@cladking said:
Google response-
... collecting clad coins is one of the most accessible, affordable, and ** rapidly growing areas of numismatics**.
I know most coin collectors don't care about this stuff and never will. But these are US coins as surely as a 1794 dime and they are beginning to come into sufficient demand to define their rarity through price discovery. In the past I had to guess which were common and which were rare through observation, sampling, and extrapolation but now I'll see how far off I've been. Many of the forces that affect survival are invisible because there's no question there are some hoards and even small hoards can swamp demand. $10,000 put into 1966 cents in 1966 would be a million coins and the market might never grow enough to absorb such a quantity. I see only hoards that have been sold or released and the intact ones are invisible.
Few people understand the improbability of significant numbers of any moderns at all surfacing in the future regardless of price.
There's an interesting parallel in the '14-D cent. This coin wasn't saved so despite its large mintage it is tough where the '09-S VDB is not.
Give it up.
The market is already "mature" and has been for decades. It just hasn't "matured" to your liking which is something else entirely.
Again, US collecting doesn't misunderstand this coinage as you've implied. It just doesn't have the minimum preference you insist it has to have, and it's entirely due to cultural reasons.
To get from "here" to "there" under your claims, you need to be able to explain how this cultural change will occur. You can't do that or else you would have a long time ago, and the reason you can't is because your claims contradict practically everything evident in collector motivation.
None of your assumptions are predictive of anything, not your demographic age and certainly not any supposed "randomness".
@WCC said:
The lowest price for a roll of nickels is $10 for a 69-S. That's almost 60 years later. For dimes, $15 for a'70-D. That's almost 60 years later. For quarters, $20. for a '74. That's over 50 years later.
You just keep missing the point. The coins aren't out there in chBU. It's also true that many dates aren't common in MS-60 ('70-D isn't one of them) but the demand isn't for ugly MS-60; it's for chBU. Buyers want nice attractive and flashy MS-63 with a smattering of gemmy coins. No problems, no tarnish, no dull surfaces like MS-60 '70-D dimes.
>
So, you're telling me that anyone with the money can buy a 1796-1797 half dollar any day of the week (yes, really), but they can't buy the random US moderns you're describing because of scarcity?
I don't believe you even believe that.
No, I can't help it that you don't understand dealer economics, network effect, and time preference.
That's the root cause behind your experience, not an actual scarcity.
Claiming "scarcity" due to limited roll availability is just another of your exaggerations. The vast majority of coins have zero roll availability of any quality, but it's not because more than a low or very proportion are scarce either. It's economics.
You do know this, don't you?
.
As a test, I checked eBay to see how many current listing there are for :
@WCC said:
The lowest price for a roll of nickels is $10 for a 69-S. That's almost 60 years later. For dimes, $15 for a'70-D. That's almost 60 years later. For quarters, $20. for a '74. That's over 50 years later.
You just keep missing the point. The coins aren't out there in chBU. It's also true that many dates aren't common in MS-60 ('70-D isn't one of them) but the demand isn't for ugly MS-60; it's for chBU. Buyers want nice attractive and flashy MS-63 with a smattering of gemmy coins. No problems, no tarnish, no dull surfaces like MS-60 '70-D dimes.
>
So, you're telling me that anyone with the money can buy a 1796-1797 half dollar any day of the week (yes, really), but they can't buy the random US moderns you're describing because of scarcity?
I don't believe you even believe that.
No, I can't help it that you don't understand dealer economics, network effect, and time preference.
That's the root cause behind your experience, not an actual scarcity.
Claiming "scarcity" due to limited roll availability is just another of your exaggerations. The vast majority of coins have zero roll availability of any quality, but it's not because more than a low or very proportion are scarce either. It's economics.
You do know this, don't you?
.
As a test, I checked eBay to see how many current listing there are for :
@WCC said:
The lowest price for a roll of nickels is $10 for a 69-S. That's almost 60 years later. For dimes, $15 for a'70-D. That's almost 60 years later. For quarters, $20. for a '74. That's over 50 years later.
You just keep missing the point. The coins aren't out there in chBU. It's also true that many dates aren't common in MS-60 ('70-D isn't one of them) but the demand isn't for ugly MS-60; it's for chBU. Buyers want nice attractive and flashy MS-63 with a smattering of gemmy coins. No problems, no tarnish, no dull surfaces like MS-60 '70-D dimes.
>
So, you're telling me that anyone with the money can buy a 1796-1797 half dollar any day of the week (yes, really), but they can't buy the random US moderns you're describing because of scarcity?
I don't believe you even believe that.
No, I can't help it that you don't understand dealer economics, network effect, and time preference.
That's the root cause behind your experience, not an actual scarcity.
Claiming "scarcity" due to limited roll availability is just another of your exaggerations. The vast majority of coins have zero roll availability of any quality, but it's not because more than a low or very proportion are scarce either. It's economics.
You do know this, don't you?
.
As a test, I checked eBay to see how many current listing there are for :
It should be apparent than even in roll quantity, 78-D halves are far more common vs. 1796-1797 half dolalrs.
.
Yes, although the pool of potential buyers for the Kennedy roll is MUCH larger than the 1797 half dollar because the roll is MUCH cheaper (about $50 to $100 for the roll vs $50,000 to $100,000 for the 1797 half dollar).
The price difference is a factor of 1,000x.
Per coin, the price difference is 20,000x.
It's really quite simple. Your conclusions are based upon your premises, your premises of collector behavior are flat out wrong, and therefore, you are wrong.
>
You're still in 1964 predicting 1965 is just one more with junk metal; instead of real coins.
The funny thing is even then people couldn't predict the future and they saved millions and millions rolls of brand new 1965 coins because that's what people did in those days. Then they saved nearly as many '66 and a few '67. It tapered off fast after that because there was no market. Most of the coins went into circulation and they are only beginning NOW to have a market.
Your fundamental premise is that the coins are uncollectible because they are too common and because they are junk and this can never change or even be modified in any way. Coins are coins an clad is clad.
It doesn't matter what you and I believe. It doesn't matter what anyone or everyone believes in the long run because beliefs change and this is what we are seeing; the effects of changing beliefs.
When you think about it it was silly not to collect coins because they were made of wrong metal(s). It was short sighted to think that BU rolls could save themselves.
Am I the only who has noticed that no one has even come up with a picture of a roll of 1969 quarters or even a single original Ike roll for this thread? We're being told the market is 100% efficient so it doesn't matter the rolls aren't out there. Supply and demand will create as many rolls as the market really needs and nobody really needs any rolls.
Let me try to put this in different words since you are still getting hung up on your premises. When you go out and ACTUALLY FIND chBU rolls today nearly 95% of them are mint set rolls. These are easily identified because the rolls are good quality and the distribution is reflective of more die pairs. How many mint sets do you think survive after all these years of neglect and attrition? Why are you so certain that the surviving sets can swamp the ongoing demand? Where are all those rolls and bags of 1967 quarters people set aside in 1967 because they believed they'd be rare some day?
.
I'm not privy to the future but I am to the past and present and your models do not reflect them. They reflect what you believe.
Claiming "scarcity" due to limited roll availability is just another of your exaggerations.
No! I'm claiming that limited availability is the mechanism for higher prices. I'm claiming roll availability is limited because moderns aren't as "common as grains of sand on the beach". They were never saved and those that were have had staggering attrition.
Of course your beliefs can't accommodate the actual facts so now you're imagining mountains of single coins sitting in mountains of collections, but the facts don't support this belief either. If there were lots and lots of these collections you'd see them in the coin shops but on the rare occasion one comes into a shop it was assembled recently.
@MasonG said:
"I never imagined back in the day that the scarcity of this coin wouldn't be noted and experienced before the mid-'80's."
Have you considered the possibility that the scarcity of this coin was noted and that collectors in general (you know- "the market") have decided it's not as valuable as you think it should be?
You might.
US collecting doesn’t “misunderstand” anything about US moderns as he's implied. Many (maybe most) US collectors have a misperception of the relative scarcity vs. almost entirely other post-1933 US coinage but collectors do not care, and there is no reason they should.
I know it's hard to believe (shocking really), but there really is a lot more to collect than just US moderns and 60's US circulating designs, even from US coinage. Reading his posts though, I'd never have known otherwise. Well, except for world "moderns" and "older" non-US coinage.
I've collected every single series of US coins except gold. I never got very far with bust half dollars or two cent pieces (et al), but I had collections of them all.
@WCC said:
The lowest price for a roll of nickels is $10 for a 69-S. That's almost 60 years later. For dimes, $15 for a'70-D. That's almost 60 years later. For quarters, $20. for a '74. That's over 50 years later.
You just keep missing the point. The coins aren't out there in chBU. It's also true that many dates aren't common in MS-60 ('70-D isn't one of them) but the demand isn't for ugly MS-60; it's for chBU. Buyers want nice attractive and flashy MS-63 with a smattering of gemmy coins. No problems, no tarnish, no dull surfaces like MS-60 '70-D dimes.
>
So, you're telling me that anyone with the money can buy a 1796-1797 half dollar any day of the week (yes, really), but they can't buy the random US moderns you're describing because of scarcity?
I don't believe you even believe that.
No, I can't help it that you don't understand dealer economics, network effect, and time preference.
That's the root cause behind your experience, not an actual scarcity.
Claiming "scarcity" due to limited roll availability is just another of your exaggerations. The vast majority of coins have zero roll availability of any quality, but it's not because more than a low or very proportion are scarce either. It's economics.
You do know this, don't you?
.
As a test, I checked eBay to see how many current listing there are for :
It should be apparent than even in roll quantity, 78-D halves are far more common vs. 1796-1797 half dolalrs.
.
Yes, although the pool of potential buyers for the Kennedy roll is MUCH larger than the 1797 half dollar because the roll is MUCH cheaper (about $50 to $100 for the roll vs $50,000 to $100,000 for the 1797 half dollar).
The price difference is a factor of 1,000x.
Per coin, the price difference is 20,000x.
The '78-D will never be as good a coin as the 1797 until there are 20,000x as many collectors. Obviously @WCC is right because there can never be even one more collector of clad junk than real silver much less 20,000x as many.
I spent some time looking through silver and clad Washington quarters (proof and MS circulation strikes) looking for varieties over the past two evenings.
I did not find any varieties, but in looking through these coins I again was reminded how attractive and eye appealing some of the MS clad quarters minted from 1965-1998 (the years that I have that were pulled from circulation in the year of issue and that were acquired, little by little, from a variety of sources) can be.
Many of these quarters that I have are flawed for various reasons and would grade MS63 or less. However there are some that are very eye appealing and attractive. I submitted some of them for grading and obtained some MS65 and MS66 grades. Whether any of these clad quarters (raw and slabbed) will ever command market prices of more than $10.00 I have no idea. However I am glad to have them in my collection.
P.S. I still wish that Wondercoin would allow forum members to see images of his clad quarter Registry Set (I have always wondered what Wondercoin's clad quarter's look like )
Comments
Give it up.
The market is already "mature" and has been for decades. It just hasn't "matured" to your liking which is something else entirely.
Again, US collecting doesn't misunderstand this coinage as you've implied. It just doesn't have the minimum preference you insist it has to have, and it's entirely due to cultural reasons.
To get from "here" to "there" under your claims, you need to be able to explain how this cultural change will occur. You can't do that or else you would have a long time ago, and the reason you can't is because your claims contradict practically everything evident in collector motivation.
None of your assumptions are predictive of anything, not your demographic age and certainly not any supposed "randomness".
Delete
.
As a test, I checked eBay to see how many current listing there are for :
1797 half dollars : 3 coins listed
1978-D half dollars, uncirculated rolls: 3 rolls available.
.
Yes, and this is due to the price difference.
It should be apparent than even in roll quantity, 78-D halves are far more common vs. 1796-1797 half dolalrs.
.
Yes, although the pool of potential buyers for the Kennedy roll is MUCH larger than the 1797 half dollar because the roll is MUCH cheaper (about $50 to $100 for the roll vs $50,000 to $100,000 for the 1797 half dollar).
The price difference is a factor of 1,000x.
Per coin, the price difference is 20,000x.
.
>
You're still in 1964 predicting 1965 is just one more with junk metal; instead of real coins.
The funny thing is even then people couldn't predict the future and they saved millions and millions rolls of brand new 1965 coins because that's what people did in those days. Then they saved nearly as many '66 and a few '67. It tapered off fast after that because there was no market. Most of the coins went into circulation and they are only beginning NOW to have a market.
Your fundamental premise is that the coins are uncollectible because they are too common and because they are junk and this can never change or even be modified in any way. Coins are coins an clad is clad.
It doesn't matter what you and I believe. It doesn't matter what anyone or everyone believes in the long run because beliefs change and this is what we are seeing; the effects of changing beliefs.
When you think about it it was silly not to collect coins because they were made of wrong metal(s). It was short sighted to think that BU rolls could save themselves.
Am I the only who has noticed that no one has even come up with a picture of a roll of 1969 quarters or even a single original Ike roll for this thread? We're being told the market is 100% efficient so it doesn't matter the rolls aren't out there. Supply and demand will create as many rolls as the market really needs and nobody really needs any rolls.
Let me try to put this in different words since you are still getting hung up on your premises. When you go out and ACTUALLY FIND chBU rolls today nearly 95% of them are mint set rolls. These are easily identified because the rolls are good quality and the distribution is reflective of more die pairs. How many mint sets do you think survive after all these years of neglect and attrition? Why are you so certain that the surviving sets can swamp the ongoing demand? Where are all those rolls and bags of 1967 quarters people set aside in 1967 because they believed they'd be rare some day?
.
I'm not privy to the future but I am to the past and present and your models do not reflect them. They reflect what you believe.
No! I'm claiming that limited availability is the mechanism for higher prices. I'm claiming roll availability is limited because moderns aren't as "common as grains of sand on the beach". They were never saved and those that were have had staggering attrition.
Of course your beliefs can't accommodate the actual facts so now you're imagining mountains of single coins sitting in mountains of collections, but the facts don't support this belief either. If there were lots and lots of these collections you'd see them in the coin shops but on the rare occasion one comes into a shop it was assembled recently.
I've collected every single series of US coins except gold. I never got very far with bust half dollars or two cent pieces (et al), but I had collections of them all.
The '78-D will never be as good a coin as the 1797 until there are 20,000x as many collectors. Obviously @WCC is right because there can never be even one more collector of clad junk than real silver much less 20,000x as many.
I will refrain from carrying his illogic further.
I spent some time looking through silver and clad Washington quarters (proof and MS circulation strikes) looking for varieties over the past two evenings.
I did not find any varieties, but in looking through these coins I again was reminded how attractive and eye appealing some of the MS clad quarters minted from 1965-1998 (the years that I have that were pulled from circulation in the year of issue and that were acquired, little by little, from a variety of sources) can be.
Many of these quarters that I have are flawed for various reasons and would grade MS63 or less. However there are some that are very eye appealing and attractive. I submitted some of them for grading and obtained some MS65 and MS66 grades. Whether any of these clad quarters (raw and slabbed) will ever command market prices of more than $10.00 I have no idea. However I am glad to have them in my collection.
P.S. I still wish that Wondercoin would allow forum members to see images of his clad quarter Registry Set (I have always wondered what Wondercoin's clad quarter's look like
)