Saving Swiss Moderns.
cladking
Posts: 28,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was mortified recently to empty a safety deposit box and find hundreds of Gem Swiss moderns tarnished and spotted. This included 95% of the coins in the mint sets. I tried a few methods with little or no luck until turning to the old tried and true two day soak in 91% isopropyl alcohol. This fixed 75% of them.
If it's like most hazing and tarnish on modern coins the longer it stays on the less the chance the coin can be saved. These coins are apparently all quite scarce already since mintages are in the 5000 to 15000 range and they've never had much of a premium to face value leading to extensive destruction.
Acetone is usually the most effective on moderns but it won't always completely remove tarnish. I've lost some very scarce and Gem moderns over the years to various types of tarnish. People need to dismantle almost all modern US and world mint sets or there might be very few coins left for future generations. Most mint sets were made in tiny quantities and are seldom seen. There are lots of proof sets out there but mint sets often weren't made at all and where they were it was in tiny quantities. Attrition was already severe even before the poor packaging has started ruining so many.
Comments
This is one of my favorite world coin designs and widely liked to my knowledge, whether it's silver or base metal.
There should be ample supply in "gem", regardless of what happens to mint sets. Switzerland isn't some numismatic wasteland with limited or no collecting and I'm quite confident foreigners took these home and saved it too.
Have you tried MS70? (Note to any novices reading this: only use on UNC coins!)
I’ve had it successfully remove haze on silver proof coins (and occasionally not remove it when it’s a “toning haze” rather than off-gassing of plastics).
I've never had much luck with it but will try it when they come out of their current soak.
My best luck with it is on 40% (80% really) silver half dollars.
It's one of my favorite as well. I like the simplicity.
There is very widespread collecting of the silver coins and Uncs are available all the way back. What apparently was never set aside are the moderns. So what you find out there are circs of all dates and Uncs of the older dates of all denominations. When you do see a modern there is usually a note or there is evidence that they are from mint sets.
I did some trading with a Swiss dealer back in the mid-'80's. He made most of his money on older coins and just dabbled in the moderns because of my interest. when he could find moderns cheap in Switzerland he'd pick them up for me. He said there is no apparent supply and what little he saw were mostly mint set coins. I did acquire a few non-mint set coins from him and they are very high quality as well but not spectacular Gems as in the sets.
Now days there's some interest in almost everything but I seriously doubt there is very much in modern Swiss despite the higher prices reported by Krause in recent years. Low mintage sets still go for nominal amounts. If the vast majority of something like 1977 1F coins come from sets this caps the availability at a very low number. This number is much lower than the paltry mintage because sets go bad and coins are otherwise lost.
Again, it is not my contention that these coins were, are, or will be rare. It is my contention that several thousand Unc survivors may not be sufficient for world demand in the future. This is EXACTLY why I bought them; to help supply coins for the future. Of course I favor such coins because buying popular coins in Gem condition with comparable numbers of survivors is simply impossible for me. I could buy most of the Swiss issues for under a dollar but a Gem '31-S dime would cost hundreds of dollars. Perhaps my heirs will do much better on these than I ever did.
I'd wager many of the old silver 1F's that sell for hundreds are more common than the cu/ni coins.
You're still going by what you see, as you do every time we discuss this subject. There is another active thread on this side of the forum where someone else did the same thing. I've heard this claim, over and over.
Take a look at the image below. It's for one China PRC denomination but the other base metal is no different. Yes, I know the mintages were larger and some of this supply might be from hoards. It's still from a country with presumably a lot less collecting (proportionately) versus Switzerland. It's not even close. I use it as it's the only example I know where the coinage you call "modern" has been graded in volume. It's an example of the potential actual supply when enough people make enough effort to locate it.
I am confident it will be. The equalizer is always price. While I like most of it, it's still collectively has the lowest preference from Swiss coinage.
Yes, agree with you here. Probably by a noticeable multiple.
The reported Chinese mintages are actually quite tiny but I always knew they were inaccurate because there used to be lots of them in worn condition in poundage. It was only my experience that made me believe they are all scarce in BU. In this specific case I was apparently right that mintages were misreported and wrong that the coins were very scarce.
I was well aware I could be wrong about anything. in the days I was acquiring these there was simply no other interest at all and thee were no price guides to tell me what was rare and was common. It was all seat of the pants flying. Now days there are millions of collectors for Chinese coins and the market has shaken out the relative availability through both pop reports and through price. They are all more common than I thought but prices are extremely high because the demand is even higher.
Go figure.
But because my experience with Chinese coins was non representative for some as yet unknown reason it doesn't mean my much greater experience with Swiss moderns is necessarily wrong. I believe all the Swiss mintages are accurate and that almost no coins were saved from circulation based on anecdotal evidence as well as the simple fact most BU moderns you see are from mint sets just like US moderns. Where US moderns in mint sets were made in large numbers and have had high attrition Swiss modern mint sets were made in tiny numbers and had as nearly as high attrition and many are still in the original packaging eroding away.
While I can still be wrong about Swiss I do have experience and inside knowledge. What evidence do you have that I am wrong? I've been following modern Swiss almost since it inception.
Someone or some small group of people (Chinese?) apparently saved lots of coins. But there's no evidence this applies to any other country despite soaring prices in some.
I think the Chinese data suggest I am very right about a few things. First even though there were large mintages and lots saved it's still insufficient to satisfy demands especially in higher grades. Even though I was wrong about tiny supply the much larger supply is insufficient. Imagine the effect on Indian coins if they are scarce and the demand gets so high!!!!
There are lots of world moderns that are rarely seen. Things like '82-P US quarters simply don't exist in quantity in well struck high grades. Indian base metal coins from the '50's and '60's are unlikely to be common as well.
I hardly disagree. But as the coins get older every year and new collectors arise every year I would be very surprised if the spread between collector preference between silver and base metal doesn't disappear. In toime there will be virtually no difference and even in the shorter term new collectors will not draw the distinction. Collectors tend to look more at age of the coins than composition. Just because the last couple of generations of US collectors are obsessed by silver is no reason to believe young Swiss coin collectors today will be obsessed.
The obsession was caused not by the sound of coins when they are dropped or by the metallic value of the metal. The obsession was the result of concerted action by the US mint and FED to discourage modern coin collecting.
If metallic composition were paramount as you seem to believe people would mostly collect gold coins and Russian platinum. The fixation on silver arose suddenly and will disappear nearly as suddenly.
IMHO, if a certain originally packaged mint set of these years in base metal, reaches a certain point of no return, or questionable return and depending on the sacrifice (the original packaging for instance), you should consider unloading it to another, more tolerant or persistent collector at a fair price and let it be somebody else’s problem. 😉
myEbay
DPOTD 3
I have highlighted the verbiage in your post where you are almost certainly wrong.
The whole point of providing you the China data is to show you what happens when enough people actually look for it. That's the point. I'm not questioning the mintages. I'm disputing your inference of the survival rates, including in this quality.
By any sensible standard, the survival rates (not necessarily numbers) should be much higher for Switzerland. Much higher participation locally and millions traveling to the country every year, mostly from other countries with established collecting.
I don't collect the world coinage you call "modern" but still have a decent number, including "gem". About a dozen India 2008 1 Rupee from my trip that year. Many Bolivia from multiple trips. Some from Canada. I still have over 100 South Africa 1959 1/2P MS RB I bought about 15 years ago. My father knows I am a collector and given me coinage from Africa, Central America and most recently, Thailand. It's from the 80's (or 90's) forward. Not all of it is "gem" but many are. This is a lot more common than you seem to think, especially for coinage only dating back to 1968 (Switzerland) from a well-travelled country for a widely liked design.
You are assuming the same things you do with US modern coinage. Collectors supposedly "hate" it because it's base metal and the supply mostly comes from mint sets. There is no basis for such a claim, regardless of what you did or didn't see.
I saw your response to my last post in the 68-D dime thread but did not reply to avoid making it look like I am "bashing" you and taking the thread off topic but will answer you here. No collector's experience is statistically representative, not for this coinage and not for US. The margin of error is lopsidedly so large as to make it meaningless.
If you don't know how statistically representative results are derived, read up on it. You have inferred you know in the past but if you actually know, you wouldn't make these claims. There is other data to estimate this scarcity but it's a lot more than any one collector's experience.
The China data is almost certainly the norm, not an anomaly. The TPG eligible grades will vary and the supply will vary, but the supply is going to be a large multiple of what any one collector or even the "market" sees because most of it is "hidden away" most of the time.
In another active thread on this side of the forum, someone else made a similar claim. I provided them with similar data (from the TPG populations) that I have shown you in prior threads.
If these world "classics" exist in this quality in these numbers, yes, there is every reason to believe that the world coinage you call "modern" is a lot more common than you think, practically all of the time.
Total nonsense
>
>
The generic preference for silver over base metal is external to collecting which collectors bring with them from the general culture. That's why they have it, not for any reason you have ever stated. This general societal preference is demonstrated by relative prices in the commodity markets. As long as this societal preference exists, collectors will never contradict it in the aggregate.
Concurrently, I have not stated even once that it's the primary attribute determining collector preferences. It's usually one of the least important, with one of the exceptions being where the coins are otherwise identical.
That's what applies here. Since there is no difference between the silver and base metal other than the metal content, that's why collectors prefer the silver. Some of it is or may be due to incorrect perceptions of scarcity, but the difference is irrelevant as both are very common.
Price is the equalizing factor and Chinese PRC prices are not high. Look on eBay and you will know it. I haven't checked in several years but it's not close to expensive and the ask prices are probably inflated. If you were correct, prices would be (a lot) higher.
You're never going to admit it but there is also a ceiling on the potential price because it's never going to sell for more than other China coins with a (noticeably) higher preference. In other words, practically all pre-PRC which is probably a lot scarcer, certainly in anything close to equivalent quality.
As for India, I never responded to your past reply in your other thread, but I can certainly provide one. I infer (that's all it is) it's noticeably scarcer (earlier dates that is) than China PRC but the same factors I am providing to you now apply to it also.
Where the coin is actually scarce, it's mostly going to be from obscure countries with no organized collecting where the mintages were low. Otherwise, it's because you haven't looked hard enough or the price doesn't motivate the owner to sell. In many instances, I suspect the owner doesn't even know they have it or what they have.
I suppose if you had enough of a given date you could assemble sets of coins that can't be cleaned.
An awful lot of moderns are biting the big one and somebody has to save them.
If these coins had started out with huge mintages and then had a 3% attrition rate there would be no problem but many moderns had a 99% attrition rate (degradation rate) in their very first year and then have had a 3% rate ever since. If everybody waits another half century to check their Swiss mint sets there aren't going to be any survivors. Every year the coins are exposed to the packaging they get worse and worse and they are less likely to be salvageable.
I'm pretty sure some of these marks can't be removed. There are still a few things I haven't tried but the marks look just like fingerprints without the ridges and whorls. They might be something from the gloved hands of the personnel who packaged the sets.
PS - CK, what really works well on copper nickel and even silver is AMMONIA! Unfortunately if the coin has first been put in other solvents/oxidants such as Jewel luster, then it does not seem to work as well. Experiment with less valuable first and you will likely see. Don't get the ones with a bunch of perfume and colorizer added though....
BTW, I do not have opinion on Swiss coins as I have basically none. I do like the many topless Shooting coins & medals (must be getting older)...
Well, just Love coins, period.
Statistics is meaningless. sampling is everything.
I was so wrong on China because it was impossible to sample China or all the countries they were friendly with.
It should have been much easier to sample Swiss and easier still to sample eBay.
1fen was virtually no money at all and even poor people could save some quantity. The Swiss Franc is worth a great deal more.
Any 1984 base metal non proof Swiss coins?
Coinsof1984@martinb6830 on twitter
I haven't lost this thread but am waiting to catch up until the coins come out of the latest soak.
But wanted to address this:
I've had terrible luck with ammonia. I've tried it almost exclusively on clad and cu/ ni. No matter how much I dilute it it tends to strip the coins and make them look cleaned. If I leave it in too short a time there is no effect but a few seconds longer they can be destroyed.
I haven't given up with it and have a box of "ruined Gems" I'll try to restore one of these days.
I like the commems and shooting coins but never collected these.
Sure. They made 14,000 proof sets and 20,000 mint sets along with the other base metal coins. I especially like the 1 Franc coin which I have difficulty finding. Mint sets aren't hard to find though.
Hmm, must be the humidity! LOL. I am in the MD/DC/VA area and it seems to work for me on copper nickel and silver and gold, but NOT copper ever or stainless steel (I do have a vanadium plated stainless steel that is slabbed so will leave that one alone).
It has mostly worked wonders on the CuNi, too bad we couldn't have a little lab.
I get a lot of modern Caribbean scarcities in copper nickel alloys that are the currency versions that correspond to the silver proof "collector" coins, but also showed an ANACS gold coin in 0.500 in 66 that came through with our hosts at 69. Also have done some work on 1937, 1951, 1960 and 1965 GB crowns. Really not any failures, the one I had was when I was playing with electrolysis and used to much charge (yikes!).
Well, just Love coins, period.
I'm happy to report the Swiss moderns stored under Ideal conditions that weren't cleaned up in a two day soak almost all cleaned up in a four day soak. I lost only a '78 2F and 1r as well as a '77 1/2F.
I don't enough experience with these to make many blanket statements about storage under poor conditions but a lot of those did not clean up. Of course we shouldn't forget that many of these sets have been "consumed" by time and our consumer society. Sets are cut up intentionally and otherwise and many coins don't survive this. even today the smaller denominations have very nominal value so are exposed to a very high attrition. I'm too far removed from the source to have any idea about how many of these are gone now or will be gone when the owner discovers the deplorable state they are in. I'm sure it is substantial.
I'll try it again.
Maybe our disparate results are caused by me using the ammonia only as a last resort. I'll try it first or second on a few.
This is simply not true. Major countries with a history of coin collecting do have some very scarce moderns AND high prices. Series that were continued across the transition from silver to cu/ ni can be far scarcer in base metal than the older silver coins. Demand for base metal moderns is very low so one can only guess at the scarcity that drives the price higher than their silver counterparts.
Obviously there are many many dozens, hundreds of modern series that are distressingly common in Unc. There are hundreds more that are quite common because of huge mintages. But what people forget is that huge mintages do not assure that a coin will be common in the future because they must be intentionally saved in most cases and this "intentionality" is what is lacking in most base metal coins. Old coins exist in high grades because they were lost in storage, backed specie, or were saved by collectors but NONE of this applies to most moderns. Moderns were saved because they were so cheap that being resold for a penny or two each represented substantial profit. They were saved because they were cheap and widely available but these characteristics didn't apply to a lot of moderns. Setting aside a silver 1954 Swiss 5F was an investment that required a substantial outlay. Some wealthier individuals could set aside rolls and quantities and did. But the 1968 cu/ ni 5F cost just exactly as much and was not considered an investment. It was debased garbage and to most people is still just debased garbage. They were not set aside and there is still very little demand for them as debased garbage. Where the old silver coins are readily available and have high demand the cu/ni is not so available and has little demand. Despite this and the very high mintage of the '68 it still lists at a higher price in Gem than the 1954!!!!! Imagine what price it would list for if there were as much demand for the debased garbage as there is for "good silver"!!!!!! Imagine if there were a lot more demand for cu/ ni than the older silver coins.
I know what your response will be so let me point out in advance that most of the demand for debased garbage has arisen in just the last several years. It is tiny and largely comes from new younger collectors. Silver flows onto the market regularly from older collectors when they retire and sell their collections but cu/ ni does not flow into the market because it is far scarcer and held in younger and stronger hands. Even if (when) the price of the cu/ ni goes much higher there aren't going to be bags and bags of '68 5F coming out of the woodwork because these coins were never put into the woodwork.
People should collect what they like and not what they think might increase in value. Speculators distort markets and discourage real collectors and usually do poorly financially because they buy high and sell low and because they don't understand the markets. They buy what is available instead of what's scarce. In this case, I believe, the '68 is far from being the scarcity in this series. There are numerous Swiss moderns that will prove to be far scarcer and I can only guess which based on how hard they been to find for 40 years.
Sampling is part of statistics. How can you not know that?
You're still missing my entire point. You can't sample coins that were removed from the population. You have no idea how many were removed.
It doesn't matter how many coin shops you visited in the US or what the very low number of collectors you know told you because they don't have access to the full population either.
As for Ebay, it may or may not be representative, but it's unlikely to be for coins of such low value. Most people cannot be bothered to list coins of this value. It's a waste of time.
Switzerland is not a poor country. The Swiss are not poor. Neither are millions of people on the border in Germany, France and Italy. A CHF was worth 25C (to my recollection) in the late 60's, 80C in 1978, 40C in 1985, 60C in 2002 and more recently, slightly over $1. They can and could easily afford it.
I visited Milan in 2007 which is about a 30 minute train ride from Lugano. There are easily 10,000 if not tens of thousands of coin collectors just there. Many of them potentially collect Swiss coinage at FV, just like Americans do.
Conversely, you mostly saw mint set coinage because it's lower probability a circulating Swiss coin will end up in a US coin shop when you looked for it. It's more likely now, but as an example, back in the late 70's, many of the Swiss circulating coins were too expensive to end up in a dealer's "junk bin".
>
I didn't say none. You are taking my comment literally. The best indicator is the relative price, but not at price points you consider material which are immaterial to practically everyone else. If a coin is easy to buy and cheap, it’s (very) common. If a coin is expensive and hard to buy, it’s almost always at least somewhat scarce. Most expensive coins are (relatively) easy to buy. Aside from the limited supply, (somewhat) scarce or rare low-priced coins are also hard to buy due lack of motivation to sell it.
.> @cladking said:
But what people forget is that huge mintages do not assure that a coin will be common in the future because they must be intentionally saved in most cases and this "intentionality" is what is lacking in most base metal coins.
>
So you assume without actually knowing. I didn't forget anything. I disagree with you because your claims are contrary to how people generally and collectors are known to act.
This claim is entirely based upon your belief that the coinage is disliked due to the market price and your personal unrepresentative experience. You have no idea what millions of people did or didn't do over decades and neither does anyone else.
Old coins exist in high grades because they were lost in storage, backed specie, or were saved by collectors but NONE of this applies to most moderns. Moderns were saved because they were so cheap that being resold for a penny or two each represented substantial profit. They were saved because they were cheap and widely available but these characteristics didn't apply to a lot of moderns.
>
You have no evidence that "moderns" were not saved as you claim. You aren't even familiar with the TPG population data or how available older coins generally are. I've given you examples where much older coins with a far lower probability of surviving in current numbers in existing quality actually exist, yet you still believe what you write.
In addition to China, here is a partial list where "moderns" are more common or far more common versus the preceding "classics, usually by an order of magnitude.
• South Africa ZAR (1874-1902) and Union (1923-1960) vs RSA (post 1960)
• Most Bolivian Republic dated 1825-1909.
• Australia and New Zealand KGV vs decimal coinage.
• Southern Rhodesia vs both Rhodesia and especially Zimbabwe coinage
• Mexico Carlos & Johanna, cobs, pillars, portraits, Iturbide, and most Republic Cap & Rays.
• In Latin America generally, most if not all colonial coinage and at minimum most 19th century series.
The world "modern" coinage fitting your description is predominantly from countries with long-term traditions of collecting: US, many European countries, and Anglo countries. In these countries, "moderns" are presumably usually scarcer versus the coinage dating back to the early 20th century but not usually before that. Higher mintages, more collectors, more travel, and better communication.
Other than these, there is no basis to believe that "moderns" are scarcer than the preceding "classics", except by accident in low proportion.
Setting aside a silver 1954 Swiss 5F was an investment that required a substantial outlay. Some wealthier individuals could set aside rolls and quantities and did.
5 CHF was worth about $1 in 1954. You didn't have to be wealthy to save one.
Silver flows onto the market regularly from older collectors when they retire and sell their collections but cu/ ni does not flow into the market because it is far scarcer and held in younger and stronger hands. Even if (when) the price of the cu/ ni goes much higher there aren't going to be bags and bags of '68 5F coming out of the woodwork because these coins were never put into the woodwork.
My claim is that most of this world coinage isn't in the US, so you have no idea what happens to it. Until the last few decades (maybe 20 to 30 years), there was no reason to expect that any volume of Swiss circulating coinage would end up in a coin shop where you would see it. Why would you believe that? Most of it is in Europe, not in the US. Same thing for most other world coinage. It's not here for you to find and it's probably not on eBay either because it's not worth the time to list, not that your posts indicate that you look on eBay anyway.
Results are dependent on sampling methods. In some cases results are ,more dependent on sampling than on what is being sampled.
Of course you can. I never went to China to see what was available so my sample was bad. My sample was based on what was available in other places. Our bad relationship with 1950's China is why my sample was poor. I had boots on the ground in Switzerland and they came up without moderns.
5 Francs was a lot of money in the '70's. The average man was simply not going to set aside quantities of base metal 5F coins. But unlike during the silver years the average man wasn't going to COILLECT 5F coins either. Many silver coins come from collections but there are very few pristine base metal coins. They have been consumed just like mint sets.
If people don't start saving the mint set coins from the tarnish the rest of the sets will be consumed as well. The longer the coins have the tarnish the less likely they can be saved.
People hate base metal coins. Before that they hated debased silver. It's just this simple. large mintages do not assure a coin will be common in the future.
>
Sigh.
Even the very very common, far more common than I had believed Chinese moderns now sell for up to $1000 each.
You are wrong.
Some moderns are exceedingly common and these are what's filling up all the boxes at the local coin store.
If you look into these boxes there are many moderns that will almost never be seen.
Yes. I don't really disagree.
Coins made in the millions will come out of the woodwork for centuries. But keep in mind where a silver or gold coin can sit in the woodwork and come out pristine even after a very long time most moderns will be ruined in a few years. No one will ever dig a zinc cent in Gem condition.
This is my point.
Nobody knows what moderns are rare or rare in Gem because they are still rarely collected. I have some ideas about the subject but my sampling method is necessarily incomplete. I would remind naysayers that in every country where demand has already arisen most of the scarcer and better moderns have already exploded in value. This is going to expand if the growth in the middle class continues. Even if there isn't a single collector of Haitian coins in Haiti the simple fact is there are people in other countries who will want some of the moderns. A "collecting tradition" is irrelevant to demand when supplies are so tiny and unavailable. What matters is total demand and total supply and you want to gauge "real value" based on a virtually utter lack of any demand at all. Someday people will want a 1949 Haitian 10c in pristine condition. Despite the huge mintage and extremely low face value I wager they'll have great difficulty finding one. People didn't save moderns.
They did set them aside which is why you can find quantities today.
I used numerous sampling techniques. I also used a great deal of anecdotal evidence, deduction, and "other" evidence.
As I've said many times I might be wrong about almost anything but I can't be wrong about everything. Many things are proving me right but you ignore such things. Do you believe Russians have started buying the Soviet era 15 kopeks because I am saying they are rare? Obviously they are collecting them and very few have ever heard of me. They are collecting them because they are interesting, scarce, and historically important. They even have a sort of utilitarian beauty to them. They are mementos of their own past or that of their grandparents. Nobody knew they were rare back when I was corresponding with coin collectors. I didn't really know they were rare either but I knew that nobody collected them and they were unobtainable in Russia. I knew that collectors were actively discouraged from collecting any coin at all and most had a hatred for every coin made in the USSR and especially base metal coins. And more especially they hated the moderns made after 1961. It was a lot of hard work to assemble even my meager collection of 15K's. It cost very very little but I burned a lot of shoe leather and postage. I had a lot of fun collecting in an arena nobody even seemed to know existed.
You do not understand statistical methods, as no one who understands this subject would ever make the claims you do, that personal experience is representative. The Swiss collectors you knew don't know how many of the better coins were removed either, just as you do not. These coins are in collections or "change jars", not available for anyone to access. Your sample was biased just as theirs is/was and no one knows the extent of the bias.
Look at the TPG population reports, something your posts indicate you have virtually (if any) knowledge of at all. There are many "old" coins with "high" counts in "high" quality where by any sensible criteria, the likelihood of survivorship is a miniscule probability of these "moderns". I provided examples of series above. Some are hoards but then, it's far more probable that hoards exist of Swiss base metal coinage, regardless of what anyone sees.
Really? Is that why the US Mint sold more clad mint sets up to the 1990's than any silver set except for the 1964? Is that why the US Mint sells such a large volume of rolls and bags since the introduction of SQ? Do people really pay premiums for coins they "hate"?
The public and collectors hoarded silver because of the cultural metal preference I described to you, not because they "hate" base metal coinage. Hoarding is not collecting. That's why a lot (not all) of the more recent 20th century silver coinage is more common.
Are these even real prices? Actual sales? Or is this (again) the inaccurate list price from Krause? Given the TPG population counts, none of which are even close to low, is there even one base metal PRC circulating coin actually selling for $1000 other than because it's one of a few with a high number on a TPG label?
Almost totally irrelevant. The only thing this will tell you is that a coin is very common, not necessarily anything else. You are still basing your conclusion on your personal experience, which is not representative.
>
That's why your experience is not representative. It isn't for anyone. As for being collected, there is how most people collect and yours where you think these coins should be bought at the inflated prices you think these coins should be worth. Your definition of "rare", I usually consider it common, like those 70's Soviet coins we once discussed which aren't even close to scarce.
I would remind naysayers that in every country where demand has already arisen most of the scarcer and better moderns have already exploded in value. This is going to expand if the growth in the middle class continues. Even if there isn't a single collector of Haitian coins in Haiti the simple fact is there are people in other countries who will want some of the moderns.
>
There is no shortage of people in countries with limited or no traditions of collecting who could not and cannot afford to buy these coins at much higher prices, both now and before. The belief that limited or lack of collecting has anything to do with affluence is baseless. Some level of affluence is a necessary precondition, but no amount of affluence will ever turn anyone into a collector. There is correlation but no demonstrated causality. Look at demographic participation in the US. What I am stating is obvious.
As for collecting of one country's coinage by others, it's already happening now, and has been for a long time, but this doesn't have anything to do with your price claims.
>
A "collecting tradition" is irrelevant to demand when supplies are so tiny and unavailable. What matters is total demand and total supply and you want to gauge "real value" based on a virtually utter lack of any demand at all. Someday people will want a 1949 Haitian 10c in pristine condition. Despite the huge mintage and extremely low face value I wager they'll have great difficulty finding one. People didn't save moderns.
>
Colleting tradition matters because the limited/lack of a prior tradition means there is less to collect now and in the future that collectors want to buy. This is the #1 reason I disagree with common perception of US collectors for non-US coinage generally.
What sampling techniques did you use other than your personal experience? You looked in coin shops in your city and elsewhere on your infrequent trips? In dealer price lists for coins that mostly weren't the bother of advertising?
You cannot sample anything that is excluded from the population you are evaluating. It doesn't matter how many coins you look at or how long you do it. Collectors and the public disproportionately remove the better coins closer to the year it's released and over time, anyone who does what you do looks at an increasingly less representative population, whether it's mint sets or circulating change. Instead of recognizing this sample bias, you reach the almost certain erroneous conclusion that these coins are almost certainly usually (a lot) more common that your experience.
Your anecdotal evidence, let me guess it was other collectors who you knew right? What "other" evidence did you use?
What you call "rare", I call common because on the few occasions when you bring up a specific coin, I can find it in high quality on eBay (often in multiple) with a five minute search. That's not rare.
We’ve discussed every aspect of this topic many times. The root cause of our difference is that you either don’t understand or won’t recognize collector behavior or motivation virtually at all. Your assumptions (inferred or stated) contradict practically everything evident in how collectors actually collect. No different for the non-collector’s perception.
With the scarcity, you aren’t familiar with the TPG populations (for any coinage) and on numerous occasions, didn’t know the value of the coins we discussed. You also haven’t demonstrated an understanding for most of the factors which correlate to a coin’s scarcity.
Start with how people actually view collecting from the evidence, not your unsubstantiated assumptions. Once you do that, what I have been telling you (for years) will make sense. What I have told you is what people usually (not always) do. It has nothing to do with my personal preference, which is what you mostly describe on these topics in your posts.
Collector and non-collector behavior, that’s why I am telling you this coinage is universally almost always likely to be (a lot) more common than you seem to believe. Somewhat but not that different for US coinage. Partly, it depends upon the quality you have in mind since it’s not always clear to me.
This is nonsense.
Every statistician, every mathematician, and every scientist is an individual and we all must proceed on knowledge and personal experience. In inexact sciences like counting unseeable there is a great reliance on experience, knowledge, and sampling. I've had better thing to do in my life than track down every seen and unseen coins so a great deal of this is simple extrapolation.
But don't think for a ,moment that the hatred for moderns doesn't factor into this because it is the hatred for moderns and base metal that caused the coins not to be saved in the first place.
Contrary to what you seem to believe most coins saved in modern times were saved by coin collectors and the fact that most coin collectors hate moderns is virtually prima facie proof the coins were not saved. Over and over I provide evidence for the near utter lack of demand yet it is not seen by those who believe in the status quo and the insights of the 1960's.
For example US one cent coins are the most heavily collected coins in the world. Scarcer dates bring huge premiums and even the common date coins go for thousands in the highest grades. Yet the '84 penny is scarcer in top grade with pleasing surfaces than the '09-S VDB and is probably comparable to the '14-D. The latter sells for ten of thousands of dollars but I can find the former for literally pennies. Obviously people aren't collecting pristine '84 pennies with good strikes and smooth surfaces!!! The only thing that differentiates modern cents from the older ones is metallic composition and the fact silver was removed from US coins in 1965. You can buy bags of cents from 1964 for little more than face but the '65 coins sell for much more despite the lack of demand.
True, but irrelevant. All moderns are not common in Unc and some moderns that are common in Unc are scarce in high grade. Such truisms you state are simply not relevant. It doesn't matter there are millions of nice 1982 cents to someone who wants a nice '82 dime. They can not be substituted.
Great question and one I've pondered for many years. As near as I can tell people just want what's available and then the mint sets accumulate on the secondary market until they are all destroyed. It's kindda the nature of the consumer mentality.
Every collection you find of moderns will contain all or mostly mint set coins BUT you will have a lot of trouble finding even one set of modern coins. Even the sets are consumed! Heirs take such collections to coin shops where they are dumped into the cash register. Of course this doesn't happen often because as I've mention4eds there are very few collectors of moderns meaning very collections of moderns.
Go figure.
Potato/ potatoe.
The referent is still the biggest ingredient in mashed potatoes, and french fries. You can't made scalloped potatoes without them and you can't find many modern base metal coins. Those not yet consumed are being eroded away inside of mint sets because other specimens were never saved. The coins are still not widely collected as are the silver versions. If they were widely collected then the prices would be far higher and coins would come out of the woodwork. Even though prices are much higher you still will see almost exclusively mint set coins.
It is relevant to note that even though Russian mint set coin and prices are so high there is a two tier market developing. Non mint set coins in some instances have a premium to the mint set coins. This suggests that despite the tiny mintages of mint sets and the high attrituion that there are even fewer coins in collections and BU rolls. If you think about it this is astounding. Sets with mintages of 8000 and fewer and sky high attrition can be much more available than coins saved at the time of issue!!!
Consider that some people were inserting coins like BU 1967 quarters into Special Mint Sets back in the '60's so they could sell the SMS quarter at a premium. Today a decent '67 quarter is worth a few dollars and nice ones much more. the '67 SMS coin wholesales for about 65c.
I don't know!
I do know some coins will usually sell at or near catalog. I don't know what the real market is for Chinese moderns is like. I do know Chinese coin dealers who set up at shows in the US pay strong, very strong, prices for coins.
The only thing you have described is that your experience is not representative. Math (statistical sampling of a population) is not based upon personal experience. That's what we are talking about here. It would be one thing if your "science" reflected how collectors and people actually behave, but it doesn't even do that.
You cannot possibly know this.
the fact that most coin collectors hate moderns is virtually prima facie proof the coins were not saved. Over and over I provide evidence for the near utter lack of demand yet it is not seen by those who believe in the status quo and the insights of the 1960's.
I already gave you the US Mint sales records. You cannot explain it because your theory does not align with how collector collect. This is as basic as it gets. If you were even close to correct, US Mint sales data should be the opposite of what it actually has been since 1964. Lack of demand by your definition doesn't mean what you claim, as no one is required to share your preferences.
>
Take a look at the list below. It correlates to coin availability, as opposed to the reply I can anticipate in advance where you are going to tell me every one of these is negated by your claims. I have added my comments in parentheses for post 1968-Swiss coinage, but you can substitute any other of your choice.
*Mintage (not low)
*Extent of organized local collecting. (Extensive)
*Geographic access, extent of travel, and ease of communication. (Plenty of visitors to Switzerland since 1968, both collector and non-collector. Internet for over 20 years too.)
*Local circulation, as opposed to other geographic locations with more collecting. (Local, but not relevant. This is mostly applicable to trade coinage.)
*Coin age combined with length of circulation. (The coins are not old and could have been saved in volume within the lifetime of just those reading this thread.)
*Quality when included in prominent collections of the series. If a coin is missing from a prominent collection or is of low quality, it’s usually at least somewhat scarce. (Not applicable)
*Comparison to coins with the closest characteristics where the number known is better quantified and/or with higher TPG population counts. (Any number of world “classics” where the answer to these factors is the opposite of Swiss “moderns”.)
*FV materiality (Somewhat for the 5F and maybe 2F in the years immediately after 1968 but not since. Not relevant for other denominations.)
*Melting, where it happened. (Have not been demonetized. FV is and was far above metal content for all denominations except the lowest until recently.)
*Hoards (Some exist of varying size.)
*Market value which if “low”, reduces the number for sale and probability potential buyers will be aware of it. (Nominal value; limited motivation to sell, except to someone like you.)
*Random preservation; yes, it’s possible for some centuries old coin to sit in a “change jar”, just like ancient and medieval hoards. (It’s even more possible for Swiss “moderns”.)
Repeating an error doesn't make it true.
Be that as it may there is no "scientific" means to ascertain the availability of UNC Swiss moderns. People who are interested in the subject have no choice but to gather experience themselves or consult experts who used the same methods as I. Should such experts even exist there is no means to check their work or to repeat it.
Certainly I am not trying to suggest I'm an expert in the subject and I've never talked to those in the market or supplying the market. I'm merely telling you my experience, most of which goes back to the late-'90's and earlier. I of nothing which has changed much except prices tend to be substantially higher.
You can not save brand new 1973 coinage if you started in 1980. There was none left to save.
All you can do after the fact is look for it. The better you get at looking the more you will find but you will never find what doesn't exist or BU examples of what did exist and were never saved.
Yes! This is why people saved the old silver coins and the low denomination coins issued at that time. They had a high metallic value and or a low cost. There was little risk and chances of a big payoff in silver era coinage but the perception was this did not exist with base metal coins. Everyone believed huge mintages, poor quality, or lack of precious metal would assure the coins were never collected. They were still just as expensive to save but had no value and no potential so they were not saved.
Yes, it's quite possible. Or maybe lots of pallets are lost in storage. Rich people could set aside millions of coins.
The odds are against it for the often stated reasons.
Absolutely not true.
Old coins were saved for metallic value. Moderns were the coins being used up as people saved the "good money". They were not being buried and if they were the elements will destroy base metal. This is one of the reasons it is called "base metal".
It's not a matter of being an expert. It's a matter of applying common sense. Look at the factors I provided to you in my list along with the TPG population counts. You aren't aware of this data. The probability of any number of world "classics" surviving in current numbers in current quality is a miniscule fraction of any Swiss "modern". This should be obvious.
Do I need to give you examples?
You missed my entire point. My point is that these Swiss "moderns" have not been melted. No one would melt denominations worth far above the metal content. Other "moderns" which have been demonetized or where the inflation rate made it worthless, but that doesn't apply to the CHF.
This just shows your ignorance. No one knows how so many "old" coins survived to the present. I'm not even talking about ancients or medieval recovered from hoards. Or other hoards either.
There is no basis to claim that all these coins were owned by an unbroken chain of collectors for centuries. I bought a 1682 Spanish coin which later graded MS-63. How would you know it's only been owned by collectors for the 322 years before I bought it? No different for many other coins I own or the (tens of) thousands in the TPG data. No one can possibly know that.
I presume it's mostly been owned by collectors, but it's not like most of these coins were worth much of anything for the vast majority of its existence. Most of these coins were worth immaterial amounts until recently and still aren't that valuable, except to someone like you who thinks minimal amounts are substantial. Most of these coins were probably not owned by a collector during an extended time since striking. You're just assuming only collectors preserve coins, even as many collectors in the past did such a poor job of preservation.
Why would anyone bury a post-1967 base metal coin? The coins are in someone's "change jar", "sock drawer" or whatever you want to call it. Others are in collections where you do not see it and never will. You assume this doesn't happen based upon your unsubstantiated assumptions.
I'm not sure how scarce you think these coins are today, but there is no basis to believe a single Swiss "modern" is even close to scarce, except to someone like you who exaggerates practically everything.
My estimate considering everything I have told you is that all or practically every one is a Judd R-1 (1250+) in MS-66 equivalent grade with at least 10,000 as an UNC to "BU", far more for the more recent dates (arbitrarily 1990 and later). If the South Africa 1897 shilling has over 400 MS graded now, obviously given the circumstances, all of these coins are a lot more common.
"Common sense" never had anything to do with human beings and that goes a thousand times over for committees, groups, and collections of people.
Again old coins were saved by collectors. Millions of collectors, and some survive. Few collectors saved modern Swiss and many of the ones that were saved are tarnishing. It's just this simple. Few people had any interest in saving circulation issues and the ones who did were often aware mint set quality was far better.
"Melting" is not the way most moderns meet their maker. Most are degrade in circulation until they are lost. Then in time the issuer will take these now worn coins and melt them down. Many will be tossed in the trash because people miss the deadline for redemption. Coins end up in poundage or used as children for play money.
Unless they get set aside they are gone or severely degraded after as little as a quarter century.
>
I think everyone knows how they survived. Just as every single coin ever minted by man is unique they each have a unique story of how they have survived. Most nicer coins were set aside by collectors in about the grade it still exists or that series never much circulated. Something like a Dominican Republic 1897 Peso is almost impossible to find even in XF because they weren't saved at any time over the many years they wore out in circulation. Conversely many coins like Ike dollars are typically in VF or better condition because some were saved and the coins didn't suffer the ravages of normal circulation. A collector must learn to tell the difference in the ways coins circulated individually and as series. Otherwise he can never tell the value of any coin without a price list. Speaking of which I must remind you that every catalog in existence tends to understate the value of moderns. Redbook price a $10 classic at $10 and a $10 modern at $1. Krause was prone to do the same thing. When moderns aren't underpriced they are often overpriced. This kills collecting because most novices have to go by the book.
I didn't say they were. Even where they have always been in a collection there is still usually at least some degradation and there is still attrition. The attrition affects the ones you don't see because they've been burned in fires or lost.
Most of the coins in better condition than average have been owned by collectors and most of the ones that are worn out or in typical condition have not as often. You must understand a series, how it circulated, and what happened to those which didn't circulate to be able to make a good guess. There are always anomalies and you will guess wrong no matter how much you know.
Yes, I understand your point. But when you get 3000 Gems of the same date in a trade for something you paid a few dollars for and these now list at $10 each in MS-60 you are deluded into thinking you did well.
I've always had a beer budget in a champaign world but some of my little Gems add up to actual money. I have only a few hundred Swiss moderns but I've tried to have the toughest and finest. I believe if people ever start collecting these in earnest there is far more room to the upside. There is still far more demand for an common XF 1897 Swiss 20r than for a very very uncommon 1969 20r in XF or a tougher one in Gem. Despite these coins being virtually identical except for date the more common 1897 sells for far more despite being common.
Again many old coins were saved as backing for species or as stores of value by individuals. Very very few moderns have been saved in this manner. Bad money drives out good and all moderns by definition are "bad money", Bad money circulates and degrades. It suffers high attrition and then the worn out survivors get melted or harshly used by children.
No!!! Absolutely not. Everyone thinks there are large numbers of things like Swiss one francs in the woodwork and change jars, but in reality very few accumulations survive for more than a very very very few years. The accumulated coins come to represent so much money they are cashed in as "bad money" to get paper currency that still spends. It's just the way it is and you can see it if you just get a little handful of '73 and '74 quarters. These years circulated the same way for the main part so make a good sample. If you separate these by grade you'll see a nice bell curve centered on VG+ with a slight attenuation at both ends. The attenuation at the bottom end began around 2008 when the FED began withdrawing heavily worn corn and the high end is mostly new caused by new collectors removing nicer coins. There have been very few outliers since the mid- '90's. If there were coins being placed into long term storage then you would see some XF's and AU's. Today those outliers would be in VF so we can be pretty sure there are very very few in long term storage. If a few thousand coins do come out of long terms storage they quickly mix in with everything else. But high grade examples from this hoard would still be visible for many years. Not only are more than half of the old coins gone forever but those which survive are equally worn and most are culls. It's not going to be too much different in every country but the coins are likely more evenly worn in the US because the FED rotates the coins in storage.
I don't know about circulating coins in Switzerland except finding old BU examples is near impossible.
Yes. I believe there are at least 50,000 surviving '16-D dimes. I'll wager there aren't many more '82-P quarters in chBU.
I doubt you estimate is "that" bad. Most of the Swiss moderns have at least 10,000 in MS-62 or better with the scarcest being several hundred. I understand that these numbers are astronomical to you. But, hobby leaders like Bowers has made statement like "[moderns] are more common than grains of sand on the beach" where the reality is in many cases you could easily fit them on a teaspoon. Pricing isn't based on how many exist but more on the perception of how many exist. Collectors ignore them because of this perception and because the price guides are all wrong. This is all changing. There are new generations of collectors all over the world and they don't arbitrarily assign the term "bad money" to honest coins that just happen to be made out of the same base metal as the 1880's US nickel. Even those moderns that do fit the definition of "bad money" the simple fact is they are often rare and collectors like rare and they like historic. Poorly struck from worn dies 1967 quarters may be 'bad money" even after all these years but they are worth a few dollars each now days.
To avoid disputing semantics, I provided these numbers. I actually think it is more, but not going to argue the point now.
There must be in the vicinity of 100,000 coins fitting your definition of "modern". It's an arbitrary term which doesn't reflect how virtually anyone collects, except at immaterial prices characterized by US dealer "junk bin" inventory, or near it.
Of this subset, I've speculated (that's it exactly what it is since no one actually knows) that maybe 500 are legitimately rare and maybe a few thousand somewhat scarce, outside of US invented specializations which (virtually) no one cares about. From this subset, the vast majority are going to be from obscure countries with no local organized collecting and where the mintages were low due to population and economics.
>
I believe if people ever start collecting these in earnest there is far more room to the upside. There is still far more demand for an common XF 1897 Swiss 20r than for a very very uncommon 1969 20r in XF or a tougher one in Gem. Despite these coins being virtually identical except for date the more common 1897 sells for far more despite being common.
There is increased collecting and your inference. Nothing approaching your inference will ever happen because it doesn't reflect how people view collecting. No one is ever going to pay a meaningful price for your examples in XF as collectors don't find it appealing. It's "junk bin" inventory. In the quality that collectors will pay much higher premiums, the 1897 is virtually guaranteed to be a lot scarcer
>
.> @cladking said:
Irrelevant.
>
Pricing isn't based on how many exist but more on the perception of how many exist. Collectors ignore them because of this perception and because the price guides are all wrong.
This perception matters to a point only. What you won't recognize is that collectors don't generally care if one very common coin is (much) scarcer versus another very common coin. It's irrelevant to them. You also exaggerate immaterial price differences. I've explained this to you before.
>
This is all changing. There are new generations of collectors all over the world and they don't arbitrarily assign the term "bad money" to honest coins that just happen to be made out of the same base metal as the 1880's US nickel. Even those moderns that do fit the definition of "bad money" the simple fact is they are often rare and collectors like rare and they like historic. Poorly struck from worn dies 1967 quarters may be 'bad money" even after all these years but they are worth a few dollars each now days.
The term world "modern" is either a US centric term or one you just made up. I can identify a few countries where it might apply, but overwhelmingly there isn't any reason to believe collectors recognize it at all. They don't arbitrarily distinguish between base metal and the immediately preceding coinage as you claim. This is evidenced from the relative prices where the difference is immaterial.
The rest of this extract is just another rehash of your demographic claim which has no demonstrated correlation to how collectors collect.
This has been one of the more interesting back-and-forth debates I've read in a while, but I'm afraid that after I got about 2/3 of the way through the present posts, my brain overheated, has melted down, and is now trickling out of my ears.
Seems I'm a tad out of my depth.
I hate it when that happens.
What I know is that if people don't actively start saving these coins then there may be none left some day. As I said almost all are in mint sets and almost all are tarnishing away. Yes, thank goodness it's not as bad as I feared and almost all can be saved now but this might not be true in ten or twenty years.
Somehow collectors got the idea that coins save themselves since they pretty much did in the old days and because there were collectors who set them aside for the future and for their own collections. But this is very much the exception now days and has been for a very long time.
Bad money doesn't just drive good money out of circulation but it drives it into collections. Bad money circulates and as one country after another converted to bad money after WW II this new money circulated. The old money still exists but the new bad money is worn out and much has been melted. This is obvious if you just look at prices. The new coins in many countries that was made in far larger quantities and is in every way inferior is now days often worth more than the good money it replaced. This has happened despite the fact that few people even today collect bad money... ...because... ...well, it is bad. Try finding made for circulation Soviet 15k or Swiss Francs from the '60's and '70's. You can't find it because people didn't save it. Now that a few people are collecting moderns they are exposing more and more rarities. It was impossible for me to identify every rarity because there were too many coins I couldn't find at all so terms like "sample size" have no meaning.
You want to talk about "common" coins but I'm talking about which Swiss are potentially quite scarce. You want to talk about semantics and what "quite scarce" means but it obviously means difficult to locate. Even today with a few collectors of base metal Swiss moderns there are some that are difficult to find. Now days twenty or thirty dollars will probably buy almost ant of these but don't count on this being true in 20 years. Many of the scarcest coins may not even be known to exist by their owner. They are tucked into the woodwork, lost in change jars, or forgotten in safety deposit boxes. They survive not because they are bad money but despite being bad money.
All over the world this situation exists; older good money can be found by the BU roll but the later bad money that was poorly made in huge quantities is gone. That which survives is degraded because it wasn't even worth the effort to melt after it was used in circulation for many years.
It is simply irrelevant that some moderns survive in huge numbers. What good does a 1976 bicentennial quarter in Gem do for a collector who is seeking a 1976 Swiss Franc for a collection?
With moderns it's WYSIWYG and you simply don't see a lot of them. You see a lot of '76 quarters. You see a lot of BU Yugoslavian aluminum.
No, that's what you think. You assume to know what no one can possibly know, and that's a fact.
>
First, collectors don't arbitrarily distinguish between "good money" and "bad money" the way you claim. The price variances between most of this coinage are financially irrelevant. Second, you have no idea how much hardly any of this coinage is actually worth. You keep on referring to the fictional Krause list when it's just "made up". I've told you this, repeatedly.
>
Try finding made for circulation Soviet 15k or Swiss Francs from the '60's and '70's. You can't find it because people didn't save it. Now that a few people are collecting moderns they are exposing more and more rarities.
Except that no one else cares whether it's from a mint set or not, except for you. You're just exaggerating the scarcity, again. This Soviet coinage isn't even close to rare or even scarce. I've told you that and you keep on repeating this claim in error. When I've looked on eBay responding to your posts, I've found all of it. Yes, mostly in mint sets but so what? Some dates (like the 70-72) presumably are noticeably scarcer than the others but not hard to buy. The other dates must be quite common; not hard to buy on eBay in multiple.
It was impossible for me to identify every rarity because there were too many coins I couldn't find at all so terms like "sample size" have no meaning.
Nonsense.
The reason you can't find it is because you are and were looking in the wrong place. The coins weren't there when and where you looked. This equally applies to any number of world "classics" which I know you never saw in representative quantity (if at all) either which are known to be common. You didn't see it because your dealer doesn't have customers for it. In the instance of these "moderns", it's mostly because the price is so low, it's not worth anyone's time.
How many from my primary collecting interest have you seen at your local dealer(s)? 1752-1772 Peru 1/2R, 1R, 2R and 4R? The approximate combined mintage is in the vicinity of 10MM and maybe 20,000, 50,000, or somewhat more still exist.
Let me guess? Zero
How many in my eBay saved search? 30, all but a few dreck.
A few dealers sell it very infrequently, but you could literally go from dealer to dealer your entire life and never find even one. Do you comprehend what I am telling you? It doesn't matter that this example is hundreds to thousands of times rarer than these "moderns" (which it is 99%+ of the time). It's that your premise is wrong.
Except that if I wanted one, I'd buy one on eBay right now. Go look for yourself. I also know how to use the internet to find local dealers in Switzerland or elsewhere in Europe.
I'll probably have more to add to this when I have more time but I believe you are still missing the point. Despite the fact there are far fewer of some moderns than very popular old US or Swiss coins the attrition rate on moderns is through the roof. Old popular coins have high prices and very low attrition, usually well under 1% but most moderns have attrition rates as high as 3 to 5%. This means that after a few years there just are even fewer. The coins disappear forever and the few that were saved get whittled away year after year.
The importance of this can not be overstated. As long as there is no demand for a 1974 Swiss 2 F it doesn't matter even after the last one shuffles off the mortal coil but if collectors decide these are collectible they better be first in line or they might just get left out. If collectors continue to let these sit in packaging (or in BU rolls if there were such a thing) then there are fewer every year.
The perception is moderns are too common to collect but in every case that people began collecting them they have found very highly limited supplies.
I have a lot of experience chasing moderns all over the world and am merely telling you of my own experience. Many of these coins simply can't be found until the price goes far higher and even then there aren't thousands coming out of the woodwork. The coins weren't saved so higher prices can't produce them. Just because a few coins are more common than my estimates it doesn't change the accuracy of other estimates. I always knew these estimates were based on a lot of guesswork and assumptions. But there is a great deal of legwork and knowledge involved as well.
It sounds to me like there is a collector here who has a bucketload of "moderns" and can't offload them. Maybe some wordy "what-ifs" put out on a coin site would increase the interest. My head hurts as well.
And i don't understand his problem. If you want "save" it - buy it and save. Use for this your garage or basement... For me real coins were ended near time of WW2 or near.
Peace.
The theme like... "Look at this... Look at this, Tom. And don't cry! This are modern Swiss coins... Its are dessapearing... I said you "don't cry"! We will save it for men of future ". Oh, i don't know...
Peace.
Well, yeah. You and everyone else.
This is EAXACTLY the point.
People in the past always collected mo9dern coins and that's why we have them today. People are not collecting moderns so future collectors aren't going to have them. There are very few and every years there are 3% fewer.
I believe future collectors will consider collectors of this era short sighted and opportunistic. If it weren't for huge mintages and mint sets there would hardly be any moderns art all in the future.
Well, yeah. It would be pretty foolish to develop expertise in rare coins available for pennies and then not to acquire them as you go.
I'm hardly concerned with promoting moderns any longer. It's too late. I've already sold most of my coins. Sure I wouldn't mind seeing prices go up a lot more; not only because I still have a lot of rarities but the only way to save moderns for the future is much higher prices.
Historically collectors sought attractive, historic, and rare coins. But everyone has it in their minds that all moderns are as common as grains of sand on the beach. This is why some are going through the roof. Anyone who thinks every rare modern has already increased by 20,000% just doesn't understand these markets. Many very rare moderns are still selling for pennies.
The only reason you see the few you do is nobody has a collection of them.
For every morgan dollar you see on the net there are a hundred collectors. For every 100 1976 Swiss F you see on the net there is one collector.
You see lots and lots of morgans but you see very few moderns.
If people continue to not collect moderns there won't be any old collections available for sale.
Your belief that these coins are common can't be assembled into collections. You need actual coins.
Why do you think about only Swiss modern coins? You can "save" all world coins.
So i guess not many collectors of future will collect modern coins. Silver is silver, gold is gold, ok... copper is copper - in all times. And more: beauty is beauty in all times. Look at this coin. Do you think it wasn't beautiful thing in its time? So trash is trash. The old trash can be pretty, not beautiful, i guess.
Or
Or do you want "save" something like this?
Maybe it will cast $3 in 100 years, i don't know and don't care about it. So... maybe my car will cast 1*****0$ in 100 years and any modern. Maybe i should buy it and "save". But i collect the coins which interesting for me and it's all.
Peace.
When you live in Russia you think more about how to save yourself, your family, not about modern Swiss coins. When your state is under crazy man. How can i say it in English... It's like bad laughing and not about your theme.
Peace.
No, it's because of what I told you in the part of my last post. In all of your posts since I first discussed this topic with you ten years ago, you continue to make abstract claims which have nothing to do with how anyone collects. You don't even collect this way.
Do you buy coins you don’t like? You’ve done it repeatedly for up to 50+ years? If you haven’t, why would anyone else?
That’s what you are telling me with this “hate” claim. Hundreds of thousands to millions supposedly buying coins they don’t want each and every year over my entire life. You previously called it “prima facie evidence” when it’s completely absurd. If it’s true of collectors buying world “moderns”, I can apply it to all other coin collectors using your reasoning. I can also apply it outside of coin collecting where huge numbers of people must be spending huge sums on goods and services they don’t want either. It's the same reasoning, whether you like it or not.
Earlier in this thread, you also told me you have better things to do than track down every coin. But apparently, it makes complete sense for others to travel across the country if not the world to sell Swiss “moderns” for the insignificant amounts its worth to your local dealer for you to find.
Aside from this “hate” claim, you rely on your unrepresentative personal experience and the few other collectors you know over independent verifiable data, like the TPG populations. It’s not just your ignorance of statistical methods though that’s enough to refute your claim, it’s that no dealer or combination of dealers you have visited over your entire life carries representative inventory either. If I were to ask your dealers if they did and insisted it is true like you have been doing here, they would think I was nuts. It makes absolutely no sense.
eBay is more representative than every dealer you have ever visited combined, yet it’s not representative either and your posts indicate no knowledge of what’s available on it anyway. That was the entire point of using the Peru pillar coinage as an example but as usual, you completely ignored it because it contradicts your unsubstantiated assumptions.
The example doesn't matter either. You always use "moderns", but it's no different for** thousands **of "classic" series either which are known to be common: Pillar dollars, Spanish cobs, any number of ancient Greek and Roman, medieval European gold collectively... to start. None of these coins are rare as a type, yet most dealers seldom if ever carry it for the reason I gave you.