anything a lot older than they are to be "historic".
This age has been one of the most important to humans of all ages and the seeds sown now will have deep and wide effects. But collecting coins you don't like has never been wise and is rarely profitable. As Serling also said "help others stay in their own back yard". It's curious that Buster Keaton had to learn this in 1961 before the advent of clads.
I only dabble in moderns and can concur on how hard it is to get certain post 1965 business strikes in attractive gem condition. I did search for some of the elusive ones, like a blazing gem 1969 quarter, or fully lustrous gem 1973-S or 1974-S cents, only to find out these didn't simply exist in any quantity. The dates themselves were easy enough to find, but most had some sort of issues. That's not to say that these will become ultra-expensive in the future, but with the right promotion and interest, who knows?
All three of these coins you list also have incredibly high attrition. The '74-S is unceremoniously dumped into circulation. The '69 quarters are all tarnishing at a phenomenal rate. The '73-S has a low valuation and the sets are getting cut up at a high rate to get the mint set only Ike.
All moderns have a far higher attrition than old coins but some of them are virtually evaporating in circulation, rolls, and mint sets. The best example is the '84 cent. These had plating issues and poor surfaces in 1984 and most are gone now because of it. Coins in BU rolls often rot and most mint set coins are spotted. Really attractive examples of this coin with nice surfaces were quite scarce in 1984 and time has hardly been kind to them. This is a coin where tens of millions were saved unlike most moderns that were hardly saved at all. despite the number set aside and the horrid condition of rolls it will still bring $5 per roll.
If collectors ever try to put together Gem sets of moderns they will be surprised at how tough many are to find and every year they wait the coins get much harder. That '74-S can be spectacular but they usually have heavy marking. The '73-S isn't quite as nice and has less marking but almost every coin has some marking. The '69 is just garbage that was poorly struck and usually marked.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Have been following this thread. I would like to offer my input purely from the viewpoint of my own interests. I have no interest in moderns whatsoever. Only if they encompass errors. I find the designs being of bland presentation. Whether they are of MS whatever does not intrigue me. This is just my personal viewpoint and does not disparage any collectors who may collect said coinage. And is not a critique of anyone's comments within this thread.
It's hardly unusual, typical really, for collectors to have little interest in whatever is modern at the time. History and beauty are extremely important characteristic to most coin collectors and most will perceive moderns as having little history and even less aesthetics. It's very natural for collectors to concentrate on old or older coins with attractive designs and used during interesting periods.
All of these problems with moderns have always been self-correcting. In time "all" art has become more appreciated. just being on coins likely influences what people consider art so the designs seem to suit the times better every year. I'm not a great fan of most of the designs either but the Jefferson nickel design is beginning to look quite 'classical" to me. It's really an excellent example of the "art deco" style. As in everything; beauty is in the eye of the beholder and as Serling also said "stay in your own backyard".
"Historic" also very much takes care of itself in time. Clads have been around more than half a century now and have witnessed man landing on the moon and the advent of the internet and dissemination of knowledge and ideas at virtually the speed of light. Even coins can now travel at hundreds of miles an hour and be selected from images that travel at breakneck speed.
As time goes by more and more people will consider moderns "historic". Each new generation has a new perspective that generally considers anything a lot older than they are to be "historic".
This age has been one of the most important to humans of all ages and the seeds sown now will have deep and wide effects. But collecting coins you don't like has never been wise and is rarely profitable. As Serling also said "help others stay in their own back yard". It's curious that Buster Keaton had to learn this in 1961 before the advent of clads.
I see your well stated points. Ty for your comment.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
Look at the trends that do have something to do with my claims.
In 1980 there were a dozen modern coin collectors (not including specialty collectors like Full Step Jeffs).
By 1985 there were 100.
In 1995 the number of sophisticated modern collectors was approaching 300 as the rest of the hobby stagnated.
In 2000 there were 1500 sophisticated collectors and 10,000 casual collectors.
In 2010 there were 3000 and 20,000 casual collectors,
Today there are about 5000 and 30,000.
There are also dozens of sophisticated registry collectors starting in 2000.
I like these trends and believe they will continue and accelerate.
That a plummeting percentage of collectors hate clad and a rapidly increasing number of collectors are nostalgic for old clad are also real trends. Every year there are more and more interesting and collectible moderns in circulation and there still no bust half dollars in any cash register.
Time itself is a trend and time itself is on the side of noderns.
Even to the extent your numbers are accurate, none of this means that your price forecasts will remotely be realized. Your financial claims are a complete exaggeration and I have no problem telling anyone here it is never going to happen.
Previously, you have told me that I am "stuck in the past". No, this describes your position. What you are implying (and claimed in prior threads) is a return to 1960's "mass market" collecting, but on steroids.
Most on this forum aren't familiar with our prior post exchanges so let me use a few more examples to make it evident why it is never going to happen.
Remember our discussion on the Jefferson Nickel? You told me back in 2013 that the later dates (presumably near 1965 and later) are often scarcer than earlier ones yet less expensive. Below is the Heritage archive data. I use this example as it is the exact same design, except for the WWII dates which are minimally different. If this is the reality for this coin for 50+ years, what makes you think preferences are remotely going to change as you insist? The proofs are roughly even (the earlier ones certainly being much scarcer) but the MS is lopsided.
$101-$1000 Multiple $1000+ Multiple
1938-1964 MS 5,580 11:1 1,163 23:1
1965-2003 MS 478 49
1938-1964 PR 3,147 3:1 518 2:1
1965-2003 PR 936 246
That's not to say that these will become ultra-expensive in the future, but with the right promotion and interest, who knows?
>
There is a clear distinction between the US moderns currently showing at least some level of preference under generic US collecting practices and this coinage generally. In this thread, I haven't been including (most of the time) condition census coinage or specialization. It's evident a low minority **DO **have a preference for it and the prices are also a function of the fickle preferences of a single or handful of buyers, as with other (supposedly) rare coinage.
Generically, there isn't any foreseeable promotion that will ever lead to this outcome because future preferences are not subject to random change as I described earlier.
It's possible it could result from bubble conditions but that will only be temporary. We already have a test case showing this outcome: the South Africa 2008 Nelson Mandela 90th BD 5R.
One of the then two (now 13) MS-69 reportedly sold for R2.3MM (equivalent to $338,000) by the South African Coin Company about 10 years ago. Lower grades sold for much less but very inflated prices, somewhat like the 1950-D nickel. This coin is a lot more common than the coinage discussed in this thread but theoretically, it should have a much higher preference, by the majority population.
I like these trends and believe they will continue and accelerate.
That a plummeting percentage of collectors hate clad and a rapidly increasing number of collectors are nostalgic for old clad are also real trends. Every year there are more and more interesting and collectible moderns in circulation and there still no bust half dollars in any cash register.
Time itself is a trend and time itself is on the side of noderns.
Now let me get to my second question. When can we expect the US Mint to start striking base metal bullion NCLT resembling US circulating moderns?
I ask since my example is equally believable to your projection, as there is no basis to believe collectors will ever adopt a preference contrary to the culture evident in the general population.
Under your claims, it’s reasonable to anticipate national mints will introduce or even replace gold and silver NCLT with base metal versions of circulating coinage. Under your claims, coin size and metal content won’t matter while there is every reason to believe buyers will prefer presidential portraits to classical style art.
According to you, it’s feasible that collectors will prefer this hypothetical NCLT over existing options such as the ASE. Collectors and the non-collecting public will buy it in similar (if not much greater) numbers and at similar (if not much higher) prices.
Not only will this be evident with collectors but with the non-collecting public in the metal spot market. If it’s going to happen in collecting, there is every reason to believe the general population won’t make any distinction between base metals and gold or silver either.
If you dispute my characterization of your reasoning, it is entirely consistent with your prior claims.
I got obsessed with finding a particular (very profitable) VAM.
Four unattributed coins over six months, not counting a couple of raw Details AU coins.
Searched day and night, woke up at odd hours to peruse new listings and in the end averaged finding a mint state example 1 in every 20,000 coins viewed.... this insane trip taken after coin #1 was found in the first five minutes with the count at less than a dozen.
I am targeting high grade moderns as my new VAM obsession.
Figure 1 in 20,000 is about right.
Checks alot of boxes. Cheap access to coins, absurd addiction to treasure hunting, eye for grading etc...
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
What you are implying (and claimed in prior threads) is a return to 1960's "mass market" collecting, but on steroids.
No.
I am suggesting that any kind of mass market in moderns would drive prices far higher. We have mass markets for all sorts of coins and there's no reason one can't develop for modern US.
Take modern Russia or India. I have no reason to believe these are even "mass markets" and every reason to believe the enormous run up in prices is being caused by a small number of collectors chasing an even smaller supply.
The same thing exists in the US but it is invisible because of the way we define terms and I've provided this example before. "Gem" as I define it (and I'm sure many modern collectors agre) is a well struck coin, well centered on a good planchet struck by a well made and relatively new die. Most dies are plenty good enough to strike up to ~40,000 Gems before they have excessive wear. There are hundreds of dies so millions of Gem can come off the dies every year. But many presses are set up poorly so every coin from a new pair of dies will be weakly struck or so "hammered" the die wears out early. Presses are often poorly aligned making one side of thew quarter weak. Then the Gem that do get produced are sent out on conveyors and run into hoppers and bags. They often are marred during this process destroying more Gems.
The bags can be roughly handled and then they are almost all dumped into circulation. The mint didn't used to care about quality and many of the employees didn't care either. Dies could be poorly made and poorly installed. Sheet metal workers didn't care about burrs in chutes and nobody was responsible for operating the plant to maximize quality. Few plants care about such things and rather are seeking to decrease defective product to zero.
Back in 1982 nobody cared about clad quarters and the few who did had almost no concern for quality just as the mint had no concern about maximizing perfect product. The end result is that it's improbable that the few people who set all these aside (~80,000 coins in aggregate) actually set aside even one single Gem coin! I've looked at more of these than anyone. If anyone else saw as many I'dda have bumped into him repeatedly. I believe I've probably seen at least a couple specimens from almost every die. "Good dies" are uncommon for this date and "good strikes" are scarce. Since they are scarce the odds of one being saved among the tiny percentage set aside is very low. Even if someone stumbled on a roll with good strikes the odds are very high the coins would be marked up to be ungradeable.
We define Gem as MS-65 but no Gems of this date exist!!! The Redbook lists the coin as being worth $15 despite the fact that it's possible no true Gem exists at all and thousands of people are buying this date ('82-P) for prices between $50 and $2000.
This is the state of the market, It is in its infancy and adding thousands or tens of thousands of collectors to it would create an explosive mixture. I'm not talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of new collectors but I can't predict the future nor can I rule out anything at all.
I'm selling now regardless because I can't predict the future and I'm old enough to just need to clear everything out.
@yspsales said:
I got obsessed with finding a particular (very profitable) VAM.
Four unattributed coins over six months, not counting a couple of raw Details AU coins.
Searched day and night, woke up at odd hours to peruse new listings and in the end averaged finding a mint state example 1 in every 20,000 coins viewed.... this insane trip taken after coin #1 was found in the first five minutes with the count at less than a dozen.
I am targeting high grade moderns as my new VAM obsession.
Figure 1 in 20,000 is about right.
Checks alot of boxes. Cheap access to coins, absurd addiction to treasure hunting, eye for grading etc...
It takes an awful lot of raw coins to find one worthy of sending in. At this time your 1: 20,000 looks highly conservative to me.
@MasonG said:
VAMs are a good comparison to high grade moderns. Both are things buyers want to cherrypick, not pay retail for.
This is kindda my point.
I think the days of "raw moderns" is drawing to the same sort of close as the days of BU rolls of 1829 bust half dollars. The only difference is that moderns will trickle in for decades yet.
Comments
“Or perhaps those collecting at FV aren't collectors?”
In my example, collecting S Mint quarters for FV is virtually impossible as the coins do not circulate. So, it’s a nonissue. But, I agree you can be a collector of FV coins- why not!
When I first moved to CA in 1983, I answered an ad in the local newspaper of an older woman selling a near complete large cent collection (1794-1856) where she pulled every single coin out of the cash register of her parents store when she was a very young girl. She could never find a 1793 in all the years she did it. I still have the collection to this day (37 years later) exactly as she sold it to me as I thought the story was so cool and I still do.
Wondercoin
That's best response you could have posted!
Smitten with DBLCs.
disparage[ dih-spar-ij ]
verb
-to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle:
-to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of:
Good to hear it! Based on the first quote above, it appeared you might be.
That’s wonderful!
Clad king said:
“But the collecting of moderns as a percentage of the total hobby is still incredibly low. It is ILLOGICAL to believe this will persist indefinitely.”
I agree with this. But imo this will change naturally. Many of us started by collecting coins from circulation. We were filling albums. I believe many started with Lincoln cents before moving on to other series. While I believe there are fewer young people collecting than a generation ago, it makes sense that many who do start will be pulling coins from circulation while they are young.
When I was a youngster collecting, it wasn’t unusual to find coins 50 years old in pocket change. Nowadays, it is still easy to find 50+ year old coins in circulation. At some point, whether 50 years 100 years or somewhere in between, people will save coins just because they are old. And the cycle begins again. Hopefully, the influx of state quarter collectors will contribute to that.
Your definition of collector is different than mine. One way or another, someone saved a lot of these coins in "high quality" because none are remotely even close to being scarce. If you insist on using the 1960's as your baseline for how things should be, you're invariably going to be wrong as you have been.
If anything is illogical, it's your insistence on extrapolating your preferences to other collectors. I have explained how collectors perceive this coinage in this thread. It has nothing to do with not liking it, it's just what is evident in the data.
The 1960's where US collecting focused on a such a small proportion of the coinage was an aberration. Change has been slow but there is no reason to expect that primarily because collectors chose this coinage in the past, that anywhere near the number you have claimed will choose US moderns later.
It's self evident it's always supply and demand. It's my inference that the desirability and therefore demand was higher than it otherwise would be if collectors had an incorrect perception of scarcity. This happens all the time, as evidenced by increasing populations in the TPG data.
It doesn't matter where the supply comes from, these moderns are common except as I have conceded to you both in this thread and the past. There is plenty of supply, except for the collector base you think should exist.
To my knowledge, the future collector base you imply for US moderns doesn't exist for any coinage except common 20th century US classic series. Most of this collecting (the vast majority) is also at nominal prices and where the value of most collections isn't financially material either. You may consider the prices of this classic coinage and the collection values to be more material than I do, but that is something else entirely.
The internet isn't a liability to collecting. My point is that current and future collectors aren't going to choose common 20th century US coinage in the same proportion when there is so much more variety available which wasn't before. The internet enables them to find what they could not before.
There are many ways to see how lightly collected moderns really are.
The '70-S sm dt cent is a great coin and one of my favorites but it is just a variety. It is very common in the mint set and sells for as much as $40. But the '70-S lg dt cent is even tougher in nice condition and a roll of these sells for $3.
If people were paying attention to moderns everyone would know the '82-P is a tough coin is true chUnc condition. Most of these look like poorly made junk that was turned into roadkill in the handling equipment.
People aren't paying attention. They are not collecting moderns.
I have never disparaged any collector of anything at all. I'm not even disparaging the individuals who buy moderns they don't understand and never bothered to look at. I am disparaging the GROUP of CONSUMERS who plunk down $99.99, throw the coins in the closet, and call themselves "collectors". Well, I'm not even doing that: I am merely saying this is NOT THE DEFINITION of either "coin collector" or "numismatist". People can do as they choose with their money but buying a rope doesn't make them a mountain climber.
They're not collecting them the way you think they should be, that's for sure.
I've seen a lot of people looking at their change over the last 20 years after going 35 years with no one looking except to see if there was any silver in it. I've seen lots of folders sold for circulating coinage.
A lot of collectors in 30 or 40 years will be older folks who were pulling coins out of their change in 1999.
It's just the cycle of life. Everything is perspective to the individual and everything is demographics to the society. It's just this simple. Don't swim on the wrong side of the tide and don't jump in when it goes out.
You are simply mistaken.
Very few coins were high quality when they left the mint and very few of any were saved.
You just keep repeating they are common. They are inexpensive only because there is no demand.
My original comment:
In one of your subsequent replies:
"Junky sets, shoved into a box of junk" is pretty disparaging, if you ask me. YMMV, I guess.
>
Yes. Bingo!
The internet allows them to find nice choice attractive clad. If this were still 1985 it would be exceedingly difficult to find even a chUnc '82-P. You'd have had to check lots of coins to find one and finding any coins to check was quite difficult.
This is why I keep telling you that collecting moderns was extremely labor intensive in the old days.
This is by your grading standards, not PCGS or NGC which are what practically everyone else uses. Only a very low number (an irrelevant fraction of the collector base for this coinage) really cares about your criteria. Hardly any of these people are going to "pay up", just as you won't and have not.
Guess what? The coins I collect are disproportionately also rare in "gem" or fully struck. In my primary series now, few if any exist at all. There is nothing unusual about it.
I never disagreed with you that the coins are or were easy to find from circulation in the quality you will accept. Where I did and still do disagree with you is that this coinage is disproportionately anything other than common in the quality practically everyone else will collect.
Oh, perhaps our disagreement is about the sets themselves. I've seen many of these sets and most really are "junk". Many of these sets have sliders for the '82 and '83 issues because wholesalers have trouble getting these and they can be pricey. Many dates are always a mess so the '69 quarter will be awful. As I said before most moderns are UGLY in MS-60. If saying that makes me "elitist" then so be it. There is a strong tendency for copper to have carbon spots and many clads to be tarnished. There will be a few nice choice coins in them but these will ONLY be dates where choiceBU are common. The sets won't be matched for quality. They are simply assembled from rolls of coins.
Don't get me wrong here. Everybody assembling these sets are not making them from junk and some sets can be fairly attractive but this is the exception rather than the rule. The sets are usually very inexpensive so can be a great start to a real collection. Many people buying even the ugliest sets will study the coins and learn about them.
There's nothing wrong with buying a rope but this doesn't make you a mountain climber.
>
>
This is one of our points of disagreement.
I don't expect MS-60 moderns to ever be very widely collected. I could see XF and AU becoming pricey and nice chU being highly sought after but not MS-60.
I could be wrong about the future, but I'm right about this SO FAR.
Some clad will not be very common in MS-60 to MS-63 anyway for the reasons previously stated.
Not liking MS-60 coins because they don't meet your standards doesn't make you elitist. There's nothing wrong with setting a level for the sort of quality you are looking for in your collection. Disparaging what others choose to collect...
"I've seen many of these sets and most really are "junk"
because you don't like the coins those people chose does, IMO, come pretty close to "elitist", though.
How would you like having people dismiss the coins you collect as "modern crap"?
As in many prior debates, I'm not sure now where I disagree with you and where I don't.
In this thread, I'm not sure what your price expectations are or when (the future date) you project it. We've had this confusion many times before, as prices you consider material I do not.
Most of the buyers of this junk aren't "choosing" to "collect" lower grades. They are sending off $100 to acquire a complete set without knowing in advance that most of the coins in the set and all of the coins of specific dates will look like they came off the floor of the Cracker Jack factory. If this makes me "elitist" then color me a snob.
If someone chooses to collect MS-60 then more power to him. Indeed, finding typical examples of many quarters made for circulation is a very tough job and would be very educational and a very worthy endeavor, I'd love to see the set and speak to the collector. Finding a "typical" 1969 would be very very tough because nobody saved rolls of this garbage. Those few who set aside any coins at all chose mint set coins and these are invariably well struck and well made from good dies (relatively). Try finding a BU 1966 quarter from the most heavily worn and poorly aligned dies. They made 200,000,000 of these but you can't go down to your corner coin shop and ask for a roll, or even one. Indeed, many shops wouldn't even have an SMS in stock.
Everybody seems to think that there are mountains of supply of every modern but this has never been true. If you want a roll of '74 cents then this won't be too hard but if you want the ugliest examples of every modern still in BU then buying complete sets is the perfect place to start your collection. If you want a nice attractive and well matched set of moderns then you can start with these sets as well but you might find you'll need to upgrade nearly every coin.
I have the same problem. I think mostly our differences are related to perspective and definitions and one of our biggest disagreements is that as a collector I don't care that people will collect these or not. As an investor I'd be happier having a 1000% increase in very low value coins than a 500% increase in one very valuable coin. It was a mistake "investing" in these coins for numerous reasons but I have had very significant gains in most of it. It was a mistake for many reasons including having to dispose of a lot of $5 coins that I paid 50c for. I've had a lot of fun but I might have had a lot more if I had stuck closer to collecting and farther from investing. A lot of what I did was almost like "work" whereas a collector might never need to work. There's a lot less heavy lifting in coin collecting and you won't need large numbers of safety deposit boxes.
I've always liked all coins and even "working" with coins.
My expectations have evolved significantly over the years. I expected nice attractive better date clads to be worth twenty or thirty dollars each within fifteen years when I started in 1972. By '75 I found Gems and stopped even saving lower grades except for scarce dates. I thought these would be worth twice as much. Over the years as I've learned more about the supply my expectations are continuing to evolve. The demand has always been changing as more and more people collect moderns in ever more sophisticated ways. There are variety collectors and all sorts of type and theme collectors. This aggregate demand is still quite tiny compared to any classic coin but there are also tens of thousands of casual modern collectors. Many of these collectors will become sophisticated going forward.
I believe there is already ample demand to push the price of keys far higher but the price guides list unrealistically low prices for many of the coins and the services which principally supply registry collectors tend to underweight strike and die condition making rare coins seem much more common. This is part of the reason that the price guides are so laughably low; if every coin that isn't banged up is graded MS-64 then the high quality coin with marking doesn't stand out in the grade. Most of the reason the guides are low is intent but there are good reasons as well. People look at the grade distribution of graded coins and simply assume that the lower grades (like MS-64) must be distressingly common because so many have been graded despite its low "value" in the guide. The guide writers see these numbers too but don't spend much time cruising eBay seeing what choice coins actually sell for.
I believe NOW that most coins with availability of a couple million pieces probably won't exceed 4 or $5. I once thought such "scarce" coins could approach the '50-D nickel but if moderns haven't gotten so popular by now they probably never will. Coins with an availability of 200,000 could do much better since it's not too late but this probably means states quarters rather than older moderns. Below this I still think there is great potential. Coins with availability of 20,000 can still achieve prices in excess of a few hundred dollars where that limited availability is in actual demand. I don't think people will ever compete for the finest 20,000 '72-D for instance because there are lots of beautiful coins of this date in lower grade. But I can see all of the '82-NMM dimes going to much higher prices as collectors have to compete for them. Coins with availabilities of 2000 and fewer could go as high as comparably scarce classics or even higher. Some people are going to want to collect things like PL moderns and all of these are scarce enough to get onto the radar.
So far the increase in demand that began in 1980 has been rather low. It might stay low forever or could even reverse. I would expect that at some indefinite point in the future there will be enough increases in the price of "common coins" to start getting everyone's' attention. At this point I would expect at least a small spike in demand. Peoples attention will come when people see they actually own one of these more valuable coins.
While the magnitude of the increase in demand isn't great the rate of increase in demand has been accelerating since 1999 when the states coins were begun. I would be surprised if this acceleration ends anytime before 2040 for demographic reasons. Just fixing the price guides would go a long way toward making these markets more viable and providing true price discovery.
Indeed, it might also increase the sales of Redbooks and the total size of the hobby. Why should a rare 1969 quarter in AU that readily sells on eBay not even be listed? Where are the entry level coins for beginners? How can a beginner be expected pay multiples of catalog prices to get something at market price?
Raw moderns are a wholly different market than classics for numerous reasons, many of which have been cited in this thread. Many aspects tend to exclude beginners but in the future a large percentage of all collectors will have started with moderns. Aren't we still excluding future collectors by our behavior today?
Given the sentiments you have expressed here, we are always going to disagree.
As I explained to you, the only way what you describe is going to happen is first, if collectors completely ignore the price of all other coinage and totally abandon existing and historical preferences. Second, the collectors base would have to increase to an order of magnitude, far beyond what it is today.
This coinage generally isn't competitive to most collectors anywhere near the prices you claim or imply. As an example, common date MS-64 Barber quarters sell for about $300 right now but are probably about 100 times scarcer at minimum versus some common modern with 20,000 which you think should be worth hundreds. Why would some modern which is so common sell for about the same price? The same concept applies to literally thousands of other coins. The 82 w/out MM dime is already relatively overpriced. On what basis is this coin going to be worth so much more? It's a very common coin in the US series with the absolute lowest preference.
What you are projecting is your perception of 1960's US collector preference toward the immediately preceding US classics, but to an order of magnitude. The difference though is that, outside of some key and semi-key dates, collectors didn't prefer this coinage like you think they did. This is easy to demonstrate.
Here is my prediction. Decades from now, practically all of this coinage (common classics and moderns) will sell for less than it does now in 2020 value. Given how common most of it is, it would make a lot more sense for it to sell for less than the slab fee or somewhat more than silver spot, even in grades up to MS-66.
100 years after the passing of all persons who were alive on during the year that coinage and currency stopped (voluntarily or involuntarily) being used in daily commerce around the world, human experience with, familiarity with and interest in collecting these items will vanish (except for a limited number of items kept as historical artifacts).
At that point in time all of the coins and currency which hobby participants collect, trade, buy and sell will become worthless (except for those with precious metal content and they will be melted). The arguments in this thread pro and con "moderns" being worthy or not will have no meaning or purpose.
When our sun burns through its fuel supply and in its terminal stage explodes, earth and the other inner planets of the solar system will be destroyed, along with any humans, coins and currency then residing on our home planet.
Until either of the above happen, collect what you want, enjoy the hobby, read threads like this one and try not to let the spirited discussions contained therein disrupt your daily life and all of the good things contained therein.
Great information and discussion. Thanks.
Please visit my website Millcitynumismatics.com
Great thread. Thank you everyone for this great perspective and information!
Common sense says avoid Modern crap, but if you are to compare the Barber Quarter to Washington Quarters (50 states, territories, ATB) then ol' Georgie in MS68 is priced 10 to 20X to it next lowest grade MS67 in most cases.... around $1500.
The MS68 NJ Quarter has similar pop reports to more generic Barber Quarters. The Barbers are in turn several multiples (up to 10x).
To me, there is far more appeal to coinage with ever changing designs.
It would not take much to spur that market.
Graded coins could dry up quickly and interest could come from anywhere... major variety discovery, China, Millenials.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Whether you look at things from the perspective of the distant past or distant future what we do is of little consequence. Of course like the butterfly in China every little thing we do reverberates all through the future and galaxies will collide. One of the reasons I set aside nice coins over the years is I want people in the future to see these times in a positive light. We may waste resources and our actions may wreck the future but there are good things about our time too. People love one another and try to do the right thing. Some go to work and try to be productive and do a good job and every once in a while you can see this in coins that come from the mint. The average man is just as great as he ever was; there are just fewer average men.
It seems to me that if you made these same arguments in 1955 you would have been spectacularly wrong by 1965.
Things change. The past may be no predictor of the future but neither is the present. The trends ALL favor moderns. This will be true be true at least for another ten years probably. The real question may be if these coins will make their move in the next ten years or not.
I know things change. In prior exchanges, I specified actual trends which everyone knows are reflected in the price level. This includes: buying coins as "investments" to a much greater extent starting in the 70's, TPG, registry sets and increased specialization.
I wouldn't make the same claims in 1955 if it didn't make any sense. The past or present doesn't predict the future. Collector preferences predict behavior which is reflected in the relative "popularity" between coinage and to a great extent, relative prices. The aggregate preference between series hasn't changed or only changed minimally precisely because collectors still view the attributes I listed mostly the same.
I look at collector behavior which doesn't have anything to do with your claims. There are no trends favoring moderns as you imply, as none of your assumptions reflect actual collector behavior. Without stating it, you assume future collector preferences will align with yours to result in your outcome.
The relevant question is, what's going to change to alter collector preferences to align with your claims?
As one example, the one you mentioned here covering demographic turnover will never lead to your outcome. There is no basis to believe that new collectors replacing current ones will ever prefer this coinage to the extent you claim. Absent a cultural change which drives the preferences I described, they aren't going to agree with you, even if they no longer "hate" this coinage.
See, I can agree with you occasionally.
Look at the trends that do have something to do with my claims.
In 1980 there were a dozen modern coin collectors (not including specialty collectors like Full Step Jeffs).
By 1985 there were 100.
In 1995 the number of sophisticated modern collectors was approaching 300 as the rest of the hobby stagnated.
In 2000 there were 1500 sophisticated collectors and 10,000 casual collectors.
In 2010 there were 3000 and 20,000 casual collectors,
Today there are about 5000 and 30,000.
There are also dozens of sophisticated registry collectors starting in 2000.
I like these trends and believe they will continue and accelerate.
That a plummeting percentage of collectors hate clad and a rapidly increasing number of collectors are nostalgic for old clad are also real trends. Every year there are more and more interesting and collectible moderns in circulation and there still no bust half dollars in any cash register.
Time itself is a trend and time itself is on the side of noderns.
Sorry @cladking , I disagree with you here.
70-S large date is common in gem, even common in superb gem.
They commonly come very nice, cartwheel luster and attractive.
Not scarce conditionally until 67 in my opinion.
I certainly agree that the '70-S is common in Gem. But with most of these tarnished now days and so few 1970 sets left Gems are tougher than the 11% incidence of the sm dt in mint sets. Obviously many of these small dates are not attractive but this is a variety and most (80%) of the sm dts that were in sets still exist. That's somewhere in the 150,000 area for a really neat variety. But I doubt there are nearly that number of Gems of the lg dt that survive because most of these were just spent.
But, yes, you're right that the lg dt is hardly scarce in Gem. This date does have a problem with a little scratching and finding full steps can be tough but MS-66 isn't that tough and was much easier in the past. It's the dichotomy between a regular collector coin and a variety that surprises me so much. 11% are the variety but even back in the days only about 3% were spectacular Gems and they just got spent. Rolls of this date are tougher than most cents though easier than the '69-S and '71-S.
Have been following this thread. I would like to offer my input purely from the viewpoint of my own interests. I have no interest in moderns whatsoever. Only if they encompass errors. I find the designs being of bland presentation. Whether they are of MS whatever does not intrigue me. This is just my personal viewpoint and does not disparage any collectors who may collect said coinage. And is not a critique of anyone's comments within this thread.
@WCC vs. @cladking discussion on moderns. Even if you don't collect them, topics/discussions like this is when the forum is at its best, and makes for great reading and education, while allowing others to put in their 2 cents as well.
I only dabble in moderns and can concur on how hard it is to get certain post 1965 business strikes in attractive gem condition. I did search for some of the elusive ones, like a blazing gem 1969 quarter, or fully lustrous gem 1973-S or 1974-S cents, only to find out these didn't simply exist in any quantity. The dates themselves were easy enough to find, but most had some sort of issues. That's not to say that these will become ultra-expensive in the future, but with the right promotion and interest, who knows?
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
It's hardly unusual, typical really, for collectors to have little interest in whatever is modern at the time. History and beauty are extremely important characteristic to most coin collectors and most will perceive moderns as having little history and even less aesthetics. It's very natural for collectors to concentrate on old or older coins with attractive designs and used during interesting periods.
All of these problems with moderns have always been self-correcting. In time "all" art has become more appreciated. just being on coins likely influences what people consider art so the designs seem to suit the times better every year. I'm not a great fan of most of the designs either but the Jefferson nickel design is beginning to look quite 'classical" to me. It's really an excellent example of the "art deco" style. As in everything; beauty is in the eye of the beholder and as Serling also said "stay in your own backyard".
"Historic" also very much takes care of itself in time. Clads have been around more than half a century now and have witnessed man landing on the moon and the advent of the internet and dissemination of knowledge and ideas at virtually the speed of light. Even coins can now travel at hundreds of miles an hour and be selected from images that travel at breakneck speed.
As time goes by more and more people will consider moderns "historic". Each new generation has a new perspective that generally considers anything a lot older than they are to be "historic".
This age has been one of the most important to humans of all ages and the seeds sown now will have deep and wide effects. But collecting coins you don't like has never been wise and is rarely profitable. As Serling also said "help others stay in their own back yard". It's curious that Buster Keaton had to learn this in 1961 before the advent of clads.
All three of these coins you list also have incredibly high attrition. The '74-S is unceremoniously dumped into circulation. The '69 quarters are all tarnishing at a phenomenal rate. The '73-S has a low valuation and the sets are getting cut up at a high rate to get the mint set only Ike.
All moderns have a far higher attrition than old coins but some of them are virtually evaporating in circulation, rolls, and mint sets. The best example is the '84 cent. These had plating issues and poor surfaces in 1984 and most are gone now because of it. Coins in BU rolls often rot and most mint set coins are spotted. Really attractive examples of this coin with nice surfaces were quite scarce in 1984 and time has hardly been kind to them. This is a coin where tens of millions were saved unlike most moderns that were hardly saved at all. despite the number set aside and the horrid condition of rolls it will still bring $5 per roll.
If collectors ever try to put together Gem sets of moderns they will be surprised at how tough many are to find and every year they wait the coins get much harder. That '74-S can be spectacular but they usually have heavy marking. The '73-S isn't quite as nice and has less marking but almost every coin has some marking. The '69 is just garbage that was poorly struck and usually marked.
I see your well stated points. Ty for your comment.
Even to the extent your numbers are accurate, none of this means that your price forecasts will remotely be realized. Your financial claims are a complete exaggeration and I have no problem telling anyone here it is never going to happen.
Previously, you have told me that I am "stuck in the past". No, this describes your position. What you are implying (and claimed in prior threads) is a return to 1960's "mass market" collecting, but on steroids.
Most on this forum aren't familiar with our prior post exchanges so let me use a few more examples to make it evident why it is never going to happen.
Remember our discussion on the Jefferson Nickel? You told me back in 2013 that the later dates (presumably near 1965 and later) are often scarcer than earlier ones yet less expensive. Below is the Heritage archive data. I use this example as it is the exact same design, except for the WWII dates which are minimally different. If this is the reality for this coin for 50+ years, what makes you think preferences are remotely going to change as you insist? The proofs are roughly even (the earlier ones certainly being much scarcer) but the MS is lopsided.
1938-1964 MS 5,580 11:1 1,163 23:1
1965-2003 MS 478 49
1938-1964 PR 3,147 3:1 518 2:1
1965-2003 PR 936 246
That's not to say that these will become ultra-expensive in the future, but with the right promotion and interest, who knows?
>
There is a clear distinction between the US moderns currently showing at least some level of preference under generic US collecting practices and this coinage generally. In this thread, I haven't been including (most of the time) condition census coinage or specialization. It's evident a low minority **DO **have a preference for it and the prices are also a function of the fickle preferences of a single or handful of buyers, as with other (supposedly) rare coinage.
Generically, there isn't any foreseeable promotion that will ever lead to this outcome because future preferences are not subject to random change as I described earlier.
It's possible it could result from bubble conditions but that will only be temporary. We already have a test case showing this outcome: the South Africa 2008 Nelson Mandela 90th BD 5R.
One of the then two (now 13) MS-69 reportedly sold for R2.3MM (equivalent to $338,000) by the South African Coin Company about 10 years ago. Lower grades sold for much less but very inflated prices, somewhat like the 1950-D nickel. This coin is a lot more common than the coinage discussed in this thread but theoretically, it should have a much higher preference, by the majority population.
It's crashed and burned anyway.
Now let me get to my second question. When can we expect the US Mint to start striking base metal bullion NCLT resembling US circulating moderns?
I ask since my example is equally believable to your projection, as there is no basis to believe collectors will ever adopt a preference contrary to the culture evident in the general population.
Under your claims, it’s reasonable to anticipate national mints will introduce or even replace gold and silver NCLT with base metal versions of circulating coinage. Under your claims, coin size and metal content won’t matter while there is every reason to believe buyers will prefer presidential portraits to classical style art.
According to you, it’s feasible that collectors will prefer this hypothetical NCLT over existing options such as the ASE. Collectors and the non-collecting public will buy it in similar (if not much greater) numbers and at similar (if not much higher) prices.
Not only will this be evident with collectors but with the non-collecting public in the metal spot market. If it’s going to happen in collecting, there is every reason to believe the general population won’t make any distinction between base metals and gold or silver either.
If you dispute my characterization of your reasoning, it is entirely consistent with your prior claims.
I got obsessed with finding a particular (very profitable) VAM.
Four unattributed coins over six months, not counting a couple of raw Details AU coins.
Searched day and night, woke up at odd hours to peruse new listings and in the end averaged finding a mint state example 1 in every 20,000 coins viewed.... this insane trip taken after coin #1 was found in the first five minutes with the count at less than a dozen.
I am targeting high grade moderns as my new VAM obsession.
Figure 1 in 20,000 is about right.
Checks alot of boxes. Cheap access to coins, absurd addiction to treasure hunting, eye for grading etc...
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
VAMs are a good comparison to high grade moderns. Both are things buyers want to cherrypick, not pay retail for.
No.
I am suggesting that any kind of mass market in moderns would drive prices far higher. We have mass markets for all sorts of coins and there's no reason one can't develop for modern US.
Take modern Russia or India. I have no reason to believe these are even "mass markets" and every reason to believe the enormous run up in prices is being caused by a small number of collectors chasing an even smaller supply.
The same thing exists in the US but it is invisible because of the way we define terms and I've provided this example before. "Gem" as I define it (and I'm sure many modern collectors agre) is a well struck coin, well centered on a good planchet struck by a well made and relatively new die. Most dies are plenty good enough to strike up to ~40,000 Gems before they have excessive wear. There are hundreds of dies so millions of Gem can come off the dies every year. But many presses are set up poorly so every coin from a new pair of dies will be weakly struck or so "hammered" the die wears out early. Presses are often poorly aligned making one side of thew quarter weak. Then the Gem that do get produced are sent out on conveyors and run into hoppers and bags. They often are marred during this process destroying more Gems.
The bags can be roughly handled and then they are almost all dumped into circulation. The mint didn't used to care about quality and many of the employees didn't care either. Dies could be poorly made and poorly installed. Sheet metal workers didn't care about burrs in chutes and nobody was responsible for operating the plant to maximize quality. Few plants care about such things and rather are seeking to decrease defective product to zero.
Back in 1982 nobody cared about clad quarters and the few who did had almost no concern for quality just as the mint had no concern about maximizing perfect product. The end result is that it's improbable that the few people who set all these aside (~80,000 coins in aggregate) actually set aside even one single Gem coin! I've looked at more of these than anyone. If anyone else saw as many I'dda have bumped into him repeatedly.
I believe I've probably seen at least a couple specimens from almost every die. "Good dies" are uncommon for this date and "good strikes" are scarce. Since they are scarce the odds of one being saved among the tiny percentage set aside is very low. Even if someone stumbled on a roll with good strikes the odds are very high the coins would be marked up to be ungradeable.
We define Gem as MS-65 but no Gems of this date exist!!! The Redbook lists the coin as being worth $15 despite the fact that it's possible no true Gem exists at all and thousands of people are buying this date ('82-P) for prices between $50 and $2000.
This is the state of the market, It is in its infancy and adding thousands or tens of thousands of collectors to it would create an explosive mixture. I'm not talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of new collectors but I can't predict the future nor can I rule out anything at all.
I'm selling now regardless because I can't predict the future and I'm old enough to just need to clear everything out.
It takes an awful lot of raw coins to find one worthy of sending in. At this time your 1: 20,000 looks highly conservative to me.
This is kindda my point.
I think the days of "raw moderns" is drawing to the same sort of close as the days of BU rolls of 1829 bust half dollars. The only difference is that moderns will trickle in for decades yet.