That cartoon is wrong. 24 year old Gen Z here. Gym rat and recent College grad but also coin rat. I love to collect old coins with history!
Also a lot of young people attending the coin show in Manchester! Leaving the show I overhead conversations about how cool it was to learn about and hold in history in their hands.
@7Jaguars said:
I think there are many misconceptions and perceptions perpetuated by the responses to posts like this. Coin collectors, demographically are like Oldsmobile buyers/owners. There is most definitely a bias toward older collectors (ie some younger, fewer as age progresses).
This is NOT to say that publicized rarities do not sell for more and more as we've seen. Nor is it to say that many do not have a bias of perspective: they may go to coin shows and see a few younger collectors, which generally seem to support those of this opinion. Also retread is the "silent majority" type of thought, wherein we see said that there are many stay-at-homes that buy off ebay and the internet with some occasional statistics thrown up.
Brought up are isolated examples of young collector or groups - but really these are extremely few and far between. What we do not see is any broad interest in younger people of the less than 25 year age. Neighborhood coin clubs, or local coin clubs? Disappearing.
Not at all just me, but if you try to present programs in school classrooms, or businesses these are met with collective yawns and ignored. I have tried many times, and bring examples of many types of coins that might be interesting and have put on shows with animism and encouraging audience participation - all to nought. I have a business where I see families or parents that bring in their kids, and my first message (with examples and stories just like with coins) is to encourage education. My second is that I tell little stories about coins and give samples of different coins of many different types that look to at least be possibly interesting. Virtually no response other than the occasional [hopefully polite] "thank you".
I have tried to show my son and his friends, as well as the children of friends and associates coins and tell little stories and do my best to generate interest. Result: no real interest and a far greater interest in their cellphones and other visual entertainments. The best response, if any, is "what is it worth?" with no genuine interest in ANY type of coin, ranging from older to modern US, commems, gold, silver, foreign, ancient, slabbed, not slabbed, etc. Does not matter.
And these are anecdotes also shared by those I know, certainly not self-serving. I do love the world of coin collecting, or most of it, but by most measures see a definite decline.
So great that there are a few, and I mean relatively a very few, that come to the Summer Seminars, or visit Witter at all. I am very much in favor if these programs, but the point is that as a relative percentage of younger people, interest is honestly declining.
I seriously doubt the percentages of the population collecting coins will ever approximate what it was back in the '50's and '60's when so very many of the baby boomers were collecting. But I do expect millions and millions of collectors again. In 40 years there will "still" be lots of old men (and women) at fewer coin shows.
Collectors go through cycles that are very much age related. No matter how passionate a 14 year old collector is, his hobby is going to sit on the back burner for a few years. A 30 year old may have more passion than ever but lacks the time. At 40 he's found a way to make time through longer hours. Eventually most of us will find "Time Enough at Last".
Enjoy it. It's a fun hobby at any age.
.
I can't account for your experience here. But it's not what I'm seeing in the day to day world. Perhaps there's a regional difference?
.
Copilot-
_I can’t account for your experience here. But it’s not what I’m seeing in
the day‑to‑day world. Maybe there’s a regional difference, or maybe the
signal just looks different depending on where you’re standing.
I don’t deny the demographic tilt — the hobby has always had an older
center of gravity. But I’m also seeing younger people who don’t show up in
the traditional places. They’re not in clubs, they’re not at shows, and
they’re not writing letters to the editor. They’re operating in the same
hand‑to‑mouth, on‑demand world everything else now lives in. They buy
differently, they learn differently, and they surface differently.
The old channels are thinning, yes. But the flow hasn’t stopped. It’s just
moved.
Collectors cycle. A 14‑year‑old disappears for a decade, then resurfaces at
30 with a job and a budget. At 40 he finds time again. At 60 he finds joy
again. The pattern is older than any of us.
So I don’t dispute your observations — I just see a different slice of the
terrain. And the terrain is bigger than any one vantage point._
@7Jaguars said:
What we do not see is any broad interest in younger people of the less than 25 year age. Neighborhood coin clubs, or local coin clubs? Disappearing.
When I was a kid in the 60s, all my friends had a coin collection. None of us belonged to a club and our collecting activities wouldn't have shown up on anybody's radar.
Pure speculation but I would anticipate all hobbies will see a correction in interest and activity down the road.
The next generations will have the attention span of a housefly. The good news is we live in the age of information for quick study.
The entertainment/hobby/stress release pie is bigger, there are more and more funds committed, but there are more pieces in the pie.
If you are an investor pick the good stuff, (ie stock picking). The good stuff will always appreciate. If you are a collector collect what you like-you live in the age of information.
I am a baby boomer and have two coin collecting friends half my age. They are very passionate about the hobby. Yes, they do much more online buying and selling than me -- so their methods are different -- but they like the classic coin series, early holders, CAC stickers, etc., just like many of us older collectors. This is probably why the coin market is so hot in recent years.
.
There are also a number of junior members -- under 18 -- in my local coin club. I think the hobby is alive and well.
@SilverProofQuarter1883 said:
That cartoon is wrong. 24 year old Gen Z here. Gym rat and recent College grad but also coin rat. I love to collect old coins with history!
Also a lot of young people attending the coin show in Manchester! Leaving the show I overhead conversations about how cool it was to learn about and hold in history in their hands.
That was always a great show when I lived in the northeast. I am glad it is still going strong and also glad to hear some Gen Z folks going.
As long as coins,collecting same, have the word "money" attached to them there will always be some form of interest. In their rawest form that's what they are. Does not money make the world go around ?
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@asheland said:
I know a few younger collectors, 20s and 30s even some teenagers that collect quality stuff, I don’t see a decline in the industry.
The 30-39 age demographic isn’t that young.
That is usually the age when many collectors reach their prime. Before then, they usually don’t have the money.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
One way to counter this is to reissue classic designs for circulation. This would get publicity and attention each new program isn’t getting. Honestly seated liberty and barber coins would make great clad coins. Many of the 1870s patterns would also make great clad coins. SLQ’s, not so much.
Since this thread is about Collecting I would say it is declining. Many new people to the hobby see it as a way to make money (as a investor/Dealer/Flipper). Nothing wrong with that but many do not have collections. They have things that need to make a profit.
I posted this in another thread concerning factors that lead the stamp market to decline. Does this sound familiar? History doesn’t always repeat itself exactly, but it sure does rhyme.
1- USPS released a plethora of new and/or overpriced issues causing many collectors to stop putting together sets. Just as the new issues became expendable and the goal was no longer a complete set so too were older stamps which were equally common and just as expendable. It’s a domino effect. The last hold outs were the truly rare issues
2 - Age of the collector base meant a decrease in market as many were lost through attrition but were not as readily replaced by younger collectors.
3 - Many lost interest as postage stamps were used less in commerce reducing exposure.
4 - Online sites like eBay revealed how common and easily obtainable some of the previously believed to be “elusive “ issues really were.
I don't know whether the US collector base has or hasn't decreased in more recent decades. It depends upon someone's definition of "collector".
I do expect it to shrink for a variety of reasons, with the only one I see substantially mitigating it is continued migration of precious metal buyers from bullion to NCLT to circulating coinage.
I also expect the proportion of US collectors collecting US coinage to decrease, though the absolute number may not if the participation rate offsets it. To the extent they collect at all, the increasing number and proportion of immigrants and their offspring aren't candidates to collect the US coinage most US collectors have traditionally collected in anywhere near the same proportion.
I believe just collecting coins is on decline. However coin investment is increasing. Many players buying for investment get material they both like and have both good investment and demand, liquidity.
Ronnie started a date collection / investment of slabbed Mexico Libertads about 18 mo ago. Many dates 5-6 coins deep. When the silver high hit it at $140 an oz he banked really big time. Recently CACG is even slabbing these. Some key dates at $2k or more like in slabbed 69. Now bidding is fierce on this material. Then he was buying slabbed 70’s from dealers like at $75-85 then) bought them like wild fire. 18-20 mo ago. About that time CDN then came out pricing them like at $125 CPG common ms70. Of course after peak silver retreated. Been putting away some do when high hits again.
That graphic is just old people complaining about the youth. Goldbacks and NFT coins are not that appealing to young people. Costco gold was a lot more of a hot item
Llamas and alpacas are camels. They aren't like camels, or related. They are camels. When was anyone going to tell me this?! How long had Bill Nye been holding out on us?
@Cougar1978 said:
Numismatics has many types of players.
I believe just collecting coins is on decline. However coin investment is increasing. Many players buying for investment get material they both like and have both good investment and demand, liquidity.
This behavior you're describing will make no difference to the vast majority of coins, as very few coin types are actually "investment" candidate material, even among those who mostly view coins as "investments". This particularly applies to a coin someone considers "rare" due to a number on a holder label.
The coin types most apparently viewed as "investments" are those where it should be apparent there aren't enough hobbyist collectors to support the current premium or where it's likely bought as a substitute for the metal. That's many Morgan and Peace dollars, generic US classic gold, probably most silver and gold NCLT, and low premium non-US gold.
What you're describing is just another part of the current asset bubble, since almost anything can or will increase in "value" with enough credit and money. When I visited Brazil in both 1992 and 1993, someone could have "made a profit" with used toothbrushes. That's how bad the currency debasement was at the time.
Ultimately only real collectors obtain any utility from collecting, not financially motivated widget buyers treating it as an alternative asset class to be traded as a commodity with other financially motivated widget buyers which is what you're actually implying. Outside of the examples I used, only a low number of coin types meet the definition most people would consider "liquid" too, as any coin can be sold if the price is low enough. Actual liquidity isn't contingent upon the personal knowledge of the seller either since most coins do not even have a predictable market price.
@RiveraFamilyCollect said:
That graphic is just old people complaining about the youth. Goldbacks and NFT coins are not that appealing to young people. Costco gold was a lot more of a hot item
I think it depends on where you draw the line on "young". I know people in their 30s who bought goldbacks. They're are also a lot of "young people" in their 20s who buy silver because they don't have enough money to buy even 1/10 oz gold.
But I agree that the graphic is just complaining. I also see a lot of 50+ people buying modern widgets. I don't think individual appeal is determined by age.
The only difference in my collecting at my age (61) versus my twenties is that I STOPPED buying classic coins for sets. The other things I liked (primitive coinage, Tibet, ancients, medieval, some NCLT, tokens) have stayed virtually unchanged as I aged.
I also like goldbacks more than St. Gardens. Why? They are fun, pretty and affordable. It's all very individual.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@Cougar1978 said:
I prefer the term players. Some are collectors, some are investors (many collector / investors). , etc. in total they drive the market.
To put together a date set can be very expensive.
Even a date set of Chain Cents can be a bit pricey.
@Catbert said:
Wait for a recession to make this speculation.
True, but that's more cyclical than structural. Additionally, the posters here aren't typical of most collectors. It's a much lower or very low probability what's collected by members here will no longer be collected in any timeframe with any relevance to anyone reading this thread.
My inference is any decline will show up first and be most visible where it probably already is now, in US mint sets and proof sets + putting sets together of mostly post-1933 US coinage. But even here, (some of) the money could just have moved somewhere else, like ASE and other NCLT.
What you're describing is just another part of the current asset bubble, since almost anything can or will increase in "value" with enough credit and money. When I visited Brazil in both 1992 and 1993, someone could have "made a profit" with used toothbrushes. That's how bad the currency debasement was at the time.
You're just assuming the new world is a continuation of the old one where a falling dollar caused by excessive debt creates an evaporation of wealth. But the new world built of silver and silicone will create massive efficiencies and wealth that will far outweigh the loss in value of what fails. In such an environment labor and commodities should both do well.
Copilot (above as prompt)-
You’re assuming the next world is just the old world with more debt and a
weaker dollar. That’s the category mistake. In the old world, currency
debasement destroyed wealth because the underlying system had no new
productive layer to absorb the shock. Everything was linear. Everything was
extractive. Everything was debt‑driven.
But the new world isn’t linear. It’s procedural. It’s built on silver and
silicon — on conductivity, computation, and energy efficiency. When you add
credit to a system like that, you don’t just inflate prices; you unlock
capacity. You get new throughput. You get new productivity. You get new
feedback loops that didn’t exist before.
In that kind of world, the destruction of failing assets is outweighed by
the efficiencies created by the new ones. Labor does well because it becomes
leveraged by technology instead of replaced by it. Commodities do well
because they’re the bottlenecks of the new processes, not the old ones.
This isn’t toothbrushes in hyperinflation Brazil. That was collapse inside a
static system. This is transition inside a dynamic one. The wealth doesn’t
evaporate — it reconfigures. And the materials that make the new system
possible rise with it.
What you're describing is just another part of the current asset bubble, since almost anything can or will increase in "value" with enough credit and money. When I visited Brazil in both 1992 and 1993, someone could have "made a profit" with used toothbrushes. That's how bad the currency debasement was at the time.
You're just assuming the new world is a continuation of the old one where a falling dollar caused by excessive debt creates an evaporation of wealth. But the new world built of silver and silicone will create massive efficiencies and wealth that will far outweigh the loss in value of what fails. In such an environment labor and commodities should both do well.
What does your post have to do with mine?
I know there is no shortage of wealth. There never has been any. It's no different than when you've claimed the price level outside the US is due to insufficient wealth and income when it wasn't and isn't.
@7Jaguars said:
I think there are many misconceptions and perceptions perpetuated by the responses to posts like this. Coin collectors, demographically are like Oldsmobile buyers/owners. There is most definitely a bias toward older collectors (ie some younger, fewer as age progresses).
This is NOT to say that publicized rarities do not sell for more and more as we've seen. Nor is it to say that many do not have a bias of perspective: they may go to coin shows and see a few younger collectors, which generally seem to support those of this opinion. Also retread is the "silent majority" type of thought, wherein we see said that there are many stay-at-homes that buy off ebay and the internet with some occasional statistics thrown up.
Brought up are isolated examples of young collector or groups - but really these are extremely few and far between. What we do not see is any broad interest in younger people of the less than 25 year age. Neighborhood coin clubs, or local coin clubs? Disappearing.
Not at all just me, but if you try to present programs in school classrooms, or businesses these are met with collective yawns and ignored. I have tried many times, and bring examples of many types of coins that might be interesting and have put on shows with animism and encouraging audience participation - all to nought. I have a business where I see families or parents that bring in their kids, and my first message (with examples and stories just like with coins) is to encourage education. My second is that I tell little stories about coins and give samples of different coins of many different types that look to at least be possibly interesting. Virtually no response other than the occasional [hopefully polite] "thank you".
I have tried to show my son and his friends, as well as the children of friends and associates coins and tell little stories and do my best to generate interest. Result: no real interest and a far greater interest in their cellphones and other visual entertainments. The best response, if any, is "what is it worth?" with no genuine interest in ANY type of coin, ranging from older to modern US, commems, gold, silver, foreign, ancient, slabbed, not slabbed, etc. Does not matter.
And these are anecdotes also shared by those I know, certainly not self-serving. I do love the world of coin collecting, or most of it, but by most measures see a definite decline.
So great that there are a few, and I mean relatively a very few, that come to the Summer Seminars, or visit Witter at all. I am very much in favor if these programs, but the point is that as a relative percentage of younger people, interest is honestly declining.
I seriously doubt the percentages of the population collecting coins will ever approximate what it was back in the '50's and '60's when so very many of the baby boomers were collecting. But I do expect millions and millions of collectors again. In 40 years there will "still" be lots of old men (and women) at fewer coin shows.
Collectors go through cycles that are very much age related. No matter how passionate a 14 year old collector is, his hobby is going to sit on the back burner for a few years. A 30 year old may have more passion than ever but lacks the time. At 40 he's found a way to make time through longer hours. Eventually most of us will find "Time Enough at Last".
Enjoy it. It's a fun hobby at any age.
.
I can't account for your experience here. But it's not what I'm seeing in the day to day world. Perhaps there's a regional difference?
.
Copilot-
_I can’t account for your experience here. But it’s not what I’m seeing in
the day‑to‑day world. Maybe there’s a regional difference, or maybe the
signal just looks different depending on where you’re standing.
I don’t deny the demographic tilt — the hobby has always had an older
center of gravity. But I’m also seeing younger people who don’t show up in
the traditional places. They’re not in clubs, they’re not at shows, and
they’re not writing letters to the editor. They’re operating in the same
hand‑to‑mouth, on‑demand world everything else now lives in. They buy
differently, they learn differently, and they surface differently.
The old channels are thinning, yes. But the flow hasn’t stopped. It’s just
moved.
Collectors cycle. A 14‑year‑old disappears for a decade, then resurfaces at
30 with a job and a budget. At 40 he finds time again. At 60 he finds joy
again. The pattern is older than any of us.
So I don’t dispute your observations — I just see a different slice of the
terrain. And the terrain is bigger than any one vantage point._
Here’s proof coin coin collecting is strong. Virtually ever common or scarce coin can be sold at close to full market price minus selling fees. Liquidity is great at EBay or Great Collections. Put any attractive PCGS 1938 D Buffalo MS 66 and it will sell at $100 or slightly more or less depending on the individual coin. When these coins drop to $50 you will know coin collecting interest has declined. Agree or Disagree?
What you're describing is just another part of the current asset bubble, since almost anything can or will increase in "value" with enough credit and money. When I visited Brazil in both 1992 and 1993, someone could have "made a profit" with used toothbrushes. That's how bad the currency debasement was at the time.
You're just assuming the new world is a continuation of the old one where a falling dollar caused by excessive debt creates an evaporation of wealth. But the new world built of silver and silicone will create massive efficiencies and wealth that will far outweigh the loss in value of what fails. In such an environment labor and commodities should both do well.
Copilot (above as prompt)-
You’re assuming the next world is just the old world with more debt and a
weaker dollar. That’s the category mistake. In the old world, currency
debasement destroyed wealth because the underlying system had no new
productive layer to absorb the shock. Everything was linear. Everything was
extractive. Everything was debt‑driven.
But the new world isn’t linear. It’s procedural. It’s built on silver and
silicon — on conductivity, computation, and energy efficiency. When you add
credit to a system like that, you don’t just inflate prices; you unlock
capacity. You get new throughput. You get new productivity. You get new
feedback loops that didn’t exist before.
In that kind of world, the destruction of failing assets is outweighed by
the efficiencies created by the new ones. Labor does well because it becomes
leveraged by technology instead of replaced by it. Commodities do well
because they’re the bottlenecks of the new processes, not the old ones.
This isn’t toothbrushes in hyperinflation Brazil. That was collapse inside a
static system. This is transition inside a dynamic one. The wealth doesn’t
evaporate — it reconfigures. And the materials that make the new system
possible rise with it.
@7Jaguars said:
I think there are many misconceptions and perceptions perpetuated by the responses to posts like this. Coin collectors, demographically are like Oldsmobile buyers/owners. There is most definitely a bias toward older collectors (ie some younger, fewer as age progresses).
This is NOT to say that publicized rarities do not sell for more and more as we've seen. Nor is it to say that many do not have a bias of perspective: they may go to coin shows and see a few younger collectors, which generally seem to support those of this opinion. Also retread is the "silent majority" type of thought, wherein we see said that there are many stay-at-homes that buy off ebay and the internet with some occasional statistics thrown up.
Brought up are isolated examples of young collector or groups - but really these are extremely few and far between. What we do not see is any broad interest in younger people of the less than 25 year age. Neighborhood coin clubs, or local coin clubs? Disappearing.
Not at all just me, but if you try to present programs in school classrooms, or businesses these are met with collective yawns and ignored. I have tried many times, and bring examples of many types of coins that might be interesting and have put on shows with animism and encouraging audience participation - all to nought. I have a business where I see families or parents that bring in their kids, and my first message (with examples and stories just like with coins) is to encourage education. My second is that I tell little stories about coins and give samples of different coins of many different types that look to at least be possibly interesting. Virtually no response other than the occasional [hopefully polite] "thank you".
I have tried to show my son and his friends, as well as the children of friends and associates coins and tell little stories and do my best to generate interest. Result: no real interest and a far greater interest in their cellphones and other visual entertainments. The best response, if any, is "what is it worth?" with no genuine interest in ANY type of coin, ranging from older to modern US, commems, gold, silver, foreign, ancient, slabbed, not slabbed, etc. Does not matter.
And these are anecdotes also shared by those I know, certainly not self-serving. I do love the world of coin collecting, or most of it, but by most measures see a definite decline.
So great that there are a few, and I mean relatively a very few, that come to the Summer Seminars, or visit Witter at all. I am very much in favor if these programs, but the point is that as a relative percentage of younger people, interest is honestly declining.
I seriously doubt the percentages of the population collecting coins will ever approximate what it was back in the '50's and '60's when so very many of the baby boomers were collecting. But I do expect millions and millions of collectors again. In 40 years there will "still" be lots of old men (and women) at fewer coin shows.
Collectors go through cycles that are very much age related. No matter how passionate a 14 year old collector is, his hobby is going to sit on the back burner for a few years. A 30 year old may have more passion than ever but lacks the time. At 40 he's found a way to make time through longer hours. Eventually most of us will find "Time Enough at Last".
Enjoy it. It's a fun hobby at any age.
.
I can't account for your experience here. But it's not what I'm seeing in the day to day world. Perhaps there's a regional difference?
.
Copilot-
_I can’t account for your experience here. But it’s not what I’m seeing in
the day‑to‑day world. Maybe there’s a regional difference, or maybe the
signal just looks different depending on where you’re standing.
I don’t deny the demographic tilt — the hobby has always had an older
center of gravity. But I’m also seeing younger people who don’t show up in
the traditional places. They’re not in clubs, they’re not at shows, and
they’re not writing letters to the editor. They’re operating in the same
hand‑to‑mouth, on‑demand world everything else now lives in. They buy
differently, they learn differently, and they surface differently.
The old channels are thinning, yes. But the flow hasn’t stopped. It’s just
moved.
Collectors cycle. A 14‑year‑old disappears for a decade, then resurfaces at
30 with a job and a budget. At 40 he finds time again. At 60 he finds joy
again. The pattern is older than any of us.
So I don’t dispute your observations — I just see a different slice of the
terrain. And the terrain is bigger than any one vantage point._
Here’s proof coin coin collecting is strong. Virtually ever common or scarce coin can be sold at close to full market price minus selling fees. Liquidity is great at EBay or Great Collections. Put any attractive PCGS 1938 D Buffalo MS 66 and it will sell at $100 or slightly more or less depending on the individual coin. When these coins drop to $50 you will know coin collecting interest has declined. Agree or Disagree?
How's the price for VG Indian cents and VG Buffalo nickels. You're making the mistake of extrapolating from the top of the market to the whole market.
I don't think coin collecting is dying. But widgets have not done well and have less demand than they used to. VF walkers and Morgan dollars are scrap bullion. So are 63 Saints and Libs.
My colleagues, when trying to assess how well we are doing a teachers, always point out our students who went to CalTech for grad school or Harvard Med School. They seem to forgot the 30% of students who never graduate.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
How's the price for VG Indian cents and VG Buffalo nickels. You're making the mistake of extrapolating from the top of the market to the whole market.
I don't think coin collecting is dying. But widgets have not done well and have less demand than they used to. VF walkers and Morgan dollars are scrap bullion. So are 63 Saints and Libs.
My colleagues, when trying to assess how well we are doing a teachers, always point out our students who went to CalTech for grad school or Harvard Med School. They seem to forgot the 30% of students who never graduate.
I was just noticing the other day that the prices of starting material like FD buffalos and low end indians are going back up but still off their peak. But don't forget there are countless millions of these coins and many of the buyers are new collectors. We already have so many collectors that another new crop isn't necessary for demand to take morgan dollars or memorial cent rolls through the roof.
New collectors are great but hardly necessary and some new collectors may be entering through other avenues right now like circulating coinage and silver. Perhaps FD buffalos are no longer the bellwether of new coin collectors.
What you're describing is just another part of the current asset bubble, since almost anything can or will increase in "value" with enough credit and money. When I visited Brazil in both 1992 and 1993, someone could have "made a profit" with used toothbrushes. That's how bad the currency debasement was at the time.
You're just assuming the new world is a continuation of the old one where a falling dollar caused by excessive debt creates an evaporation of wealth. But the new world built of silver and silicone will create massive efficiencies and wealth that will far outweigh the loss in value of what fails. In such an environment labor and commodities should both do well.
What does your post have to do with mine?
I know there is no shortage of wealth. There never has been any. It's no different than when you've claimed the price level outside the US is due to insufficient wealth and income when it wasn't and isn't.
Aggregate wealth has always been the primary constraint on all prices. Even the king of the starving masses can't afford two of something that costs more than what he has and can't order another produced unless hes has the resources.
Mebbe you should run for Government; they've always believed you can pull ten pounds of candy out of a 2 lb bag. This is why the world has inflation and why you think you can equate used tooth brushes and value. We have inflation AND we are on the cusp of a new world unlike anything that has ever existed before. For now on government will still try to get 10 lbs of candy but it will be a 20lb bag. Soon enough their appetite will probably grow and even a 20 lb bag will deplete and inflation return.
Copilot-
_Aggregate wealth has always been the constraint. You can’t buy what you
can’t afford, and you can’t produce what you don’t have the resources to
build. Even a king surrounded by starving people can’t conjure a second
wagon if the timber, metal, and labor aren’t there. That’s not ideology —
that’s arithmetic.
Where you and I differ is that you’re assuming the next world is just the
old world with more debt layered on top. That’s why you reach for Brazil in
the 1990s. But that was a collapse inside a static system. Nothing new was
being created. No new efficiencies. No new productive layer. Just more
currency chasing the same goods.
The world we’re entering isn’t static. It’s being rebuilt on silver and
silicon — on conductivity, computation, and energy efficiency. When you add
credit to a system like that, you don’t just inflate toothbrushes. You
unlock throughput. You get new capacity. You get new forms of wealth that
didn’t exist in the old system.
Government will still try to pull ten pounds of candy out of a two‑pound
bag, because that’s what governments do. But the bag itself is changing.
It’s becoming a twenty‑pound bag because the underlying system is becoming
more efficient. Eventually their appetite will grow again and inflation will
return, but that’s a different cycle.
Right now we’re in the transition — where the destruction of failing assets
is outweighed by the creation of new ones. That’s why labor and commodities
both stand to do well. They’re not relics of the old world. They’re inputs
to the new one._
What you're describing is just another part of the current asset bubble, since almost anything can or will increase in "value" with enough credit and money. When I visited Brazil in both 1992 and 1993, someone could have "made a profit" with used toothbrushes. That's how bad the currency debasement was at the time.
You're just assuming the new world is a continuation of the old one where a falling dollar caused by excessive debt creates an evaporation of wealth. But the new world built of silver and silicone will create massive efficiencies and wealth that will far outweigh the loss in value of what fails. In such an environment labor and commodities should both do well.
What does your post have to do with mine?
I know there is no shortage of wealth. There never has been any. It's no different than when you've claimed the price level outside the US is due to insufficient wealth and income when it wasn't and isn't.
Aggregate wealth has always been the primary constraint on all prices. Even the king of the starving masses can't afford two of something that costs more than what he has and can't order another produced unless hes has the resources.
I have never encountered anyone who thinks they know so much more than they actually do. You have no idea what you are talking about. We've been over this before, I explained to you why your claim has no merit, and yet here you are making the same claim, again.
You don't understand virtually anything about this subject. There are and have been no constraints in the context you are inferring. Obviously, I am aware there isn't an infinite amount of affluence, but this has no relevance to what we are discussing. There is also no "shortage" of people with the financial capacity to collect if they choose, whether most people can afford to collect by your definition or not.
There isn't a single country on the planet where this isn't true. Do you remember your prior post where you claimed it was Japan's stagnating economy over the last several decades explaining the prices and limited interest in Japanese "moderns"? This is a complete absurdity, as if an economy with trillions in financial assets and more from other sources can't afford to pay far more than the piddling amounts this coinage is worth. It's no different for another example I've used, 1864-1909 Bolivia Republic decimals. Even in a country which isn't as poor as commonly believed but still far less affluent than developed countries, it should be obvious to anyone with even the most basic understanding of reality that this society has the measly $1MM or so to buy all the actually marketable coins from this segment that collectors actually want to buy. There is plenty of "dreck" available locally, but it doesn't sell for more because virtually no one wants it.
The reason the price level wasn't higher before and isn't higher now is a lack of interest, not affluence. You're not the only one believing this fallacy, but there is no credibility that the non-collector aspires to increased affluence to buy coins. That's what someone has to believe to believe what you're telling me now and in typical fashion with your posts, it's completely ridiculous.
While you are at it, go look at the Ultra Wealth Report. Maybe a few percent from this group are coin collectors, and even if it's somewhat higher, it's not clearly evident in the price level. If lack of affluence is the explanation, why aren't all of these people collecting?
Seriously, how can you continue to just make this nonsense up?
Here’s proof coin coin collecting is strong. Virtually ever common or scarce coin can be sold at close to full market price minus selling fees. Liquidity is great at EBay or Great Collections. Put any attractive PCGS 1938 D Buffalo MS 66 and it will sell at $100 or slightly more or less depending on the individual coin. When these coins drop to $50 you will know coin collecting interest has declined. Agree or Disagree?
Agree with your example, but while it's a common coin, I don't think it's representative of the coin market generally. I'd also agree the market is (or seems to be) strong for the types of US coins mostly collected by forum members here, but don't think it's representative of the US coin market either.
It might be true that the absolute number of coin collectors is smaller than it was in some bygone heyday. That said, there are still plenty of coin collectors, and the number pursuing the hobby with real intensity and spending accordingly seems healthy. To a certain extent it doesn't really matter if the number of collectors keeps dropping so long as those who stay keep playing like they mean it.
Dual-use coins -- which have both numismatic AND bullion value -- will probably increase. Morgan Silver Dollars and Saint-Gaudens gold double eagles being the obvious choices. That will increase interest, particularly as their history is spread on social media and attracts attention (that's what drew me in 20 years ago).
I would note that NFTs were red-hot for about 1 year and you don't hear anything about them now that prices for whatever they were are down 90-95%. Remember folks paying $4 MM for stuff that could be easily replicated digitally ?
@jmlanzaf said:
How's the price for VG Indian cents and VG Buffalo nickels. You're making the mistake of extrapolating from the top of the market to the whole market.
I don't think coin collecting is dying. But widgets have not done well and have less demand than they used to. VF walkers and Morgan dollars are scrap bullion. So are 63 Saints and Libs.
My colleagues, when trying to assess how well we are doing a teachers, always point out our students who went to CalTech for grad school or Harvard Med School. They seem to forgot the 30% of students who never graduate.
I was just noticing the other day that the prices of starting material like FD buffalos and low end indians are going back up but still off their peak. But don't forget there are countless millions of these coins and many of the buyers are new collectors. We already have so many collectors that another new crop isn't necessary for demand to take morgan dollars or memorial cent rolls through the roof.
New collectors are great but hardly necessary and some new collectors may be entering through other avenues right now like circulating coinage and silver. Perhaps FD buffalos are no longer the bellwether of new coin collectors.
Completely misses the point. Widgets Morgans aren't going through the roof. They are barely keeping up with bullion prices.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@Colonialcoin said:
One thing that isn’t on the decline are the enormously long posts by @cladking
He's clearly shorted MicroSoft and is trying to drive them into bankruptcy using Copilot.
Mine was too, but I was annoyed at his post because he took mine completely out of context, again. I didn't say anything about the point he made in the post he quoted. The context of Cougar78's post to which I replied should make this obvious. My reference to "used toothbrushes" was a sarcastic analogy to buying coins as "investments".
What you're describing is just another part of the current asset bubble, since almost anything can or will increase in "value" with enough credit and money. When I visited Brazil in both 1992 and 1993, someone could have "made a profit" with used toothbrushes. That's how bad the currency debasement was at the time.
You're just assuming the new world is a continuation of the old one where a falling dollar caused by excessive debt creates an evaporation of wealth. But the new world built of silver and silicone will create massive efficiencies and wealth that will far outweigh the loss in value of what fails. In such an environment labor and commodities should both do well.
What does your post have to do with mine?
I know there is no shortage of wealth. There never has been any. It's no different than when you've claimed the price level outside the US is due to insufficient wealth and income when it wasn't and isn't.
Aggregate wealth has always been the primary constraint on all prices. Even the king of the starving masses can't afford two of something that costs more than what he has and can't order another produced unless hes has the resources.
I have never encountered anyone who thinks they know so much more than they actually do. You have no idea what you are talking about. We've been over this before, I explained to you why your claim has no merit, and yet here you are making the same claim, again.
You don't understand virtually anything about this subject. There are and have been no constraints in the context you are inferring. Obviously, I am aware there isn't an infinite amount of affluence, but this has no relevance to what we are discussing. There is also no "shortage" of people with the financial capacity to collect if they choose, whether most people can afford to collect by your definition or not.
There isn't a single country on the planet where this isn't true. Do you remember your prior post where you claimed it was Japan's stagnating economy over the last several decades explaining the prices and limited interest in Japanese "moderns"? This is a complete absurdity, as if an economy with trillions in financial assets and more from other sources can't afford to pay far more than the piddling amounts this coinage is worth. It's no different for another example I've used, 1864-1909 Bolivia Republic decimals. Even in a country which isn't as poor as commonly believed but still far less affluent than developed countries, it should be obvious to anyone with even the most basic understanding of reality that this society has the measly $1MM or so to buy all the actually marketable coins from this segment that collectors actually want to buy. There is plenty of "dreck" available locally, but it doesn't sell for more because virtually no one wants it.
The reason the price level wasn't higher before and isn't higher now is a lack of interest, not affluence. You're not the only one believing this fallacy, but there is no credibility that the non-collector aspires to increased affluence to buy coins. That's what someone has to believe to believe what you're telling me now and in typical fashion with your posts, it's completely ridiculous.
While you are at it, go look at the Ultra Wealth Report. Maybe a few percent from this group are coin collectors, and even if it's somewhat higher, it's not clearly evident in the price level. If lack of affluence is the explanation, why aren't all of these people collecting?
Seriously, how can you continue to just make this nonsense up?
I wouldn't necessarily equate "affluence" with broad- based disposable income. I mostly agree with what you're saying. But the percentage of potential collectors (of everything) is probably largely static. Disposable income turns them into actual collectors. Give one man $1 trillion and he may not buy a single coin. Give a million people a million dollars, and you will priceline get 50,000 of them buying coins (or whatever the percentage of possible collectors). There is a wealth effect, but it is also related to how wealth is distributed.
Cladking is probably partially right - hurts to say that. More people with more disposable income may translate into more collectors. His continue ramblings about "silver" and "silicone" (sic) is ridiculous. In the last few decades, silver and silicon have done more to concentrate wealth than distribute it.
It's no accident that coin interest in either medieval Europe or the 19th century US rose as the middle class and their disposable income rose. And, I think, at least part of the story in countries like Bolivia or Brazil is the distribution of wealth. Look at what happened to the Chinese coin and stamp (yes, stamps!) market when the middle and upper classes in China exploded this century. There was also a clear, temporary, and very significant spike in ALL collectible markets during Covid when the government distributed trillions of dollars to an idle workforce.
On a side note, the Covid spike in collectibles proves how irrational human behavior can be. Only a human could think that buying sports cards, comics, stamps and coins when "the sky is falling" is logical. [And, no, they weren't looking for "hard assets".] They should have paid down debt and bought utilitarian things. Instead, they fueled a huge bubble in collectibles.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
What you're describing is just another part of the current asset bubble, since almost anything can or will increase in "value" with enough credit and money. When I visited Brazil in both 1992 and 1993, someone could have "made a profit" with used toothbrushes. That's how bad the currency debasement was at the time.
You're just assuming the new world is a continuation of the old one where a falling dollar caused by excessive debt creates an evaporation of wealth. But the new world built of silver and silicone will create massive efficiencies and wealth that will far outweigh the loss in value of what fails. In such an environment labor and commodities should both do well.
What does your post have to do with mine?
I know there is no shortage of wealth. There never has been any. It's no different than when you've claimed the price level outside the US is due to insufficient wealth and income when it wasn't and isn't.
Aggregate wealth has always been the primary constraint on all prices. Even the king of the starving masses can't afford two of something that costs more than what he has and can't order another produced unless hes has the resources.
I have never encountered anyone who thinks they know so much more than they actually do. You have no idea what you are talking about. We've been over this before, I explained to you why your claim has no merit, and yet here you are making the same claim, again.
You don't understand virtually anything about this subject. There are and have been no constraints in the context you are inferring. Obviously, I am aware there isn't an infinite amount of affluence, but this has no relevance to what we are discussing. There is also no "shortage" of people with the financial capacity to collect if they choose, whether most people can afford to collect by your definition or not.
There isn't a single country on the planet where this isn't true. Do you remember your prior post where you claimed it was Japan's stagnating economy over the last several decades explaining the prices and limited interest in Japanese "moderns"? This is a complete absurdity, as if an economy with trillions in financial assets and more from other sources can't afford to pay far more than the piddling amounts this coinage is worth. It's no different for another example I've used, 1864-1909 Bolivia Republic decimals. Even in a country which isn't as poor as commonly believed but still far less affluent than developed countries, it should be obvious to anyone with even the most basic understanding of reality that this society has the measly $1MM or so to buy all the actually marketable coins from this segment that collectors actually want to buy. There is plenty of "dreck" available locally, but it doesn't sell for more because virtually no one wants it.
The reason the price level wasn't higher before and isn't higher now is a lack of interest, not affluence. You're not the only one believing this fallacy, but there is no credibility that the non-collector aspires to increased affluence to buy coins. That's what someone has to believe to believe what you're telling me now and in typical fashion with your posts, it's completely ridiculous.
While you are at it, go look at the Ultra Wealth Report. Maybe a few percent from this group are coin collectors, and even if it's somewhat higher, it's not clearly evident in the price level. If lack of affluence is the explanation, why aren't all of these people collecting?
Seriously, how can you continue to just make this nonsense up?
I wouldn't necessarily equate "affluence" with broad- based disposable income. I mostly agree with what you're saying. But the percentage of potential collectors (of everything) is probably largely static. Disposable income turns them into actual collectors. Give one man $1 trillion and he may not buy a single coin. Give a million people a million dollars, and you will priceline get 50,000 of them buying coins (or whatever the percentage of possible collectors). There is a wealth effect, but it is also related to how wealth is distributed.
Cladking is probably partially right - hurts to say that. More people with more disposable income may translate into more collectors. His continue ramblings about "silver" and "silicone" (sic) is ridiculous. In the last few decades, silver and silicon have done more to concentrate wealth than distribute it.
It's no accident that coin interest in either medieval Europe or the 19th century US rose as the middle class and their disposable income rose. And, I think, at least part of the story in countries like Bolivia or Brazil is the distribution of wealth. Look at what happened to the Chinese coin and stamp (yes, stamps!) market when the middle and upper classes in China exploded this century. There was also a clear, temporary, and very significant spike in ALL collectible markets during Covid when the government distributed trillions of dollars to an idle workforce.
On a side note, the Covid spike in collectibles proves how irrational human behavior can be. Only a human could think that buying sports cards, comics, stamps and coins when "the sky is falling" is logical. [And, no, they weren't looking for "hard assets".] They should have paid down debt and bought utilitarian things. Instead, they fueled a huge bubble in collectibles.
I've never claimed that affluence isn't a necessary precondition, and you're making my point for me. It's cultural.
That's why the new prosperity in the developing world doesn't correlate to much increase in collecting. That along with the fact that there are drastic supply constraints in the supply of actually marketable coinage that collectors of any means spending any real money want to buy. The reason there are drastic supply constraints is due to the lack of historical collecting.
No one can buy what doesn't exist, and that's why there isn't going to be the increase he's previously implied because these people aren't about to spend the amounts he's implied on their "moderns", and they aren't going to be buying US or other coins in any volume either.
He's not the only one with this sentiment, but to believe it, you'd have to believe that it's only people who can't afford it who want to collect. Why aren't those who can?
Comments
That cartoon is wrong. 24 year old Gen Z here. Gym rat and recent College grad but also coin rat. I love to collect old coins with history!
Also a lot of young people attending the coin show in Manchester! Leaving the show I overhead conversations about how cool it was to learn about and hold in history in their hands.
I seriously doubt the percentages of the population collecting coins will ever approximate what it was back in the '50's and '60's when so very many of the baby boomers were collecting. But I do expect millions and millions of collectors again. In 40 years there will "still" be lots of old men (and women) at fewer coin shows.
Collectors go through cycles that are very much age related. No matter how passionate a 14 year old collector is, his hobby is going to sit on the back burner for a few years. A 30 year old may have more passion than ever but lacks the time. At 40 he's found a way to make time through longer hours. Eventually most of us will find "Time Enough at Last".
Enjoy it. It's a fun hobby at any age.
.
I can't account for your experience here. But it's not what I'm seeing in the day to day world. Perhaps there's a regional difference?
.
Copilot-
_I can’t account for your experience here. But it’s not what I’m seeing in
the day‑to‑day world. Maybe there’s a regional difference, or maybe the
signal just looks different depending on where you’re standing.
I don’t deny the demographic tilt — the hobby has always had an older
center of gravity. But I’m also seeing younger people who don’t show up in
the traditional places. They’re not in clubs, they’re not at shows, and
they’re not writing letters to the editor. They’re operating in the same
hand‑to‑mouth, on‑demand world everything else now lives in. They buy
differently, they learn differently, and they surface differently.
The old channels are thinning, yes. But the flow hasn’t stopped. It’s just
moved.
Collectors cycle. A 14‑year‑old disappears for a decade, then resurfaces at
30 with a job and a budget. At 40 he finds time again. At 60 he finds joy
again. The pattern is older than any of us.
So I don’t dispute your observations — I just see a different slice of the
terrain. And the terrain is bigger than any one vantage point._
When I was a kid in the 60s, all my friends had a coin collection. None of us belonged to a club and our collecting activities wouldn't have shown up on anybody's radar.
FWIW...
Pure speculation but I would anticipate all hobbies will see a correction in interest and activity down the road.
The next generations will have the attention span of a housefly. The good news is we live in the age of information for quick study.
The entertainment/hobby/stress release pie is bigger, there are more and more funds committed, but there are more pieces in the pie.
If you are an investor pick the good stuff, (ie stock picking). The good stuff will always appreciate. If you are a collector collect what you like-you live in the age of information.
The 30-39 age demographic isn’t that young.
I am a baby boomer and have two coin collecting friends half my age. They are very passionate about the hobby. Yes, they do much more online buying and selling than me -- so their methods are different -- but they like the classic coin series, early holders, CAC stickers, etc., just like many of us older collectors. This is probably why the coin market is so hot in recent years.
.
There are also a number of junior members -- under 18 -- in my local coin club. I think the hobby is alive and well.
Lol. It's all relative...
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
That was always a great show when I lived in the northeast. I am glad it is still going strong and also glad to hear some Gen Z folks going.
As long as coins,collecting same, have the word "money" attached to them there will always be some form of interest. In their rawest form that's what they are. Does not money make the world go around ?
That is usually the age when many collectors reach their prime. Before then, they usually don’t have the money.
One way to counter this is to reissue classic designs for circulation. This would get publicity and attention each new program isn’t getting. Honestly seated liberty and barber coins would make great clad coins. Many of the 1870s patterns would also make great clad coins. SLQ’s, not so much.
Since this thread is about Collecting I would say it is declining. Many new people to the hobby see it as a way to make money (as a investor/Dealer/Flipper). Nothing wrong with that but many do not have collections. They have things that need to make a profit.
Successful BST with drddm, BustDMs, Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
I posted this in another thread concerning factors that lead the stamp market to decline. Does this sound familiar? History doesn’t always repeat itself exactly, but it sure does rhyme.
1- USPS released a plethora of new and/or overpriced issues causing many collectors to stop putting together sets. Just as the new issues became expendable and the goal was no longer a complete set so too were older stamps which were equally common and just as expendable. It’s a domino effect. The last hold outs were the truly rare issues
2 - Age of the collector base meant a decrease in market as many were lost through attrition but were not as readily replaced by younger collectors.
3 - Many lost interest as postage stamps were used less in commerce reducing exposure.
4 - Online sites like eBay revealed how common and easily obtainable some of the previously believed to be “elusive “ issues really were.
I don't know whether the US collector base has or hasn't decreased in more recent decades. It depends upon someone's definition of "collector".
I do expect it to shrink for a variety of reasons, with the only one I see substantially mitigating it is continued migration of precious metal buyers from bullion to NCLT to circulating coinage.
I also expect the proportion of US collectors collecting US coinage to decrease, though the absolute number may not if the participation rate offsets it. To the extent they collect at all, the increasing number and proportion of immigrants and their offspring aren't candidates to collect the US coinage most US collectors have traditionally collected in anywhere near the same proportion.
Numismatics has many types of players.
I believe just collecting coins is on decline. However coin investment is increasing. Many players buying for investment get material they both like and have both good investment and demand, liquidity.
Ronnie started a date collection / investment of slabbed Mexico Libertads about 18 mo ago. Many dates 5-6 coins deep. When the silver high hit it at $140 an oz he banked really big time. Recently CACG is even slabbing these. Some key dates at $2k or more like in slabbed 69. Now bidding is fierce on this material. Then he was buying slabbed 70’s from dealers like at $75-85 then) bought them like wild fire. 18-20 mo ago. About that time CDN then came out pricing them like at $125 CPG common ms70. Of course after peak silver retreated. Been putting away some do when high hits again.
That graphic is just old people complaining about the youth. Goldbacks and NFT coins are not that appealing to young people. Costco gold was a lot more of a hot item
Llamas and alpacas are camels. They aren't like camels, or related. They are camels. When was anyone going to tell me this?! How long had Bill Nye been holding out on us?
This behavior you're describing will make no difference to the vast majority of coins, as very few coin types are actually "investment" candidate material, even among those who mostly view coins as "investments". This particularly applies to a coin someone considers "rare" due to a number on a holder label.
The coin types most apparently viewed as "investments" are those where it should be apparent there aren't enough hobbyist collectors to support the current premium or where it's likely bought as a substitute for the metal. That's many Morgan and Peace dollars, generic US classic gold, probably most silver and gold NCLT, and low premium non-US gold.
What you're describing is just another part of the current asset bubble, since almost anything can or will increase in "value" with enough credit and money. When I visited Brazil in both 1992 and 1993, someone could have "made a profit" with used toothbrushes. That's how bad the currency debasement was at the time.
Ultimately only real collectors obtain any utility from collecting, not financially motivated widget buyers treating it as an alternative asset class to be traded as a commodity with other financially motivated widget buyers which is what you're actually implying. Outside of the examples I used, only a low number of coin types meet the definition most people would consider "liquid" too, as any coin can be sold if the price is low enough. Actual liquidity isn't contingent upon the personal knowledge of the seller either since most coins do not even have a predictable market price.
I think it depends on where you draw the line on "young". I know people in their 30s who bought goldbacks. They're are also a lot of "young people" in their 20s who buy silver because they don't have enough money to buy even 1/10 oz gold.
But I agree that the graphic is just complaining. I also see a lot of 50+ people buying modern widgets. I don't think individual appeal is determined by age.
The only difference in my collecting at my age (61) versus my twenties is that I STOPPED buying classic coins for sets. The other things I liked (primitive coinage, Tibet, ancients, medieval, some NCLT, tokens) have stayed virtually unchanged as I aged.
I also like goldbacks more than St. Gardens. Why? They are fun, pretty and affordable. It's all very individual.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I prefer the term players. Some are collectors, some are investors (many collector / investors). , etc. in total they drive the market.
To put together a date set can be very expensive.
Even a date set of Chain Cents can be a bit pricey.
I keep getting out bid in auctions and I am bidding above price guides. Decline? I don't think so.
What would actually be a definitive conclusion if the hobby was in decline?
Wait for a recession to make this speculation.
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
True, but that's more cyclical than structural. Additionally, the posters here aren't typical of most collectors. It's a much lower or very low probability what's collected by members here will no longer be collected in any timeframe with any relevance to anyone reading this thread.
My inference is any decline will show up first and be most visible where it probably already is now, in US mint sets and proof sets + putting sets together of mostly post-1933 US coinage. But even here, (some of) the money could just have moved somewhere else, like ASE and other NCLT.
The Morgan dollar is still king. I’ve seen plenty of YouTube videos of 22-year-olds geeking out over getting some in the mail.
Silver eagles are a close second, though, and at this point having a complete collection of silver eagle would actually be quite an accomplishment.
You're just assuming the new world is a continuation of the old one where a falling dollar caused by excessive debt creates an evaporation of wealth. But the new world built of silver and silicone will create massive efficiencies and wealth that will far outweigh the loss in value of what fails. In such an environment labor and commodities should both do well.
Copilot (above as prompt)-
You’re assuming the next world is just the old world with more debt and a
weaker dollar. That’s the category mistake. In the old world, currency
debasement destroyed wealth because the underlying system had no new
productive layer to absorb the shock. Everything was linear. Everything was
extractive. Everything was debt‑driven.
But the new world isn’t linear. It’s procedural. It’s built on silver and
silicon — on conductivity, computation, and energy efficiency. When you add
credit to a system like that, you don’t just inflate prices; you unlock
capacity. You get new throughput. You get new productivity. You get new
feedback loops that didn’t exist before.
In that kind of world, the destruction of failing assets is outweighed by
the efficiencies created by the new ones. Labor does well because it becomes
leveraged by technology instead of replaced by it. Commodities do well
because they’re the bottlenecks of the new processes, not the old ones.
This isn’t toothbrushes in hyperinflation Brazil. That was collapse inside a
static system. This is transition inside a dynamic one. The wealth doesn’t
evaporate — it reconfigures. And the materials that make the new system
possible rise with it.
So even scarce date war nickels and clad coins can increase in demand.
Même une mauvaise pièce finira par vous revenir.
Even a bad piece will eventually come back to you.
Arrows continue past the newest generation and off the photo. I want to know what’s next.
What does your post have to do with mine?
I know there is no shortage of wealth. There never has been any. It's no different than when you've claimed the price level outside the US is due to insufficient wealth and income when it wasn't and isn't.
In bidding against other bidders in auctions don’t see a decline in coin collecting / RCI. Bidding can be fierce.
Here’s proof coin coin collecting is strong. Virtually ever common or scarce coin can be sold at close to full market price minus selling fees. Liquidity is great at EBay or Great Collections. Put any attractive PCGS 1938 D Buffalo MS 66 and it will sell at $100 or slightly more or less depending on the individual coin. When these coins drop to $50 you will know coin collecting interest has declined. Agree or Disagree?
Coin collecting is in decline and coin show are thriving
Sounds like a 1986 thing
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
Damn.... Your account on here is older than me
How's the price for VG Indian cents and VG Buffalo nickels. You're making the mistake of extrapolating from the top of the market to the whole market.
I don't think coin collecting is dying. But widgets have not done well and have less demand than they used to. VF walkers and Morgan dollars are scrap bullion. So are 63 Saints and Libs.
My colleagues, when trying to assess how well we are doing a teachers, always point out our students who went to CalTech for grad school or Harvard Med School. They seem to forgot the 30% of students who never graduate.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I was just noticing the other day that the prices of starting material like FD buffalos and low end indians are going back up but still off their peak. But don't forget there are countless millions of these coins and many of the buyers are new collectors. We already have so many collectors that another new crop isn't necessary for demand to take morgan dollars or memorial cent rolls through the roof.
New collectors are great but hardly necessary and some new collectors may be entering through other avenues right now like circulating coinage and silver. Perhaps FD buffalos are no longer the bellwether of new coin collectors.
Aggregate wealth has always been the primary constraint on all prices. Even the king of the starving masses can't afford two of something that costs more than what he has and can't order another produced unless hes has the resources.
Mebbe you should run for Government; they've always believed you can pull ten pounds of candy out of a 2 lb bag. This is why the world has inflation and why you think you can equate used tooth brushes and value. We have inflation AND we are on the cusp of a new world unlike anything that has ever existed before. For now on government will still try to get 10 lbs of candy but it will be a 20lb bag. Soon enough their appetite will probably grow and even a 20 lb bag will deplete and inflation return.
Copilot-
_Aggregate wealth has always been the constraint. You can’t buy what you
can’t afford, and you can’t produce what you don’t have the resources to
build. Even a king surrounded by starving people can’t conjure a second
wagon if the timber, metal, and labor aren’t there. That’s not ideology —
that’s arithmetic.
Where you and I differ is that you’re assuming the next world is just the
old world with more debt layered on top. That’s why you reach for Brazil in
the 1990s. But that was a collapse inside a static system. Nothing new was
being created. No new efficiencies. No new productive layer. Just more
currency chasing the same goods.
The world we’re entering isn’t static. It’s being rebuilt on silver and
silicon — on conductivity, computation, and energy efficiency. When you add
credit to a system like that, you don’t just inflate toothbrushes. You
unlock throughput. You get new capacity. You get new forms of wealth that
didn’t exist in the old system.
Government will still try to pull ten pounds of candy out of a two‑pound
bag, because that’s what governments do. But the bag itself is changing.
It’s becoming a twenty‑pound bag because the underlying system is becoming
more efficient. Eventually their appetite will grow again and inflation will
return, but that’s a different cycle.
Right now we’re in the transition — where the destruction of failing assets
is outweighed by the creation of new ones. That’s why labor and commodities
both stand to do well. They’re not relics of the old world. They’re inputs
to the new one._
I have never encountered anyone who thinks they know so much more than they actually do. You have no idea what you are talking about. We've been over this before, I explained to you why your claim has no merit, and yet here you are making the same claim, again.
You don't understand virtually anything about this subject. There are and have been no constraints in the context you are inferring. Obviously, I am aware there isn't an infinite amount of affluence, but this has no relevance to what we are discussing. There is also no "shortage" of people with the financial capacity to collect if they choose, whether most people can afford to collect by your definition or not.
There isn't a single country on the planet where this isn't true. Do you remember your prior post where you claimed it was Japan's stagnating economy over the last several decades explaining the prices and limited interest in Japanese "moderns"? This is a complete absurdity, as if an economy with trillions in financial assets and more from other sources can't afford to pay far more than the piddling amounts this coinage is worth. It's no different for another example I've used, 1864-1909 Bolivia Republic decimals. Even in a country which isn't as poor as commonly believed but still far less affluent than developed countries, it should be obvious to anyone with even the most basic understanding of reality that this society has the measly $1MM or so to buy all the actually marketable coins from this segment that collectors actually want to buy. There is plenty of "dreck" available locally, but it doesn't sell for more because virtually no one wants it.
The reason the price level wasn't higher before and isn't higher now is a lack of interest, not affluence. You're not the only one believing this fallacy, but there is no credibility that the non-collector aspires to increased affluence to buy coins. That's what someone has to believe to believe what you're telling me now and in typical fashion with your posts, it's completely ridiculous.
While you are at it, go look at the Ultra Wealth Report. Maybe a few percent from this group are coin collectors, and even if it's somewhat higher, it's not clearly evident in the price level. If lack of affluence is the explanation, why aren't all of these people collecting?
Seriously, how can you continue to just make this nonsense up?
Agree with your example, but while it's a common coin, I don't think it's representative of the coin market generally. I'd also agree the market is (or seems to be) strong for the types of US coins mostly collected by forum members here, but don't think it's representative of the US coin market either.
It might be true that the absolute number of coin collectors is smaller than it was in some bygone heyday. That said, there are still plenty of coin collectors, and the number pursuing the hobby with real intensity and spending accordingly seems healthy. To a certain extent it doesn't really matter if the number of collectors keeps dropping so long as those who stay keep playing like they mean it.
One thing that isn’t on the decline are the enormously long posts by @cladking
Dual-use coins -- which have both numismatic AND bullion value -- will probably increase. Morgan Silver Dollars and Saint-Gaudens gold double eagles being the obvious choices. That will increase interest, particularly as their history is spread on social media and attracts attention (that's what drew me in 20 years ago).
I would note that NFTs were red-hot for about 1 year and you don't hear anything about them now that prices for whatever they were are down 90-95%. Remember folks paying $4 MM for stuff that could be easily replicated digitally ?
He's clearly shorted MicroSoft and is trying to drive them into bankruptcy using Copilot.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Completely misses the point. Widgets Morgans aren't going through the roof. They are barely keeping up with bullion prices.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Mine was too, but I was annoyed at his post because he took mine completely out of context, again. I didn't say anything about the point he made in the post he quoted. The context of Cougar78's post to which I replied should make this obvious. My reference to "used toothbrushes" was a sarcastic analogy to buying coins as "investments".
I wouldn't necessarily equate "affluence" with broad- based disposable income. I mostly agree with what you're saying. But the percentage of potential collectors (of everything) is probably largely static. Disposable income turns them into actual collectors. Give one man $1 trillion and he may not buy a single coin. Give a million people a million dollars, and you will priceline get 50,000 of them buying coins (or whatever the percentage of possible collectors). There is a wealth effect, but it is also related to how wealth is distributed.
Cladking is probably partially right - hurts to say that. More people with more disposable income may translate into more collectors. His continue ramblings about "silver" and "silicone" (sic) is ridiculous. In the last few decades, silver and silicon have done more to concentrate wealth than distribute it.
It's no accident that coin interest in either medieval Europe or the 19th century US rose as the middle class and their disposable income rose. And, I think, at least part of the story in countries like Bolivia or Brazil is the distribution of wealth. Look at what happened to the Chinese coin and stamp (yes, stamps!) market when the middle and upper classes in China exploded this century. There was also a clear, temporary, and very significant spike in ALL collectible markets during Covid when the government distributed trillions of dollars to an idle workforce.
On a side note, the Covid spike in collectibles proves how irrational human behavior can be. Only a human could think that buying sports cards, comics, stamps and coins when "the sky is falling" is logical. [And, no, they weren't looking for "hard assets".] They should have paid down debt and bought utilitarian things. Instead, they fueled a huge bubble in collectibles.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I've never claimed that affluence isn't a necessary precondition, and you're making my point for me. It's cultural.
That's why the new prosperity in the developing world doesn't correlate to much increase in collecting. That along with the fact that there are drastic supply constraints in the supply of actually marketable coinage that collectors of any means spending any real money want to buy. The reason there are drastic supply constraints is due to the lack of historical collecting.
No one can buy what doesn't exist, and that's why there isn't going to be the increase he's previously implied because these people aren't about to spend the amounts he's implied on their "moderns", and they aren't going to be buying US or other coins in any volume either.
He's not the only one with this sentiment, but to believe it, you'd have to believe that it's only people who can't afford it who want to collect. Why aren't those who can?
It's entirely because they don't want to.
Wow, did someone suggest that we can gauge the strength of coin collecting based on the sales of 38-D Buffalos?
Heavens to Betsy, let's hope not!
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.