Consumerism/Capitalism and the degredation of coinage
Sylvestius
Posts: 1,584 ✭
This might sound as if i'm going to come across as anti-capitalist. Generally i'm only a luke warm capitalist anyhow, so i'm not as anti as this might come across, but it's food for thought;
Many people on many forums have stated over the years that modern coinage lacks the designs and the elegance of the coins from bygone eras. Few would argue.
The reason for this is due to a constraint in the die engraving artform, previously the worry had been how to avoid clashed dies, or how to ensure a decent full strike showing of the beauty of the designs. I'm sure many of you can think of perfectly good examples of coins falling into these categories, the problematic striking of Standing Liberty Quarters from the US, English Early milled silver avoided die clashing by making reverse designs relatively flat to allow for high relief on obverse... etc.
However in modern practice die engravers have been restricted in their artform, they can only go to a certain depth of relief in the dies before it becomes 'uneconomical', what matters more than anything now is efficiency of the die and how long it can last. Switching to harder lower status alloys in the past 60 or so years by most countries means dies wear faster and thus the artistic designs had to be forfeited for productivity's sake.
The problem behind all this was Capitalism. Government's were keen to remove intrinsically valuable metals because it gave them free reign with the currency. Removing this led to the other problems of harder alloys where the mint's profits were dwindling due to the faster wear on dies, and of course since profits were the most important aspect of the whole venture the coinage suffered and became bland and nothing much more than near-blank slugs with no artistic merit whatso ever. But the mints got their cut so hey nothing lost?
Consumerism however, proves in my opinion to be the worst of the two evils (linked in nicely with capitalism) but selling it out for even more profits. Coin producers didn't just want to make a profit to keep the whole operation running but then they got greedy.
If it wasn't bad enough that the circulation issue coinage is in the state it's in the national mints then though, 'wow what a way to make a profit, lets package this junk and sell it en mass to newbie collectors', thus enter into the equation dozens of different types of packaging for the same material, different versions of the same material. Proofs, specimen strikes, special VIP proofs, all those previous proofs in silver, gold, palladium, then double the amount of stuff still by making it available in either red or green packaging. And wow lets colourise it! Or lets inlay gold into it too, or maybe diamonds...
Then we get the endless run of commemorative drivel, we're not talking realistic commemoratives here celebrating big events such as the 65th anniversary of the end of WW2, but rather more forced comemoratives of such things as the (my made up example) '136th anniversary of the first chicken farm in Alaska' well you get the point.
Ever wonder why stamp collecting practically died out? It is my view that the issuers phased out the market by overwhelming them with more stuff than they could handle. Since many stamp collectors would want to collect modern (cos it was cheaper and easier, or so they thought!) they found it increasingly difficult to keep up with the stuff being produced till many thought, 'well what's the point? I'm never going to manage to get it all!'.
I think coins are heading much the same way, there's too much junk being aimed soley at collectors which are nothing more than round bits of bullion, or round discs of metal that look like 'coins' but have never, and will never be used for what coinage is supposed to be used for, circulating.
One last point on proofs, where proofs are an artform, say Gothic Crowns or even arguably proof Churchill crowns in a more modern style then yes i can see why they might be reasonable. But when you get proofs that are just there for the sake of the mint cashing in, well lets face it, this kinda thing will destroy the hobby one day. Stamp collecting went from a thriving hobby (based on miniture artworks) into a sell out that all but killed it off.
Any thoughts? Anyone think i'm wrong, i'd like to see different views here, i formulated that as i went along... perhaps i was a little harsh or maybe i missed key critiscisms.
Lets have a serious debate!
Many people on many forums have stated over the years that modern coinage lacks the designs and the elegance of the coins from bygone eras. Few would argue.
The reason for this is due to a constraint in the die engraving artform, previously the worry had been how to avoid clashed dies, or how to ensure a decent full strike showing of the beauty of the designs. I'm sure many of you can think of perfectly good examples of coins falling into these categories, the problematic striking of Standing Liberty Quarters from the US, English Early milled silver avoided die clashing by making reverse designs relatively flat to allow for high relief on obverse... etc.
However in modern practice die engravers have been restricted in their artform, they can only go to a certain depth of relief in the dies before it becomes 'uneconomical', what matters more than anything now is efficiency of the die and how long it can last. Switching to harder lower status alloys in the past 60 or so years by most countries means dies wear faster and thus the artistic designs had to be forfeited for productivity's sake.
The problem behind all this was Capitalism. Government's were keen to remove intrinsically valuable metals because it gave them free reign with the currency. Removing this led to the other problems of harder alloys where the mint's profits were dwindling due to the faster wear on dies, and of course since profits were the most important aspect of the whole venture the coinage suffered and became bland and nothing much more than near-blank slugs with no artistic merit whatso ever. But the mints got their cut so hey nothing lost?
Consumerism however, proves in my opinion to be the worst of the two evils (linked in nicely with capitalism) but selling it out for even more profits. Coin producers didn't just want to make a profit to keep the whole operation running but then they got greedy.
If it wasn't bad enough that the circulation issue coinage is in the state it's in the national mints then though, 'wow what a way to make a profit, lets package this junk and sell it en mass to newbie collectors', thus enter into the equation dozens of different types of packaging for the same material, different versions of the same material. Proofs, specimen strikes, special VIP proofs, all those previous proofs in silver, gold, palladium, then double the amount of stuff still by making it available in either red or green packaging. And wow lets colourise it! Or lets inlay gold into it too, or maybe diamonds...
Then we get the endless run of commemorative drivel, we're not talking realistic commemoratives here celebrating big events such as the 65th anniversary of the end of WW2, but rather more forced comemoratives of such things as the (my made up example) '136th anniversary of the first chicken farm in Alaska' well you get the point.
Ever wonder why stamp collecting practically died out? It is my view that the issuers phased out the market by overwhelming them with more stuff than they could handle. Since many stamp collectors would want to collect modern (cos it was cheaper and easier, or so they thought!) they found it increasingly difficult to keep up with the stuff being produced till many thought, 'well what's the point? I'm never going to manage to get it all!'.
I think coins are heading much the same way, there's too much junk being aimed soley at collectors which are nothing more than round bits of bullion, or round discs of metal that look like 'coins' but have never, and will never be used for what coinage is supposed to be used for, circulating.
One last point on proofs, where proofs are an artform, say Gothic Crowns or even arguably proof Churchill crowns in a more modern style then yes i can see why they might be reasonable. But when you get proofs that are just there for the sake of the mint cashing in, well lets face it, this kinda thing will destroy the hobby one day. Stamp collecting went from a thriving hobby (based on miniture artworks) into a sell out that all but killed it off.
Any thoughts? Anyone think i'm wrong, i'd like to see different views here, i formulated that as i went along... perhaps i was a little harsh or maybe i missed key critiscisms.
Lets have a serious debate!
0
Comments
FOR SALE Items
Quite frankly, capitalism makes the world work. It is the breeding ground for innovation, which grows economies. It's not a perfect approach, but in the long run more people will enjoy a better standard of living from it.
I have no problem from the business side that a mint would try to maximize its profits. In the US, all of these commemoratives have a large upside for the treasury. It is actually causing a large number of noncollectors to become casual collectors. Hats off to the mint for that.
I have only two issues with all of this.
(1) Most consumers are uninformed about the poor investment potential of these modern sets. Most modern sets I have looked at lose around 50% of their value from the date of issue. The market is saturated and demand falls off. The mint counts on the inability of many people to wait to buy until prices do fall. It's one of the key points I have mentioned on my website's "Lessons Learned" over the last few years.
(2) I personally dislike almost all modern commemorative pieces for many of the reasons you give.
I don't think the hobby will die. I am no less interested in what I collect than I have ever been. In fact, I constantly have to fight myself to branch off into other interests like predecimal Irish or SA coins, both of which I would love to collect. There are a lot of inexpensive coin collecting angles out there. For example, my daughter has taken up a fascination with coins with holes in them. She was eagerly showing her collection of these to her grandparents just last week.
I think another contributing factor might also be nationality, US and UK native collectors just view the hobby differently, US tend to vierw commemoratives as a way to escape the dull never changed designs of the past 50 or so years, so commems get praise and newbies are being encouraged so it's all good. The hobby is also quite profit focused. UK tend to think differently, it's about well, age; "older is better"...
Us native British collectors have a low regard for most British coins dated after 1936 they're just not as good, Elizabeth II stuff is even worse... and as for the post 1967 Decimal coins, well for the most part they get ignored. It's part of the 'If it was issued yesterday it was junk and will never exceed what was issued 200 years ago', mentality. British coin collectors tend to be interested in coins because of history, primarily, if you're interested in profit you tend to become a dealer.
Dealers often don't stock the later stuff, there's just no point because demand is too low. Anyone familiar with British coins will know that decimal coins are cool non-movers in the UK, clock cold. Most of the market is to casual collectors, tourists and non-native overseas collectors.
I've known many dealers in the UK that just hate Churchill crowns and near all commemoratives that have appeared since, i was talking to one dealer who had been in the field a long, long time (since the 1960s) who shook his head at the modern sets and stuff, he stocks them for the tourists but he said they don't sell all that well and he'd rather just focus on the 'real' coins. Since the dealer was a clearly silver orientated dealer you could tell he meant 1919 as the cut off. Victorian silver being one of his main focuses, but with a nice run of 17th/18th century silver too (1758 being my cut off point).
I suppose it's the mentality we're brought to the hobby with, i remember from my earliest days in collecting the emphasis was clear from most dealers i met, "upto 1936 is good, after is a waste of time. Ignore commems they're not real coins, VF minimum grade worth bothering with." I'll always remember one dealer in particular. I was buying a 'pattern Edward VIII Crown' from him, listed clearly as such. On the phone he told me twice it was a modern pattern as if to say 'are you really sure you want this?'...
I guess as an impressionable child when i started out this stuck. I still cringe when i see a coin i want grade below VF, i feel wrong buying AVF coins, F coins rarely get a look in... my father had expressedly drilled the VF rule into me throughout my informative collecting years.
I'd go to him with my coin list saying, 'can i have this?', he'd say, 'well it's only Good Fine, what's the point? It'd be a waste of money', so if a GVF was available he'd grudgingly go and buy me that one instead. Although to be honest my parents have been trying to stamp out my coin collecting for years, they still tell me i'm wasting my money now, so i never got any of the support alot of collectors get really.
So as you can imagine growing in that environment i came out like another narrow focused UK only collector.
One area in which I believe you're simply off base is the reason that precious metals were
removed from currency. There were two primary causes chief of which was the propensity
of the public to vote or demand politicians who sent home the pork. Many people feel no need
to protect the public from a $60,000,000,000 boondoggle if they get fifty or a hundred bucks
out of it. It you hav too many people voting for too much butter and pork then the value of
money will suffer. As the value decreases and the quantity of metal remains constant some-
thing has to give. The other primary cause was the huge growth in the economies of the world.
This growth was largely caused by the efficiencies gained by making our machines larger and
the effect of computer control and the many other tasks done by the computer. Increased use
of vending machines, increased number of transactions completed by an increasingly wealthy
populace required dramatically increased mintages of coins. The world was simply butting up
against supply restraints. There is a finite amout of silver and gold and it was simply far to small
to continue the issuance of coinage made of these metals.
This appears to be a great area for debate and when time allows later I fully intend to come
back to this thread and try to give it the input it deserves.
If you are referring to CuNi material 1947-1967, I would humbly disagree. I just listed a bunch of CuNi on ebay as BINs and they are almost all gone already. When I put material in auction, it does quite well relative to catalogue prices. Much of it ships back to the UK. Good quality UNC CuNi is in decent demand because very little of it exists except for 1962-1967. BTW a lot of the '47-'67 material I have seen while shopping around in the UK is pretty poor quality. Even the UNCs have that dingy tone to them.
Also, have you seen the prices 1952 6ds are getting lately?
<< <i>There is a finite amout of silver and gold and it was simply far to small to continue the issuance of coinage made of these metals. >>
That is certainly a key point and one i fully understand. Although of course even if there is a maximum amount of precious metal, it can of course be recycled, and there's still plenty in jewelry that could be used.
Actually it matters here nor there whether the coinage is made from precious metals or not, precious metals come and go, they were around in the ancient Roman period then they got debased out. Dark Ages England was at one point issuing base metal coiange (pewter i think) then the precious metals returned, then they went again... precious metal coinage will come back one day, and it will leave again.
My main grievance is not actually with the base metals but with mints creating 'rarities' and taking advantage of the inept nature of the wannabe collector and using their status to sell promotional gear to them at a rip off prices and when the buyer turns up on ebay saying "L@@K R@RE!!" and we think... well look another gold plated penny, in mint packaging, well i never.
So if i were to create my own packaging and sell palladium plated Washington Quarters and give them certificates of authenticity, you'd think i was leading potential buyers astray... no?
<< <i>Also, have you seen the prices 1952 6ds are getting lately? >>
Yes that is a particularly scarce year. Actually it's not, but it's a bit lower mintage than the others and thus peope know this so they'll pay more for them.
1952 sixers always go good. But comparing the CuNi speed of sales in comparision with high grade Edward VII and George V stuff though.
CuNi must be warming up a little, might be because dealers don't offer it up as much, demand is there but supply is more limited. I wonder if this euro talk is changing the market somewhat?
<< <i>Dealers often don't stock the later stuff, there's just no point because demand is too low.
If you are referring to CuNi material 1947-1967, I would humbly disagree. I just listed a bunch of CuNi on ebay as BINs and they are almost all gone already. When I put material in auction, it does quite well relative to catalogue prices. Much of it ships back to the UK. Good quality UNC CuNi is in decent demand because very little of it exists except for 1962-1967. BTW a lot of the '47-'67 material I have seen while shopping around in the UK is pretty poor quality. Even the UNCs have that dingy tone to them. >>
You're right about the tone on the CuNi stuff, you can't find nice ones anywhere, dealers just don't stock them. One dealer Mr Fyfe was an exception he used to keep a decent run in stock, but many dates would be missing here and there. 1958 always a good year and i think i had trouble with 1959 and 1961 sixpences at the time.
By later stuff i was referring mostly to the 1960s and later stuff, ruin of the mill '66/'67 and decimal. I rarely see sellers listing decimal UNC coins individually. The ones that do rarely have full date runs available. Neil Paisley at Colin Cooke had one of the better runs, the decimal pennies were well represented. He even gave me one of the near full lustre EF ones free! (I guess demand for EF ones is low).
He could have sold it for 20p!
I would argue consumerism is the engine that continues to move coin collecting forward for the next generation. Much of coin collecting in my mind is personal preference and arguably as we've seen on this forum, very much in the eye of the beholder. What some people collect on this forum I think is ridiculous, then of course the same is true for what I collect in the eyes of others.
I don't discount that mints across the globe create some rather ludicrious items for packaging but people buy them. I dont see the mints taking advantage of ANYBODY when they produce a series of 1500 specimens or coming up with some special packaging for an increased price. The buyers are not forced to purchase anything. Thats why I remain such an ardent capitalist. The market for such NLCT products or bullion and so on will find its proper medium that may be above or below the original issue price. Case in point, the US Com Silver Dollar Buffalo. It sold out extremely quickly (US law stipulates the issue maximums if I remember correctly) and there was a hue and a cry from the collecting community to issue more. That didnt happen. In fact if memory serves, one of the packages that said coin came in had some sort of dollar bill and it sold for premium. On the other hand, some of the RCM products I have cost me less then a 1/4 of issue price. And some of the US Mint items I have I purchased from the mint now arent worth what I paid. But I wanted them, so was I ripped off?
Mints serve a consumer body, whether its liked or not. Newbie collectors or wannabe collectors or speculators all take the exact same chance when they buy something from the mint. That's life. Some go up, some go down, quite a few. But once its issued, its the market that determines the price of the coin or issue. To say that the mints are 'ripping' the buyers off I think is hyperbole. Were all the countless people that purchase LOTR or Harry Potter coins ripped off? Or did they buy what they wanted. What about the people who bought the Star Trek plates or Elvis plates, or the folks who plunked down hundreds of dollars for those special dragon daggers I saw in magazines? Where they all ripped off by those mints? If they purchased for speculation, I wish them luck, if they wanted them, I'm happy for them.
Coin mints I see absolutely no different. If there wasnt collectors and consumers, there wouldnt be a need for proofs, specimens, special issues, commeratives, sets, medals etc and coin collecting I think would be a very blah hobby.
Okay, back to lurking.
Av
Pro Deo Et Patria
<< <i>Were all the countless people that purchase LOTR or Harry Potter coins ripped off? Or did they buy what they wanted. What about the people who bought the Star Trek plates or Elvis plates, or the folks who plunked down hundreds of dollars for those special dragon daggers I saw in magazines? Where they all ripped off by those mints? If they purchased for speculation, I wish them luck, if they wanted them, I'm happy for them. >>
Hardly coins, more exnuwhatsit (i never can remember the spelling), quasi-coins i'd say but still not coins cos the don't circulate and thus they aren't technically coins. People are free to spend there money as they choose, but i hate seeing stuff like that advertised in coin magazines, cos they're just not. Probably why i gave up buying coin magazines and also why i ditched modern coins a few years back.
NCLT are also pseudo-coins, yeah they sure might look like coins but they fundamentally aren't! As you can tell when it comes to definitions i'm a purist. Even proofs aren't technically coins, accepted as such since when they were issued you could take them into the shops and spend them. Thus the term numismatics can be stretched slightly to fit them in. Tokens (hardtimes etc.) though are coins because they circulated and thus are coins, just not regally issued ones.
As you can tell i'm the ultimate conservative.
I also think i'm shifting slightly to the left wing of politics on this forum, i'd rather governments run mints just to issue coins for circulation and not bother with all the rest.
one cent coins every day (~60 million) than all the coins it used to make in the typical year back
in the mid 1800's. Coupled with the fact that collectors and citizens both didn't give current coin-
age a second though until just a few years ago it meant that the mint had no incentive to be con-
cerned with quality or artistic expression, just the cost. As die steel and presses were improved
over the years they used these improvements to strike coins faster and cheaper rather than bet-
ter or better quality. Now that people are looking at coins again they have been making some im-
provements in quality and making the first moves toward more modern designs and themes on the
coinage. Dramatic improvement in relief will require a sea change at this point simply because they
lack the capacity to do it and this will be doubly true if production continues increasing to support
a recovering economy.
Cu/ ni and cu/ ni clad are tough to coin and the mint has worked out a lot of kinks over the years
to turn these out at the low cost that they do. While the quality isn't always the best they do come
out in truck loads and most simply are made for commerce. So long as they serve this purpose, the
people aren't likely to complain very loudly even if collectors do. Ironically there are so many people
collecting now that they hear complaints far more often than they did back in the days that quality was
sincerely horrendous.
I tend to agree with Wybrit about the post 1948 British coinage. It truly high UNC grades in the MS65-67 RANGE is tough and will be collectible and the prices will eventually be shocking. But that will not be as shocking as the value of early milled coinage through George II in high original condition. I strictly mean coins that are original, undipped and have not been enhanced. It seems that we are moving towards reality on the second.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
As far as the US mint is concerned the total profit on speciality items is merely a rounding error when compared to the profit on circulation coinage. The Canadian mint may be a different situation.
Adolf Hitler
1952 sixers always go good. But comparing the CuNi speed of sales in comparision with high grade Edward VII and George V stuff though.
There's no doubt that the earlier coinage attracts more attention.
I might point out that only recently, few gave much of a care about George V coinage either, save for the rare dates in the various denominations. That era has recently mushroomed into a pretty spendy proposition. This era may be subject to some major ebbs and flows in pricing. I suspect there are a lot more UNC pieces out there than are believed.
I don't think George VI or Elizabeth II will ever have a similar demand increase. I can only use anecdotal evidence - it took me a bloomin' long time to acquire a full set of predecimal UNCs (not counting the unique pieces, of course). Full lustre on some of the dates in the series is virtually unobtainable anymore.
and newer coins do. But there are millions of older collectors giving it a serious look
for the first time and many millions of newbies who dabble in some of it.
If these newbies and other collectors continue to collect what they are now there will
be many surprises. These surprises will typically be of the nature that some coins
just aren't available in attractive condition and some are barely available at all. There
will be other cases where coins are percieved to be scarce by specialists but they show
up in substantial numbers when prices start increasing. There have been collectors try-
ing to set aside coins for future collectors and it's likely a few will have guessed right
and had access to the coins. I've got a fair sized hoard of one of the early aluminum
Finnish 1p pieces. It's enough that if these survive that this can never be a scarce date.
They're nice choice coins too. Later dates of these can sometimes be found in small
bunches but the earlier dates aren't much seen. When they are seen it's usually in pound-
age and the coins are nice VF to AU.
I really don't believe there has ever been a period in history where the coinage was so
ignored as it has been in the past fifty plus years. Collectors had very good reasons to
ignore it since it was so incredibly common and often sorely degraded by mints with no
concern for quality and metals with no value and difficult to coin.
What's most surprising is that there weren't a lot more collectors seeking the better de-
signs and the nicer quality. Even the precious metal coins of this era are often overlooked
whether they are circulation issues or commems. There are so few of some of these coins
that even if the small number of collectors remans constant there will not be enough for
them.