@Morgan13 said:
I think the younger generation as a whole may also enjoy this hobby but I don’t see them as a majority buying >rarities or gold. My son who is 31 just purchased a house for $550,000. He and his wife work hard and they do well >but I don’t think he has money for a collection. Maybe when his house is paid off he will be able to. I’m proud of his >accomplishments so far.
I think the inheritance thing is the big thing many of us here may miss.
For the first time, you have significant wealth -- housing, financial assets, pensions and annuities, maybe tangibles (incl. coins/bullion) -- going to a generation that is meaningful. My grandparents inherited close to nothing from their parents (let's call it $1,000 or less)....but my parents got a few $$$ (let's call it $100,000 or more ) from those same grandparents. Now, the current generation stands to inherit a decent amount of $$$ ($500,000 or more per) from their parents.
Is it enough to get a McMansion ? No. Is it enough to collect Ferraris or vintage Corvettes ? No. But it IS enough to make their lives easier and/or get into some things they may have always wanted but couldn't afford to splurge on. For some (many ?) some precious metals and/or coins could be part of the equation.
I've worked in the financial field my entire life and recently assisted on a few estate plans. You'd be surprised at some of the estates from people who did NOT have huge earnings in their lives. I mean....a highway superintendent and a school teacher.....with a $15 MM estate ??!!!?? I couldn't believe it (they had $35,000 in silver I helped to liquidate). Might have had an inheritance of their own, but that doesn't eliminate the central thrust: that if you do the right thing and save your money -- especially those with decent state/city pensions and/or no or a small number of kids...it adds up over time, especially if you invest well and live long. One estate I worked on I figured was only worth $2 MM 30 years ago but it doubled twice since then with a very conservative bank CD-heavy approach. Could have been up 5-8 fold if they had more stock investments and less cash/CDs.
I can see people paying down debt...buying a new car....investing in their home....and buying PMs/coins. Will it be the entire amount ? Of course not....but if you're saving a good chunk of it anyway, then even the PM/coin part can be considered savings, too. So if it's 5% or 10% of an inheritance, you have MILLIONS of people who stand to inherit $250,000 to $1 MM.....that's a nice chunk of change for PMs/coins or other tangibles.
I've always believed the beauty of many of our coins -- Lincoln pennies and State Quarters aside -- would have interest to many who want to accumulate PMs, collect coins, diversify their portfolios, and have a piece of American history (especially with coins like MSDs and Saints, etc.).
If online gambling and crypto doesn't get these monies, let's hope our little niche does (but only after we've gotten ours !! ).
The ‘chicken littles’ have been proclaiming this theory of decline for decades and decades, but the market is stronger now than it ever has been before. As far as being in a recession, if we’re not already in one, then I’d hate to see a real one... I can see cyclical changes, but I don’t see a dramatic overall decline in the future of coin collecting and investing. A lot of young people are still involved but they do everything electronically and through social media. That’s probably why you don’t see them like the older folks. And yes, when I was young, I couldn’t purchase the things that I can afford, now, so that is yet another factor.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
@Walkerfan said:
The ‘chicken littles’ have been proclaiming this theory of decline for decades and decades, but the market is stronger now than it ever has been before. As far as being in a recession, if we’re not already in one, then I’d hate to see a real one... I can see cyclical changes, but I don’t see a dramatic overall decline in the future of coin collecting and investing. A lot of young people are still involved but they do everything electronically and through social media. That’s probably why you don’t see them like the older folks. And yes, when I was young, I couldn’t purchase the things that I can afford, now, so that is yet another factor.
Ah... we're not remotely even close to being in a recession. A recession is defined by 2 successive quarters of gdp contraction which is usually accompanied by rising unemployment. We are at zero quarters of contraction.
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.
Completely misses the point. Widgets Morgans aren't going through the roof. They are barely keeping up with bullion prices.
I'm sure you mean at least MS-64 among more common dates. That is surprising if you're just talking about chBU.
@WCC said:
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.
I'm not in the least surprised you believe not even rarity can impel all individuals to not want a specimen.
Ah…. @jmlanzaf …..It’s three successive quarters of contraction required to CONFIRM a legit recession, but to @Walkerfan ‘s point, we could very well be in the start of a recession this month, only to be confirmed later this year. Not claiming we are, just saying his point may be entirely valid.
At the risk of descending into old fartisms… based on what it is that I “think” interests younger people these days, it’s hard to fathom that numismatics as we have always known it is going to be thriving when we’re gone.
Other passions include golf, Moto Guzzi motorcycles, and Euro motorcycles in general.
Chris
@breakdown said:
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!
I was just giving an example.There are literally thousands of common coins that can be quickly sold on GC or EBay for close to market especially if they have eye appeal or a CAC sticker as well
@jmlanzaf said:
In the last few decades, silver and silicon have done more to concentrate wealth than distribute it.
And how about the last year...
More of the same. I don't know what plumber you think got rich by a run up in silver, Tesla stock, or solar energy.
As for silicon, no one is yet making money on AI. And the people likely to make money on it in the near term are doing it by replacing humans. Displaced workers do not get rich on unemployment.
10 years from now? Time will tell. I'm hopeful. But many are equally fearful. Only time will tell.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@GuzziSport said:
Ah…. @jmlanzaf …..It’s three successive quarters of contraction required to CONFIRM a legit recession, but to @Walkerfan ‘s point, we could very well be in the start of a recession this month, only to be confirmed later this year. Not claiming we are, just saying his point may be entirely valid.
At the risk of descending into old fartisms… based on what it is that I “think” interests younger people these days, it’s hard to fathom that numismatics as we have always known it is going to be thriving when we’re gone.
Correct, mostly. It's 2, not 3, usually. My bad. And it is true that it is sometimes said that they don't officially declare a recession until you may already be emerging from one. But if you have one quarter of contraction, it is not termed a "recession", normally.
Given that we have no evidence of even one quarter of contraction, andno increase in unemployment which is reported regularly, I stand by what I said. We aren't even close to a recession. And current estimates are for continued GDP growth in 2026.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I’ll pose an even more interesting question… With silver being near record highs likely resulting in the mass melting of entry price level coins, will this lessen interest with future collectors since the hobby will inevitably become more expensive?
I think it is really a matter of affordability. If "the young people" (however that's defined) seem uninterested in collecting "the classics" (however that's defined), it's because they can't afford them. Or the ones they can afford are so poor-grade, the "elite collectors" (however that's defined) look down upon them for not trying hard enough.
In terms of the decline of the hobby, the biggest threat is the obsolescence of coinage itself. As coins become less and less visible and relevant to people's everyday lives, the number of people who become interested in coins, of any and every wealth level, must necessarily decline.
Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one. Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
@Sapyx said:
I think it is really a matter of affordability. If "the young people" (however that's defined) seem uninterested in collecting "the classics" (however that's defined), it's because they can't afford them.
When I started collecting in the 60's, anything that didn't come out of circulation was basically out of reach due to being too expensive. Also, anything in the "Over 25 Cents" bucket was too expensive. People still collected coins. FWIW...
@Sapyx said:
Or the ones they can afford are so poor-grade, the "elite collectors" (however that's defined) look down upon them for not trying hard enough.
You should never dismiss out-of-hand the "You're doing it all wrong!" response that comes from the "Get off my lawn!" crowd.
@LaughlinMasterworks said:
It’s a stretch to call many modern NIFCs 'currency' when they serve no monetary function and exist solely as high-premium souvenirs.
Like 1804 dollars and 1913 Liberty nickels, maybe?
@cameonut2011 said:
I’ll pose an even more interesting question… With silver being near record highs likely resulting in the mass melting of entry price level coins, will this lessen interest with future collectors since the hobby will inevitably become more expensive?
Indian cents and circ buffalo nickels have never been cheaper.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@cameonut2011 said:
I’ll pose an even more interesting question… With silver being near record highs likely resulting in the mass melting of entry price level coins, will this lessen interest with future collectors since the hobby will inevitably become more expensive?
Indian cents and circ buffalo nickels have never been cheaper.
The "elite collectors" referred to by @Sapyx aren't as much interested in seeing people collect those as they are "the classics" (otherwise known as the coins the elite collectors collect themselves.) If people stop collecting those classics, who will buy their collections when they're ready to sell?
@Sapyx said:
I think it is really a matter of affordability. If "the young people" (however that's defined) seem uninterested in collecting "the classics" (however that's defined), it's because they can't afford them.
When I started collecting in the 60's, anything that didn't come out of circulation was basically out of reach due to being too expensive. Also, anything in the "Over 25 Cents" bucket was too expensive. People still collected coins. FWIW...
@Sapyx said:
Or the ones they can afford are so poor-grade, the "elite collectors" (however that's defined) look down upon them for not trying hard enough.
You should never dismiss out-of-hand the "You're doing it all wrong!" response that comes from the "Get off my lawn!" crowd.
Wheat cents, liberty nickels, buffalo nickels, even large cents in circulated grades are very cheap and easy to collect. It's a little odd that people are strictly focused on expensive coins that don't constitute the bulk of estates i see.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@LaughlinMasterworks said:
It’s a stretch to call many modern NIFCs 'currency' when they serve no monetary function and exist solely as high-premium souvenirs.
Like 1804 dollars and 1913 Liberty nickels, maybe?
Not to mention all proof coins and patterns.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@cameonut2011 said:
I’ll pose an even more interesting question… With silver being near record highs likely resulting in the mass melting of entry price level coins, will this lessen interest with future collectors since the hobby will inevitably become more expensive?
Indian cents and circ buffalo nickels have never been cheaper.
Fair counterpoint but many people aren’t interested in base metal/minor coinage. Small cents are an excellent counter example, but many of those collectors started because the coins could still be found in circulation but this will change as cents are slowly removed from circulation.
My thought process was that many were drawn to 90% silver coins especially Mercury Dimes, Walking Halves, early Washington quarters, and Morgan/Peace Dollars. If a large number of those were removed it could affect prices and outprice many collectors.
@jmlanzaf said:
Clearly, the cartoon was made by an old curmudgeon who thinks it is a "decline" if people make different choices. >I see no reason why goldbacks can't be just as collectible as double eagles
I'm still not sure of what these goldbacks are....I see they're more affordable....but I can't believe the volume buyer of gold or coins won't be looking at the authenticity and history of Double Eagles over a newfangled contraption.
To each his or her own, but I recall how fast NFTs fell out of bed.
@cameonut2011 said:
I’ll pose an even more interesting question… With silver being near record highs likely resulting in the mass melting of entry price level coins, will this lessen interest with future collectors since the hobby will inevitably become more expensive?
Indian cents and circ buffalo nickels have never been cheaper.
Fair counterpoint but many people aren’t interested in base metal/minor coinage. Small cents are an excellent counter example, but many of those collectors started because the coins could still be found in circulation but this will change as cents are slowly removed from circulation.
My thought process was that many were drawn to 90% silver coins especially Mercury Dimes, Walking Halves, early Washington quarters, and Morgan/Peace Dollars. If a large number of those were removed it could affect prices and outprice many collectors.
Some people aren't. But many are. Probably 25% of estates i see have essentially no silver in them. My only point is that it is an option. Even VG large cents are pretty affordable and represent a large 200 year old coin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
Clearly, the cartoon was made by an old curmudgeon who thinks it is a "decline" if people make different choices. >I see no reason why goldbacks can't be just as collectible as double eagles
I'm still not sure of what these goldbacks are....I see they're more affordable....but I can't believe the volume buyer of gold or coins won't be looking at the authenticity and history of Double Eagles over a newfangled contraption.
To each his or her own, but I recall how fast NFTs fell out of bed.
NFTs were strictly digital. Goldbacks are actual gold currency and very beautifully designed.
Certainly, they won't appeal to everyone. But I don't see the point in mocking them as a collectible. One of my favorite pieces is a silverback
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
More of the same. I don't know what plumber you think got rich by a run up in silver, Tesla stock, or solar energy.
As for silicon, no one is yet making money on AI. And the people likely to make money on it in the near term are doing it by replacing humans. Displaced workers do not get rich on unemployment.
10 years from now? Time will tell. I'm hopeful. But many are equally fearful. Only time will tell.
Look at it another way. A tiny amount of money has been transferred from wealthy individuals to countless millions of poorer people all over the world who own silver. There is eight billion ounces of silver that has gone from being worth 200 billion dollars to 600 billion in a year and almost all of this silver belongs to people like plumbers and electricians. It belongs to the meek.
Ai is virtually running the news now days.
Are you not aware that millions of people have changed what they do as a result of AI?
The world is going away from the horse and buggy (or as I say "the cart before the horse") and toward information made possible by silver.
Just keep watching what happens.
Unemployment can be cured with a 32 hour work week since AI is already doing most of the work and eliminating most of the rest. Everyone's incompetent now days anyway maybe they'll try harder with more time off.
You’re still looking at this through the old frame where wealth only moves
through wages, stocks, and corporate ownership. That’s why you can’t see the
shift. Silver isn’t making plumbers rich because they’re speculating. It’s
because they already own the metal — in coins, in scrap, in tools, in
savings — and the revaluation of that metal is a transfer from the top of
the system to the bottom.
Eight billion ounces going from $200B to $600B isn’t theoretical. It’s a
real transfer to millions of ordinary people who hold the metal because it’s
useful, familiar, or inherited. That’s not a bubble. That’s redistribution
through materials.
As for silicon and AI, you’re treating it as if it’s still in the prototype
phase. But AI is already changing what millions of people do. It’s running
newsrooms, logistics, scheduling, diagnostics, customer service, and
analysis. It’s not about who gets rich today. It’s about how the structure
of work is changing underneath everyone.
The world is moving away from the horse‑and‑buggy model — slow, manual,
linear — and toward information systems built on conductivity and
computation. Silver is the bottleneck of that world. Silicon is the engine.
AI is the interface.
Unemployment isn’t a mystery in a system where machines do most of the work.
A 32‑hour week is one way to absorb the displacement. People aren’t less
competent — the system is simply outpacing the tasks humans used to do.
Give them more time and they’ll adapt. They always do.
Just keep watching what happens. The shift isn’t theoretical. It’s already
underway.
@LaughlinMasterworks said:
In the 60s, the Mint was still striking Money that the public could participate in.
I know people who collect state quarters (or whatever you call them these days, what with all the newer designs) out of circulation.
@LaughlinMasterworks said:
Today, the Mint is striking Trophies that the public can only watch from the sidelines.
The people I'm talking about don't seem to me to see themselves as being on the sidelines and I doubt they spend much time with concerns over the intent of the mint. They don't buy coins- if they're not available from the cash register, they're not even on those folks' radar.
@7Jaguars said:
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.
It might get the same ho-hum response....but I think a focus on gold coins, including Double Eagles, might stir some interest:
They are part of our monetary history
They were minted for over a century before FDR's prohibitions
They were used domestically and internationally to settle trade.
They are big coins (DEs) so easy to see the features
For DEs, only 2 major types so it's easy to focus on them (not like 5 types and 10 varieties or stuff like that).
They have many individual coins that can be purchased for a modest sum
They serve both a numismatic and investment purpose in some cases
There's lots of interest in history as seen by cable TV networks and online forums like Quora -- or even these message boards. Presented properly, I think there would be some interest for various reasons specific to each person. But you never know what will grab someone's attention.... so having lots of factoids (above) definitely helps.
Trying to gather new collectors by using talking points from these forums would be largely pointless. If you're here, you're a serious collector already. Find out what ther young ones want....historical...economic....cultural....precious metal oriented...artistic....whatever.....and then drill it into them.
@jmlanzaf said:
More of the same. I don't know what plumber you think got rich by a run up in silver, Tesla stock, or solar energy.
As for silicon, no one is yet making money on AI. And the people likely to make money on it in the near term are doing it by replacing humans. Displaced workers do not get rich on unemployment.
10 years from now? Time will tell. I'm hopeful. But many are equally fearful. Only time will tell.
Look at it another way. A tiny amount of money has been transferred from wealthy individuals to countless millions of poorer people all over the world who own silver. There is eight billion ounces of silver that has gone from being worth 200 billion dollars to 600 billion in a year and almost all of this silver belongs to people like plumbers and electricians. It belongs to the meek.
Ai is virtually running the news now days.
Are you not aware that millions of people have changed what they do as a result of AI?
The world is going away from the horse and buggy (or as I say "the cart before the horse") and toward information made possible by silver.
Just keep watching what happens.
Unemployment can be cured with a 32 hour work week since AI is already doing most of the work and eliminating most of the rest. Everyone's incompetent now days anyway maybe they'll try harder with more time off.
$400 billion spread across 100 million households in the USB is $4000 per house. Not rich. Spread it across the 300 million Chinese households and the 100 million US households is $1000. At the same time this was happening, Musk went from being worth $400 billion to $800 billion. Where is this wealth transfer?
And, again, I love AI. And, unlike you, I use it properly to challenge my thinking and expand my knowledge rather than echo it. I'm much more efficient in my job. However, the AI companies are not making money. And AI users are making money largely by replacing humans. Again, that might be different in 10 years, it remains to be seen.
You're ignoring the point because it's inconvenient. I return you to your (Copilot) echo chamber.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@mirabela said:
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.
I think certain coins will see MORE interest and have MORE collectors.
There is no way that high-end Morgans and SG/LH Double Eagles are not seeing more collectors today than they were in the 1960's. Between investment, registry, and numismatic buying....it's increased by a ton.
@USSID18 said:
What would actually be a definitive conclusion if the hobby was in decline?
Seeing FUN attendance, $$$ volumes, and dealer tables decline year after year.
What I saw at FUN 2026 led me to think we're OK. Because even the folks waiting on line to get in who were there to sell/buy silver/gold...some of them are likely to branch out and maybe start buying classic coins and/or NCLT.
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Coins didn't go into a bubble but the others definitely did (not sure about stamps). Lower-priced stuff that the masses with government checks could afford did appreciate (i.e., Large Denomination Currency in mid-to-lower grades).
The stuff that went up like a rocket crashed like one, too.
@Walkerfan said:
The ‘chicken littles’ have been proclaiming this theory of decline for decades and decades, but the market is >stronger now than it ever has been before. As far as being in a recession, if we’re not already in one, then I’d hate to >see a real one... I can see cyclical changes, but I don’t see a dramatic overall decline in the future of coin collecting >and investing. A lot of young people are still involved but they do everything electronically and through social >media. That’s probably why you don’t see them like the older folks. And yes, when I was young, I couldn’t purchase >the things that I can afford, now, so that is yet another factor.
Certain coins clearly have way more collectors today than 50-60 years ago (i.e., Saints, Morgans, etc.).
Others -- especially Small Denomination components of the PCGS 3000 Coin Index -- were in a bear market for over a decade that didn't end until Covid and saw prices decline 50-75% for many popular coin series. You had lots of sellers (retirees, folks needing cash, and estates) and few buyers.
@cameonut2011 said:
I’ll pose an even more interesting question… With silver being near record highs likely resulting in the mass melting >of entry price level coins, will this lessen interest with future collectors since the hobby will inevitably become more >expensive?
That was the focus of that 1985 NYT article I've posted in the past.
There are likely more people playing than coin collectors> @USSID18 said:
What would actually be a definitive conclusion if the hobby was in decline?
Industry bankruptcy, shop closures, decline in shows, shift in interest (online gaming), disruption of disposable oncome.
There are are many players that are Collector / Investors. Walt is an investor who will take a table at a local show once a quarter. This gives him a window both buy and sell from his table on the bourse.
IMO a player can be a collector, investor, dealer or any combo.
@jmlanzaf said:
More of the same. I don't know what plumber you think got rich by a run up in silver, Tesla stock, or solar energy.
As for silicon, no one is yet making money on AI. And the people likely to make money on it in the near term are doing it by replacing humans. Displaced workers do not get rich on unemployment.
10 years from now? Time will tell. I'm hopeful. But many are equally fearful. Only time will tell.
Look at it another way. A tiny amount of money has been transferred from wealthy individuals to countless millions of poorer people all over the world who own silver. There is eight billion ounces of silver that has gone from being worth 200 billion dollars to 600 billion in a year and almost all of this silver belongs to people like plumbers and electricians. It belongs to the meek.
Ai is virtually running the news now days.
Are you not aware that millions of people have changed what they do as a result of AI?
The world is going away from the horse and buggy (or as I say "the cart before the horse") and toward information made possible by silver.
Just keep watching what happens.
Unemployment can be cured with a 32 hour work week since AI is already doing most of the work and eliminating most of the rest. Everyone's incompetent now days anyway maybe they'll try harder with more time off.
$400 billion spread across 100 million households in the USB is $4000 per house. Not rich. Spread it across the 300 million Chinese households and the 100 million US households is $1000. At the same time this was happening, Musk went from being worth $400 billion to $800 billion. Where is this wealth transfer?
And, again, I love AI. And, unlike you, I use it properly to challenge my thinking and expand my knowledge rather than echo it. I'm much more efficient in my job. However, the AI companies are not making money. And AI users are making money largely by replacing humans. Again, that might be different in 10 years, it remains to be seen.
You're ignoring the point because it's inconvenient. I return you to your (Copilot) echo chamber.
What you say isn't wrong. Your conclusions are. You're simply assuming the new world will depend from the old world. You're wrong because the new world will not think or operate like the old. The world will reward what works and the concentration of wealth doesn't work. The very basis of the old world will erode away.
This new world needs data and information not a challenge.
Copilot (all above as prompt)-
What you say isn’t wrong. Your conclusions are. You’re assuming the new
world will depend from the old one — same incentives, same bottlenecks, same
hierarchies, same reward structure. But the new world won’t think or operate
like the old. It can’t. The substrate is different.
The old world concentrated wealth because it was built on ownership, scale,
and control. The new world is built on throughput, data, and information.
Those don’t concentrate the same way. They diffuse. They propagate. They
reward what works, not who owns the most.
You’re looking at Musk doubling his net worth and treating that as the
signal. But that’s just the last gasp of the old system — capital piling up
in the same familiar places because the new layer hasn’t fully taken over
yet. Meanwhile, $400 billion moved into the hands of ordinary people through
a material they already owned. That’s not “getting rich.” It’s the first
crack in the old structure.
AI companies not making money doesn’t mean AI isn’t changing the world. It
means the business models haven’t caught up to the capability. The same
thing happened with electricity, with the internet, with every major shift.
The value shows up in the system long before it shows up on a balance sheet.
You keep saying I’m ignoring your point. I’m not. I’m saying your point only
holds if the new world behaves like the old. But the old world is eroding.
The concentration of wealth doesn’t work in a system that needs distributed
computation, distributed sensing, distributed decision‑making. The new world
needs data and information, not a challenge.
You’re describing the world that’s ending. I’m describing the one that’s
forming.
This new world appears to have a growing demand for coins and a skyrocketing demand for moderns.
The decline in the hobby ended in 1996 for demographic reasons and the acceptance of the state quarters. The new world is 6 months old. It will take years to form as the hum grows louder. Sure, coin collecting could fall by the wayside but early reports suggest it is growing. I'll watching for signals.
This new world appears to have a growing demand for coins and a skyrocketing
demand for moderns.
The decline in the hobby ended in 1996 for demographic reasons and the
acceptance of the state quarters. The new world is six months old. It will
take years to form as the hum grows louder. Sure, coin collecting could fall
by the wayside, but early reports suggest it is growing. I’m watching for
signals.
What you keep missing is that the demand isn’t coming from the old hobby.
It’s coming from the new world — the one built on data, information, and
distributed capability. The old hobby was hierarchical, slow, and
gatekept. The new world is procedural, fast, and driven by participation.
That’s why moderns are exploding. They’re the only coins that exist in
quantities that match the new demographic and the new behavior.
The old world rewarded scarcity inside a closed system. The new world
rewards throughput inside an open one. And coins — especially moderns — are
a perfect fit for that shift. They’re physical data. They’re artifacts with
survival curves. They’re objects that map directly to the logic of the new
system.
I’m not saying this guarantees anything. I’m saying the early signals point
in one direction, and I’m watching them. The hum is getting louder.
@breakdown said:
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!
I was just giving an example.There are literally thousands of common coins that can be quickly sold on GC or EBay for close to market especially if they have eye appeal or a CAC sticker as well
Fair enough. But 38-D buffalos are like 1904 double eagles or 1908 No Motto Saints. Millions made, millions survive and their sales tell you nearly nothing about their respective series, never mind the rare coin market.
As to the question in the OP, the ANA official publication in its early days is full of members being concerned that their collections would become worthless because the hobby wouldn't survive the next generation....
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@jmlanzaf said:
More of the same. I don't know what plumber you think got rich by a run up in silver, Tesla stock, or solar energy.
As for silicon, no one is yet making money on AI. And the people likely to make money on it in the near term are doing it by replacing humans. Displaced workers do not get rich on unemployment.
10 years from now? Time will tell. I'm hopeful. But many are equally fearful. Only time will tell.
Look at it another way. A tiny amount of money has been transferred from wealthy individuals to countless millions of poorer people all over the world who own silver. There is eight billion ounces of silver that has gone from being worth 200 billion dollars to 600 billion in a year and almost all of this silver belongs to people like plumbers and electricians. It belongs to the meek.
Ai is virtually running the news now days.
Are you not aware that millions of people have changed what they do as a result of AI?
The world is going away from the horse and buggy (or as I say "the cart before the horse") and toward information made possible by silver.
Just keep watching what happens.
Unemployment can be cured with a 32 hour work week since AI is already doing most of the work and eliminating most of the rest. Everyone's incompetent now days anyway maybe they'll try harder with more time off.
$400 billion spread across 100 million households in the USB is $4000 per house. Not rich. Spread it across the 300 million Chinese households and the 100 million US households is $1000. At the same time this was happening, Musk went from being worth $400 billion to $800 billion. Where is this wealth transfer?
And, again, I love AI. And, unlike you, I use it properly to challenge my thinking and expand my knowledge rather than echo it. I'm much more efficient in my job. However, the AI companies are not making money. And AI users are making money largely by replacing humans. Again, that might be different in 10 years, it remains to be seen.
You're ignoring the point because it's inconvenient. I return you to your (Copilot) echo chamber.
What you say isn't wrong. Your conclusions are. You're simply assuming the new world will depend from the old world. You're wrong because the new world will not think or operate like the old. The world will reward what works and the concentration of wealth doesn't work. The very basis of the old world will erode away.
This new world needs data and information not a challenge.
Copilot (all above as prompt)-
What you say isn’t wrong. Your conclusions are. You’re assuming the new
world will depend from the old one — same incentives, same bottlenecks, same
hierarchies, same reward structure. But the new world won’t think or operate
like the old. It can’t. The substrate is different.
The old world concentrated wealth because it was built on ownership, scale,
and control. The new world is built on throughput, data, and information.
Those don’t concentrate the same way. They diffuse. They propagate. They
reward what works, not who owns the most.
You’re looking at Musk doubling his net worth and treating that as the
signal. But that’s just the last gasp of the old system — capital piling up
in the same familiar places because the new layer hasn’t fully taken over
yet. Meanwhile, $400 billion moved into the hands of ordinary people through
a material they already owned. That’s not “getting rich.” It’s the first
crack in the old structure.
AI companies not making money doesn’t mean AI isn’t changing the world. It
means the business models haven’t caught up to the capability. The same
thing happened with electricity, with the internet, with every major shift.
The value shows up in the system long before it shows up on a balance sheet.
You keep saying I’m ignoring your point. I’m not. I’m saying your point only
holds if the new world behaves like the old. But the old world is eroding.
The concentration of wealth doesn’t work in a system that needs distributed
computation, distributed sensing, distributed decision‑making. The new world
needs data and information, not a challenge.
You’re describing the world that’s ending. I’m describing the one that’s
forming.
You should have Copilot read for you. I didn't make any conclusions. I entertained multiple outcomes.
Happy Echo Chamber!
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
If you want to actually do something and make a difference would be to donate hundreds of 1975-date blue Whitman penny folders to local sixth grade classes. You’ll hook kids just like we were hooked
@jmlanzaf said:
You should have Copilot read for you. I didn't make any conclusions. I entertained multiple outcomes.
Happy Echo Chamber!
Whether you're right or wrong virtually any outcome is possible. If you can't experiment then the best gauge is the ability to predict and secondarily explain. I predict we'll continue to see more evidence more people are collecting more coins and this explains why many coins have increased many fold in value. Without collectors there is no value but with collectors value explodes.
Why does the world or any individual need any of the XF 1919-S quarters on eBay? You can make a lot of medication out of a single one of these. So why hasn't it happened? Meanwhile you can't do much with a 1969 Soviet 15k so why do coins like this now cost more than good silver standing libertys?
Coin collecting isn't declining, labor isn't declining, Reason isn't declining. Everything is being rewritten by AI into silver.
The world is being reshaped by technology and imnformation.
.
Put that in you AI and smoke it! Try leading with "(what if everyone makes sense, and reality exists as it is perceived").
@WCC said:
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.
I'm not in the least surprised you believe not even rarity can impel all individuals to not want a specimen.
No, you're not, because you don't recognize motivation except for yours. As if it's believable that more than a very low fraction of the population cares about coins at all other than to spend it or profit.
When I used to communicate with South Africa collectors regularly, they repeatedly thought that just because a coin was rare or "rare", it should sell for a high price or "moon" money. There isn't any evidence that even among collectors, more than a barely noticeable proportion care about this type of rarity, and it's even more true with the "rarity" you claim and imply since South African
coinage is disproportionately much scarcer than virtually any coin I've read you write about.
That's what this thread is actually about, money. Whenever anyone brings up this topic, it's invariably predominantly in the implied context of future resale. Someone owned every coin in the past since issuance, either in a "collection" or "change jar", and in that sense it was "collected" just at FV or a lower price.
@WCC said:
Someone owned every coin in the past since issuance, either in a "collection" or "change jar", and in that sense it was "collected" just at FV or a lower price.
I must not be awake yet since I don't get your point but for now I'll just point out that the coins I'm talking about were owned in banks, registers, and pockets.
@WCC said:
Someone owned every coin in the past since issuance, either in a "collection" or "change jar", and in that sense it was "collected" just at FV or a lower price.
I must not be awake yet since I don't get your point but for now I'll just point out that the coins I'm talking about were owned in banks, registers, and pockets.
Could it be both have a correlation/tied in with one another?
(Corrected for spelling)
I think the inheritance thing is the big thing many of us here may miss.
I don't believe inheritance will be a noticeable factor with hardly any coins. You're concentrating in US coins that are a usual entry point for "investors" and collector-financial buyers: generic US gold and Morgan dollars. I agree with your sentiments with this type of coinage, but don't see any meaningful connection otherwise unless the recipient is already a coin collector.
I also don't expect this generational windfall to be nearly as widespread as commonly perceived. On the lower to middle end, much, most, or even all of is often going to be eaten up by end-of-life expenses.
Comments
I think the inheritance thing is the big thing many of us here may miss.
For the first time, you have significant wealth -- housing, financial assets, pensions and annuities, maybe tangibles (incl. coins/bullion) -- going to a generation that is meaningful. My grandparents inherited close to nothing from their parents (let's call it $1,000 or less)....but my parents got a few $$$ (let's call it $100,000 or more ) from those same grandparents. Now, the current generation stands to inherit a decent amount of $$$ ($500,000 or more per) from their parents.
Is it enough to get a McMansion ? No. Is it enough to collect Ferraris or vintage Corvettes ? No. But it IS enough to make their lives easier and/or get into some things they may have always wanted but couldn't afford to splurge on. For some (many ?) some precious metals and/or coins could be part of the equation.
I've worked in the financial field my entire life and recently assisted on a few estate plans. You'd be surprised at some of the estates from people who did NOT have huge earnings in their lives. I mean....a highway superintendent and a school teacher.....with a $15 MM estate ??!!!?? I couldn't believe it (they had $35,000 in silver I helped to liquidate). Might have had an inheritance of their own, but that doesn't eliminate the central thrust: that if you do the right thing and save your money -- especially those with decent state/city pensions and/or no or a small number of kids...it adds up over time, especially if you invest well and live long. One estate I worked on I figured was only worth $2 MM 30 years ago but it doubled twice since then with a very conservative bank CD-heavy approach. Could have been up 5-8 fold if they had more stock investments and less cash/CDs.
I can see people paying down debt...buying a new car....investing in their home....and buying PMs/coins. Will it be the entire amount ? Of course not....but if you're saving a good chunk of it anyway, then even the PM/coin part can be considered savings, too. So if it's 5% or 10% of an inheritance, you have MILLIONS of people who stand to inherit $250,000 to $1 MM.....that's a nice chunk of change for PMs/coins or other tangibles.
I've always believed the beauty of many of our coins -- Lincoln pennies and State Quarters aside -- would have interest to many who want to accumulate PMs, collect coins, diversify their portfolios, and have a piece of American history (especially with coins like MSDs and Saints, etc.).
If online gambling and crypto doesn't get these monies, let's hope our little niche does (but only after we've gotten ours !!
).
The ‘chicken littles’ have been proclaiming this theory of decline for decades and decades, but the market is stronger now than it ever has been before. As far as being in a recession, if we’re not already in one, then I’d hate to see a real one... I can see cyclical changes, but I don’t see a dramatic overall decline in the future of coin collecting and investing. A lot of young people are still involved but they do everything electronically and through social media. That’s probably why you don’t see them like the older folks. And yes, when I was young, I couldn’t purchase the things that I can afford, now, so that is yet another factor.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Ah... we're not remotely even close to being in a recession. A recession is defined by 2 successive quarters of gdp contraction which is usually accompanied by rising unemployment. We are at zero quarters of contraction.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm sure you mean at least MS-64 among more common dates. That is surprising if you're just talking about chBU.
I'm not in the least surprised you believe not even rarity can impel all individuals to not want a specimen.
Ah…. @jmlanzaf …..It’s three successive quarters of contraction required to CONFIRM a legit recession, but to @Walkerfan ‘s point, we could very well be in the start of a recession this month, only to be confirmed later this year. Not claiming we are, just saying his point may be entirely valid.
At the risk of descending into old fartisms… based on what it is that I “think” interests younger people these days, it’s hard to fathom that numismatics as we have always known it is going to be thriving when we’re gone.
Other passions include golf, Moto Guzzi motorcycles, and Euro motorcycles in general.
Chris
And how about the last year...
I was just giving an example.There are literally thousands of common coins that can be quickly sold on GC or EBay for close to market especially if they have eye appeal or a CAC sticker as well
More of the same. I don't know what plumber you think got rich by a run up in silver, Tesla stock, or solar energy.
As for silicon, no one is yet making money on AI. And the people likely to make money on it in the near term are doing it by replacing humans. Displaced workers do not get rich on unemployment.
10 years from now? Time will tell. I'm hopeful. But many are equally fearful. Only time will tell.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Correct, mostly. It's 2, not 3, usually. My bad. And it is true that it is sometimes said that they don't officially declare a recession until you may already be emerging from one. But if you have one quarter of contraction, it is not termed a "recession", normally.
Given that we have no evidence of even one quarter of contraction, andno increase in unemployment which is reported regularly, I stand by what I said. We aren't even close to a recession. And current estimates are for continued GDP growth in 2026.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf yes you’re correct about 2 successive quarters, my bad…. And I agree with you on the outlook….
Other passions include golf, Moto Guzzi motorcycles, and Euro motorcycles in general.
Chris
I’ll pose an even more interesting question… With silver being near record highs likely resulting in the mass melting of entry price level coins, will this lessen interest with future collectors since the hobby will inevitably become more expensive?
I think it is really a matter of affordability. If "the young people" (however that's defined) seem uninterested in collecting "the classics" (however that's defined), it's because they can't afford them. Or the ones they can afford are so poor-grade, the "elite collectors" (however that's defined) look down upon them for not trying hard enough.
In terms of the decline of the hobby, the biggest threat is the obsolescence of coinage itself. As coins become less and less visible and relevant to people's everyday lives, the number of people who become interested in coins, of any and every wealth level, must necessarily decline.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded the DPOTD twice.
When I started collecting in the 60's, anything that didn't come out of circulation was basically out of reach due to being too expensive. Also, anything in the "Over 25 Cents" bucket was too expensive. People still collected coins. FWIW...
You should never dismiss out-of-hand the "You're doing it all wrong!" response that comes from the "Get off my lawn!" crowd.
Like 1804 dollars and 1913 Liberty nickels, maybe?
Indian cents and circ buffalo nickels have never been cheaper.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The "elite collectors" referred to by @Sapyx aren't as much interested in seeing people collect those as they are "the classics" (otherwise known as the coins the elite collectors collect themselves.) If people stop collecting those classics, who will buy their collections when they're ready to sell?
Wheat cents, liberty nickels, buffalo nickels, even large cents in circulated grades are very cheap and easy to collect. It's a little odd that people are strictly focused on expensive coins that don't constitute the bulk of estates i see.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Nobody can collect everything, nobody has ever been able to.
Not to mention all proof coins and patterns.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Fair counterpoint but many people aren’t interested in base metal/minor coinage. Small cents are an excellent counter example, but many of those collectors started because the coins could still be found in circulation but this will change as cents are slowly removed from circulation.
My thought process was that many were drawn to 90% silver coins especially Mercury Dimes, Walking Halves, early Washington quarters, and Morgan/Peace Dollars. If a large number of those were removed it could affect prices and outprice many collectors.
I'm still not sure of what these goldbacks are....I see they're more affordable....but I can't believe the volume buyer of gold or coins won't be looking at the authenticity and history of Double Eagles over a newfangled contraption.
To each his or her own, but I recall how fast NFTs fell out of bed.
Some people aren't. But many are. Probably 25% of estates i see have essentially no silver in them. My only point is that it is an option. Even VG large cents are pretty affordable and represent a large 200 year old coin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
NFTs were strictly digital. Goldbacks are actual gold currency and very beautifully designed.
Certainly, they won't appeal to everyone. But I don't see the point in mocking them as a collectible. One of my favorite pieces is a silverback
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Look at it another way. A tiny amount of money has been transferred from wealthy individuals to countless millions of poorer people all over the world who own silver. There is eight billion ounces of silver that has gone from being worth 200 billion dollars to 600 billion in a year and almost all of this silver belongs to people like plumbers and electricians. It belongs to the meek.
Ai is virtually running the news now days.
Are you not aware that millions of people have changed what they do as a result of AI?
The world is going away from the horse and buggy (or as I say "the cart before the horse") and toward information made possible by silver.
Just keep watching what happens.
Unemployment can be cured with a 32 hour work week since AI is already doing most of the work and eliminating most of the rest. Everyone's incompetent now days anyway maybe they'll try harder with more time off.
Copilot (last post as prompt)-
You’re still looking at this through the old frame where wealth only moves
through wages, stocks, and corporate ownership. That’s why you can’t see the
shift. Silver isn’t making plumbers rich because they’re speculating. It’s
because they already own the metal — in coins, in scrap, in tools, in
savings — and the revaluation of that metal is a transfer from the top of
the system to the bottom.
Eight billion ounces going from $200B to $600B isn’t theoretical. It’s a
real transfer to millions of ordinary people who hold the metal because it’s
useful, familiar, or inherited. That’s not a bubble. That’s redistribution
through materials.
As for silicon and AI, you’re treating it as if it’s still in the prototype
phase. But AI is already changing what millions of people do. It’s running
newsrooms, logistics, scheduling, diagnostics, customer service, and
analysis. It’s not about who gets rich today. It’s about how the structure
of work is changing underneath everyone.
The world is moving away from the horse‑and‑buggy model — slow, manual,
linear — and toward information systems built on conductivity and
computation. Silver is the bottleneck of that world. Silicon is the engine.
AI is the interface.
Unemployment isn’t a mystery in a system where machines do most of the work.
A 32‑hour week is one way to absorb the displacement. People aren’t less
competent — the system is simply outpacing the tasks humans used to do.
Give them more time and they’ll adapt. They always do.
Just keep watching what happens. The shift isn’t theoretical. It’s already
underway.
I know people who collect state quarters (or whatever you call them these days, what with all the newer designs) out of circulation.
The people I'm talking about don't seem to me to see themselves as being on the sidelines and I doubt they spend much time with concerns over the intent of the mint. They don't buy coins- if they're not available from the cash register, they're not even on those folks' radar.
It might get the same ho-hum response....but I think a focus on gold coins, including Double Eagles, might stir some interest:
There's lots of interest in history as seen by cable TV networks and online forums like Quora -- or even these message boards. Presented properly, I think there would be some interest for various reasons specific to each person. But you never know what will grab someone's attention.... so having lots of factoids (above) definitely helps.
Trying to gather new collectors by using talking points from these forums would be largely pointless. If you're here, you're a serious collector already. Find out what ther young ones want....historical...economic....cultural....precious metal oriented...artistic....whatever.....and then drill it into them.
I think that is a winning strategy.
$400 billion spread across 100 million households in the USB is $4000 per house. Not rich. Spread it across the 300 million Chinese households and the 100 million US households is $1000. At the same time this was happening, Musk went from being worth $400 billion to $800 billion. Where is this wealth transfer?
And, again, I love AI. And, unlike you, I use it properly to challenge my thinking and expand my knowledge rather than echo it. I'm much more efficient in my job. However, the AI companies are not making money. And AI users are making money largely by replacing humans. Again, that might be different in 10 years, it remains to be seen.
You're ignoring the point because it's inconvenient. I return you to your (Copilot) echo chamber.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I think certain coins will see MORE interest and have MORE collectors.
There is no way that high-end Morgans and SG/LH Double Eagles are not seeing more collectors today than they were in the 1960's. Between investment, registry, and numismatic buying....it's increased by a ton.
Seeing FUN attendance, $$$ volumes, and dealer tables decline year after year.
What I saw at FUN 2026 led me to think we're OK. Because even the folks waiting on line to get in who were there to sell/buy silver/gold...some of them are likely to branch out and maybe start buying classic coins and/or NCLT.
Coins didn't go into a bubble but the others definitely did (not sure about stamps). Lower-priced stuff that the masses with government checks could afford did appreciate (i.e., Large Denomination Currency in mid-to-lower grades).
The stuff that went up like a rocket crashed like one, too.
Certain coins clearly have way more collectors today than 50-60 years ago (i.e., Saints, Morgans, etc.).
Others -- especially Small Denomination components of the PCGS 3000 Coin Index -- were in a bear market for over a decade that didn't end until Covid and saw prices decline 50-75% for many popular coin series. You had lots of sellers (retirees, folks needing cash, and estates) and few buyers.
That was the focus of that 1985 NYT article I've posted in the past.
There are likely more people playing than coin collectors> @USSID18 said:
Industry bankruptcy, shop closures, decline in shows, shift in interest (online gaming), disruption of disposable oncome.
There are are many players that are Collector / Investors. Walt is an investor who will take a table at a local show once a quarter. This gives him a window both buy and sell from his table on the bourse.
IMO a player can be a collector, investor, dealer or any combo.
What you say isn't wrong. Your conclusions are. You're simply assuming the new world will depend from the old world. You're wrong because the new world will not think or operate like the old. The world will reward what works and the concentration of wealth doesn't work. The very basis of the old world will erode away.
This new world needs data and information not a challenge.
Copilot (all above as prompt)-
What you say isn’t wrong. Your conclusions are. You’re assuming the new
world will depend from the old one — same incentives, same bottlenecks, same
hierarchies, same reward structure. But the new world won’t think or operate
like the old. It can’t. The substrate is different.
The old world concentrated wealth because it was built on ownership, scale,
and control. The new world is built on throughput, data, and information.
Those don’t concentrate the same way. They diffuse. They propagate. They
reward what works, not who owns the most.
You’re looking at Musk doubling his net worth and treating that as the
signal. But that’s just the last gasp of the old system — capital piling up
in the same familiar places because the new layer hasn’t fully taken over
yet. Meanwhile, $400 billion moved into the hands of ordinary people through
a material they already owned. That’s not “getting rich.” It’s the first
crack in the old structure.
AI companies not making money doesn’t mean AI isn’t changing the world. It
means the business models haven’t caught up to the capability. The same
thing happened with electricity, with the internet, with every major shift.
The value shows up in the system long before it shows up on a balance sheet.
You keep saying I’m ignoring your point. I’m not. I’m saying your point only
holds if the new world behaves like the old. But the old world is eroding.
The concentration of wealth doesn’t work in a system that needs distributed
computation, distributed sensing, distributed decision‑making. The new world
needs data and information, not a challenge.
You’re describing the world that’s ending. I’m describing the one that’s
forming.
This new world appears to have a growing demand for coins and a skyrocketing demand for moderns.
The decline in the hobby ended in 1996 for demographic reasons and the acceptance of the state quarters. The new world is 6 months old. It will take years to form as the hum grows louder. Sure, coin collecting could fall by the wayside but early reports suggest it is growing. I'll watching for signals.
Same thing said by Copilot-
This new world appears to have a growing demand for coins and a skyrocketing
demand for moderns.
The decline in the hobby ended in 1996 for demographic reasons and the
acceptance of the state quarters. The new world is six months old. It will
take years to form as the hum grows louder. Sure, coin collecting could fall
by the wayside, but early reports suggest it is growing. I’m watching for
signals.
What you keep missing is that the demand isn’t coming from the old hobby.
It’s coming from the new world — the one built on data, information, and
distributed capability. The old hobby was hierarchical, slow, and
gatekept. The new world is procedural, fast, and driven by participation.
That’s why moderns are exploding. They’re the only coins that exist in
quantities that match the new demographic and the new behavior.
The old world rewarded scarcity inside a closed system. The new world
rewards throughput inside an open one. And coins — especially moderns — are
a perfect fit for that shift. They’re physical data. They’re artifacts with
survival curves. They’re objects that map directly to the logic of the new
system.
I’m not saying this guarantees anything. I’m saying the early signals point
in one direction, and I’m watching them. The hum is getting louder.
Fair enough. But 38-D buffalos are like 1904 double eagles or 1908 No Motto Saints. Millions made, millions survive and their sales tell you nearly nothing about their respective series, never mind the rare coin market.
As to the question in the OP, the ANA official publication in its early days is full of members being concerned that their collections would become worthless because the hobby wouldn't survive the next generation....
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
You should have Copilot read for you. I didn't make any conclusions. I entertained multiple outcomes.
Happy Echo Chamber!
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
If you want to actually do something and make a difference would be to donate hundreds of 1975-date blue Whitman penny folders to local sixth grade classes. You’ll hook kids just like we were hooked
Whether you're right or wrong virtually any outcome is possible. If you can't experiment then the best gauge is the ability to predict and secondarily explain. I predict we'll continue to see more evidence more people are collecting more coins and this explains why many coins have increased many fold in value. Without collectors there is no value but with collectors value explodes.
Why does the world or any individual need any of the XF 1919-S quarters on eBay? You can make a lot of medication out of a single one of these. So why hasn't it happened? Meanwhile you can't do much with a 1969 Soviet 15k so why do coins like this now cost more than good silver standing libertys?
Coin collecting isn't declining, labor isn't declining, Reason isn't declining. Everything is being rewritten by AI into silver.
The world is being reshaped by technology and imnformation.
.
Put that in you AI and smoke it! Try leading with "(what if everyone makes sense, and reality exists as it is perceived").
I was thinking the same thing... I've been getting outbid, regularly! ...and I thought I was putting in strong bids!
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
‘Nuclear’ bids are being easily surpassed!!
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
No, you're not, because you don't recognize motivation except for yours. As if it's believable that more than a very low fraction of the population cares about coins at all other than to spend it or profit.
When I used to communicate with South Africa collectors regularly, they repeatedly thought that just because a coin was rare or "rare", it should sell for a high price or "moon" money. There isn't any evidence that even among collectors, more than a barely noticeable proportion care about this type of rarity, and it's even more true with the "rarity" you claim and imply since South African
coinage is disproportionately much scarcer than virtually any coin I've read you write about.
That's what this thread is actually about, money. Whenever anyone brings up this topic, it's invariably predominantly in the implied context of future resale. Someone owned every coin in the past since issuance, either in a "collection" or "change jar", and in that sense it was "collected" just at FV or a lower price.
I must not be awake yet since I don't get your point but for now I'll just point out that the coins I'm talking about were owned in banks, registers, and pockets.
Could it be both have a correlation/tied in with one another?
(Corrected for spelling)
I don't believe inheritance will be a noticeable factor with hardly any coins. You're concentrating in US coins that are a usual entry point for "investors" and collector-financial buyers: generic US gold and Morgan dollars. I agree with your sentiments with this type of coinage, but don't see any meaningful connection otherwise unless the recipient is already a coin collector.
I also don't expect this generational windfall to be nearly as widespread as commonly perceived. On the lower to middle end, much, most, or even all of is often going to be eaten up by end-of-life expenses.