Options
Are 'key dates' good values, from a cultural perspective, at current levels?
Analyst
Posts: 1,438 ✭✭✭
In conjunction with research for my current series on key date coins that cost from $100 to $2500 each, I have been pondering this topic. Given the reality that so many 19th century U.S. coins cost more than $10k each, and hundreds of coins are worth more than $100k each, many key date coins, which are famous and neat, that cost from $100 to $2500 each seem appealing.
Are these often good values for collectors? Do many members of this forum enjoy seeking and owning key dates?
Also, for me, thinking about particular key dates, like 1914-D and 1931-S Lincolns, bring back fond memories of collecting and trading coins before I became an adult. Do any of the active members of this forum feel the same way?
Key Date Coins for Less Than $2500 – Part 1: Copper
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
0
Comments
However time has certainly proved me wrong.
It is all supply and demand. Less collected series will rarely perform as well as the "popular" ones. The other issue is the grade involved. Less popular series in lower grades certainly are not something I would collect unless I was interested in the series or needed one for my typeset. On the other hand, something like a Bust Half where there is a growing number of collectors and a great number of coins available in all conditions, I would think that selective coins would be a good value, even after the recent run up.
Broadstruck: <<Later in my teens I worked the whole summer to pay down CH AU 1914 50C as the low mintage date appealed to me. Today I own keys and semi keys from series I have no desire to collect by date & mint mark just because they where unattainable financially when young. >>
Broadstruck's reminiscences, I believe, are consistent with my view that the pursuit of key dates is a central part of the culture of coin collecting in the U.S.
DeepCoin: <<There are key dates and POPULAR key dates, not the same IMHO>>
Agreed, there are key dates that are not scarce, just relatively rare in their respective frameworks, and there are keys that are truly rare. 1801 halves are overshadowed by 1794, 1796 and 1797 halves, which are rarer and more famous, and also by Reich CB halves (1807-36), which are super-popular.
Key Date Coins: 1801 Draped Bust, Heraldic Eagle Half Dollars
A 46-D $5 is great value compared to a 61-D $5. Guarantee the price performance of the 61-D will exceed the better value 46-D.
Latin American Collection
I'm not convinced that key dates provide a better Return on Investment (ROI) than common date coins in the same grade.
Sure the key date can be sold for more money, but they cost more in the first place.
Sometimes the popular key date is not the true key date of a mass produced series.
Mercury Dimes provide a good example. I have been told by at least one Mercury Dime specialist that the popular key date is the 1916-D, but the true key date is the 1926-S. As a percentage, how does the ROI compare between the 16-D and the 26-S with all things being equal (understanding that eye appeal is subjective) - i.e. two coins in the same grade, same stickers, same holders, etc.?
As an aside, I am drawn to the popular key dates based on my memories of wanting them when I collected as a teenager. And I'll still buy a nice 09-S VDB Lincoln or 16-D Mercury if the right coin came along, simply because I can now and I couldn't then. But I'd like to think I've "grown up" as a collector and I recognize key dates for what they really are...and aren't.
Whether or not the 1926-S is the true key date of Mercury Dimes, a glance at a Red Book shows an interesting comparison between a 16-D and a 26-S; namely, the percentage increase in price (value) as the grades increase.
2010 Red Book (one I have handy at the moment)
G-4 EF-40 MS-63 MS-65
1916-D $1,000 $6,200 (6.2X) $18,000 (18X) $30,000 (30X)
1926-S $13.00 $250 (~19X) $1,500 (~115X) $3,000 (~230X)
This doesn't show which coin provides a better ROI though. For that, I suppose we'd have to look at auction archives and compare the historic buy/sell prices of the same sets of coins.
For me a collector who grew up in the 90's I have little interest in these coins. Also I feel the general population as a whole doesn't have any clue about these coins today.
Many non collectors over the age of 60 know about the three leg buffalo, the 1916-D dime and 09-S vdb, However, very few non collectors under the age of 60 have any idea about these coins.
So in short, I think these Key date, non rare coins, will see little appreciation in value over time. If anything I think fewer people will care.
Many of the "key dates" aren't rare or even scarce; they are just popular.
Lower circulated grades, the 16-D still holds that title.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I would mention that the 1857 large cent is sort of the key date among the braided hair cents.
Though certainly not nearly as rare as other large cents mentioned, it's still much scarcer than the 1877 and 09SVDB cents,
and comes in a large date and small date variety.
It's also quite popular with dealers and collectors....anytime you can find an original one priced anywhere near Bid, scoop it up
for an easy flip.
Doesn't seem so key.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>I think Greg L commented in another post that the ANA in their collection owns 50 1877 Indian pennies in g-vg .
Doesn't seem so key. >>
You have to understand what makes a key. Demand is what makes a key. How is that demand generated?....from all of the newbs(at one time or another) reading the Red Book for 60+ years and only looking at mintage figures while completely ignoring reality. There are certainly a few other things that come into play but much less so. A little information can be a dangerous thing. If one were to break coins down by grade ranges, they would see a different picture when it comes to keys and semi-keys....similar to what I did with the Mercury Dime series a few years ago which revealed all of the true keys/semi-keys in MS/MSFB as I ranked them all. It was eye-opening for many but completely obvious to just a few of us.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
MidLifeCrisis: <<I'm not convinced that key dates provide a better Return on Investment (ROI) than common date coins in the same grade.>>
I am not convinced of this either. I hope that no one is under the impression that I am making investment recommendations in the cited articles. Most collectors have fixed or maximum budgets for coins. Collectors thus may wish to consider some relatively inexpensive key dates of design types that interest them, respectively, including a few keys that are scarce or even rare.
The 1801 half is likely to be a truly rare coin. In circulated grades, it is not extremely expensive in the context of U.S. coins dated before 1865. IMO, 1801 halves are good values for collectors who enjoy owning such coins. Whether 1801 halves will turn out to be good investments is a different topic.
Key Date Coins: 1801 Draped Bust, Heraldic Eagle Half Dollars
MidLifeCrisis: <<Sometimes the popular key date is not the true key date of a mass produced series.
I agree that there are relatively scarce coins that are not recognized as such, or do not receive the attention that they deserve, from a logical perspective.
The Unrecognized Importance of 1846 Dimes
Fishteeth: <<Many non collectors over the age of 60 know about the three leg buffalo, the 1916-D dime and 09-S vdb, However, very few non collectors under the age of 60 have any idea about these coins.>>
I am under age 60, a fact which might be surprising to people who have seen my face. I care very much about 1909-S VDB cents and 1916-D dimes. Moreover, it is stil practical to collect Wheat Cents out of change. I receive them fairly often. Better date Wheaties are hardly expensive and can be purchased at small coin shows or through the mail. I believe and I hope that there are many young collectors and other beginners who are assembling sets of Wheat Cents. Barnes & Noble stores often carry boards and albums for this purpose. There are more beginning collectors of classic U.S. coins than Fishteeth realizes.
WalkerGuy: <<I would mention that the 1857 large cent is sort of the key date among the braided hair cents.>>
I will give further thought to 1857 large cents. Are these important and interesting enough to be the topic of an article? They are the last of a species.
<< <i>WalkerGuy: <<I would mention that the 1857 large cent is sort of the key date among the braided hair cents.>>
I will give further thought to 1857 large cents. Are these important and interesting enough to be the topic of an article? They are the last of a species. >>
Go for it! My own info on these is rather sparse....due to high copper costs and the unpopularity of the cumbersome large cents, patterns of smaller cents were in the works for several years. The large cents of 1857 were supposedly struck early in the year, then the mint converted over to heavy production of the flying eagle cents, then began redeeming the large cents. It's probable many '57 large cents never left the mint and were melted. I would think Breen or some EAC researchers have published information on this.
To me a "key" date still needs to have potential as well as being a truly scarce coin. I'd probably agree that the existing pops of 1846 dimes is in the 300-500 range. And that doesn't address whether it ramps up in rarity as you get above a certain grade. 1847, 1853-0, and 1858-0 dimes for example all get considerably tougher in VF, and quite difficult in XF or better. Of the 1846 dimes I recorded, 38% of them were in the VF-AU range. For another comparison, the 1846 dime showed up about 60% more often than the coveted 1804 dime. How did the 1801 half dollar fit into this mix? Well, I found the 1802 half to be slightly scarcer, and the 1802 showed up 16% more often than the 1846 dime (and that long list of quarters). You could call it somewhat comparable. I still kick myself for getting rid of that XF45 1802 half.
NOT the key to the series in MS/MSFB. A while after I posted this thread, I did examine the
market availability of the 26-S and 16-D in MS/MSFB via a few year snap shot in Heritage
Auctions and that data also supported my initial data.
Anyone still claiming the 16-D is the key, might be a person continuing to
repeat the lies of others, has stared at the mintage figures in the Red Book
for a little too long and never done the analysis for the grade range of interest.
LINKY
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Hoard the keys.
In the sixties, there were many times more collectors assembling date/mint sets of Washington Quarters than there were 32-D or 32-S quarters minted.
These were the keys and the demand drove the price.
How many date/mint set collectors are there today?
Now, it's type sets, box of 20, eye appeal, top pop, etc.
<< <i>Supply and demand will tell the tale. Will the hoarders keep on hoarding them? Will there be enough new collectors in the future to maintain a level of demand for them?
Many of the "key dates" aren't rare or even scarce; they are just popular. >>
Agreed. I see a trend downward in many of the 20th Century "key" dates as the aging Collector base shrinks. I would suggest 20th Century Key dates are in for a correction as few are rare. If they were stocks I'd short the bejesus out of them.
To one who collects by date/mintmark these days like most of the '60's collectors did,my answer is a definite 'no.' The date/mintmark keys are virtually all overpriced and we're not going to be seeing any close-out prices on keys in popular series in our lifetimes.I am amazed,and have been amazed for years,at the prices listed for coins that most of us old-time collectors have come to realize are really not all that rare.
1909-S V.D.B. and 1914-D Lincoln prices are two of the handiest examples of key date overpricing and so are the easiest to pick on.This is not to take away from the coolness of owning either one of these coins.These are "magic dates" and will always be magic dates for the Lincoln collector who is trying to assemble a date/mint set of Lincolns, 1909-1958.
Prices are not always driven by supply and demand.There are plenty of 1909 S V.D.B.'s in all grades and colors up to MS 65,available.The supply is ample,in other words.You wouldn't have been able to convince me that there was an ample supply of 1909-S V.D.B's in 1963,however.Going through countless penny rolls obtained from banks yielded zero 1909 dated Lincolns for this collector,much less the prize 1909-S V.D.B.
I was trying to find a 1909-S V.D.B. for a penny,a one-cent investment,when the demand was high.Am I willing to pay over $1000 these days for a 1909-S V.D.B. because I like Lincoln cents and can now afford to pay the price? The answer,for me, is 'no.' The demand,for me,is not there anymore.There are far better values in coins to spend $1000 these days than an example of 1909-S V.D.B. for my collection,no matter how I collect.
Just as one would not have been able to convince me in 1963 that there was an ample supply of 1909-S V.D.B.'s available,one would not be able to convince me in 2015 that there is much demand these days at over $1000 for a nice example,either. Impressions in the mind of the newbie collector about there being limited supply and a corresponding high demand are created by the marketers. Not so easy for the marketers is to create those impressions in the mind of the old-timer,those of us who have been around the block a few times.
What to do then? I like Lincolns and want to collect them some but I don't want to throw my money away on over-priced,over-rated coins like 1909-S V.D.B.
I collect Lincolns by year only.I can represent all years and all mints in my Lincoln one-a-year collection.Did you know that 1922 is the lowest mintage year for all Lincoln cents,wheat-back,memorial or otherwise,1909 to the present? Thus,1922-D is my key,my magic date in the Lincoln series.
!922-D Lincolns are a good value at current price levels. I will buy every well-struck,problem-free 1922-D that is offered to me.They are very elusive.1922 'no D' Lincoln is not a good value,never will be a good value,however.
Analyst's research is on key date coins that cost from $100 to $2500 each.I value my 1922-D key Lincoln at today's prices at about $100 (originally bought out of a Denver dealer's showcase years ago for $50) so it has doubled in value.As key dates go,from an investment perspective,and willing to pay today's prices,I would much rather spend my $1000 on ten,or more,nice examples of 1922-D than one example of 1909-S V.D.B.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Roadrunner: << The 1802 half on my survey showed up as scarcer, especially in grades of full XF or higher. I managed to buy an XF45 example from a NERCG auction for $550>>
I agree that the 1802 half is much scarcer than the 1801 above a certain grade-level. I never said otherwise. Certainly, I was not favoring 1801 halves over 1802 halves. The "Thomas"-Pogue 1801 half and the Eliasberg-Pogue 1801 were both 'in the news.' They are excellent and are extremely important coins that merited immediate discussion. The Pogue 1802 was disappointing.
While discussing the best 1801 halves, I also emphasized that 1801 halves are not very expensive in circulated grades. Given their key status and overall scarcity, 1801 halves in AG-03 to VF-25 grades are good values, from a cultural perspective, for collectors who are interested in 19th century silver coins. I provide examples. In the future, I will devote an article to 1802 halves.
Is Roadrunner saying that any of the statements in this article are wrong or misleading? Is he saying that current market prices for circulated 1801 halves do not represent good values? Is it helpful for Roadrunner to directly compare their respective rarity to that of selected Liberty Seated Quarters, without additional explanations?
Key Date Coins: 1801 Draped Bust, Heraldic Eagle Half Dollars
Roadrunner: <<I'd favorably compare the 1846 dime total pops to these quarters: 1840-0 wd, 1840 wd, 1843-0, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1856-s, 1857-s, 1858-s, 1859-s, 1861-s, 1862-s, 1868-s, 1870, 1873-s, etc. There's a lot of competition from coins that don't cost near as much as a '46 dime. Most of that long list of seated quarters have pops in the 300-500 range. Maybe it was the fact that the seated quarters have an abundance of underrated dates back in the old days. The dimes were like chopped liver in comparison. >>
This statement is a little unfair and confusing. Roadrunner is comparing dimes to quarters. The demand function for Liberty Seated Dimes is different from the demand function for Liberty Seated Quarters. Moreover, in my article, I was comparing the fame and rarity of 1846 dimes to other dimes, not just Liberty Seated Dimes, and I was emphasizing that my estimate of the overall rarity of 1846 dimes is lower than published estimates by others. A main point was that 1846 dimes are not talked about very often; I was not arguing that they are the rarest dimes or that they are rarer than various Seated Quarters. In proportional terms, in the realm of dimes, 1846 dimes deserve more recognition.
Please consider the following passage from the cited article, of which I own the copyright.
... the 1846 is much rarer than the 1844. Indeed, the 1846 has been overshadowed by the 1844 and by other Liberty Seated Dimes. .... I hypothesize that there exist around 335 1846 dimes, in all grades, including those that do not qualify for numerical grades in accordance with the criteria employed by PCGS or NGC. In contrast, the PCGS CoinFacts site estimates that there are “500.”
The Unrecognized Importance of 1846 Dimes
Yes, I agree with Roadrunner that the rarity of many Liberty Seated Quarters is largely unrecognized. It is unusual, though, for anyone to attempt a set of these. Even so, I will write about some of the unrecognized quarter issues in the future. I appreciate Roadrunner's insights and I am glad that he shared some of the results of his research in the past. I hope that Roadrunner continues to post information about rare LS Quarters.
Another thing to consider rather than key date is grade rarity. Let's face it, you're not going to find many 1835 1/2 Cents in MS 65 RB being 'made' anytime soon.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Conversely, one can seek out only the "truly rare" coins and enjoy paying less for them on a relative basis -- still, they will probably get less for them when trying to resell, as well. Truly scarce or rare matters little as to price, if popularity/demand/knowledge of said coin isn't generally out there.
It reminds me of an acquaintance who specialized in rare model car kits. There is one which, above all others, remains a truly rare example -- the rarest of the rare -- a 1911 Chevrolet. He was so proud to have acquired one -- it was after owning it for some time that he came to then realize -- no one cared how rare it was -- it wasn't popular or pretty. It was historically significant; but the only thing rarer than that model was finding someone other than himself who gave a shoot.
<< <i>Supply and demand will tell the tale. Will the hoarders keep on hoarding them? Will there be enough new collectors in the future to maintain a level of demand for them?
Many of the "key dates" aren't rare or even scarce; they are just popular. >>
<< <i>I think that the popularity of things like the 16-D dime, 09-S VDB and other similar coins will fade in popularity. These were coins that many of the baby boomers and before dreamed of finding in their roll searching.
For me a collector who grew up in the 90's I have little interest in these coins. Also I feel the general population as a whole doesn't have any clue about these coins today.
Many non collectors over the age of 60 know about the three leg buffalo, the 1916-D dime and 09-S vdb, However, very few non collectors under the age of 60 have any idea about these coins.
So in short, I think these Key date, non rare coins, will see little appreciation in value over time. If anything I think fewer people will care. >>
I second this post and I think that their values will fall eventually. I think that many of the 19th century rarities are much better buys and that amongst the 20th century classic coins the 1911-D Indian Head $2.50 and 1909-O Indian Head $5 are better buys.
Coin collectors will focus on "rare" 19th century coins, type collecting and modern issues?
Finally, the coin collecting community will be at peace and live happily ever after. Maybe, but when those collectors get really bored, they'll be reminiscing about their long lost, beloved key dates.
Part of the problem with using only a dime to dime comparison is that there a lot less of them that are really scarce (compared to the quarters). It also makes the dimes a more completable set. There's no doubt the 1846 is one of the keys to getting there. I have no idea which set, the seated dimes or seated quarters have a larger demand. I would guess the quarters only because there are a lot more very scarce coins to go after. I don't think it's a big stretch though to say they have approximately similar demands. And in saying that, they can be compared in rarity and price. It's the supply side where they really diverge. The bigger size of the quarter also adds to the demand as typically bigger coins get more looks from collectors/investors/speculators, especially the halves and dollars. But, quarters are big enough to not need magnification. No way I can accurately grade a MS dime or half dime today without 5X assistance.
For around $40 you can own a Roosevelt dime with less than 1/3 the mintage of the 1916-D. For around $200 you can own a Kennedy half with less than 1/3 the mintage of the 1921-D. Recent "S" mint ATB quarters with mintages around 1.3 million are available by the roll and mini-bag at less than double face. Recent gold commems have 4-figure mintages and are relatively affordable. Ditto plats. Mintages for several recent unc. First Spouse coins have dipped below 2000.
The competition from new and inexpensive modern keys will likely cause keys from previous centuries to decline in popularity as time goes on.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
<< <i>I think some of the low-mintage moderns have taken some of the cachet out of owning 20th-century keys.
For around $40 you can own a Roosevelt dime with less than 1/3 the mintage of the 1916-D. For around $200 you can own a Kennedy half with less than 1/3 the mintage of the 1921-D. Recent "S" mint ATB quarters with mintages around 1.3 million are available by the roll and mini-bag at less than double face. Recent gold commems have 4-figure mintages and are relatively affordable. Ditto plats. Mintages for several recent unc. First Spouse coins have dipped below 2000.
The competition from new and inexpensive modern keys will likely cause keys from previous centuries to decline in popularity as time goes on. >>
Which business strike Roosevelt dime has a mintage of less than 264K?...and was a work horse of the economy with a low number of survivors? Or are you doing an apples to oranges comparison with low mintage modern proofs where close to 100% are expected to survive in a grade above 60?
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>Which business strike Roosevelt dime has a mintage of less than 264K?...and was a work horse of the economy with a low number of survivors? Or are you doing an apples to oranges comparison with low mintage modern proofs where close to 100% are expected to survive in a grade above 60? >>
I would venture a guess that there are more surviving 1916-D Mercury dimes than the total mintage of 2015-W Roosevelt dimes. The scarcity of 1916-D dimes was well known from the beginning, and by the time I started collecting in the 1950s they were long gone from circulation.
The 1916-D is a key date from an obsolete series that vanished from circulation long before most of today's collectors began collecting coins. Many of today's collectors consider the Mercury dime to be a type coin, and those that collect sets often opt for the "short sets" starting in 1934 or 1941.
Yes, the 1916-D was a "workhorse" and has a lot of history behind it, but it shares that history with any common date Mercury dime from the 1940s, or for any other coin that circulated in that era or earlier. Such history is not enough to maintain demand for key coins in series that are becoming less desired as complete sets.
By contrast, the 2015-W and P silver proof dimes are members of a currently circulating series that has a much wider collector base, including many who include the proof-only dates in their collections. The Roosevelt series is likely to continue in circulation for many years and perhaps decades to come, attracting a steady stream of new collectors who will be interested in acquiring the low-mintage keys from 2015. There are also collectors of commemorative sets, who will add to the demand for these particular dimes.
I anticipate that the price of obsolete keys such as the 1916-D dime will gradually fall or at best stagnate, while more modern keys such as the 2015-W and P proof silver dimes will maintain their value and likely appreciate from current levels.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>
<< <i>Which business strike Roosevelt dime has a mintage of less than 264K?...and was a work horse of the economy with a low number of survivors? Or are you doing an apples to oranges comparison with low mintage modern proofs where close to 100% are expected to survive in a grade above 60? >>
I would venture a guess that there are more surviving 1916-D Mercury dimes than the total mintage of 2015-W Roosevelt dimes. The scarcity of 1916-D dimes was well known from the beginning, and by the time I started collecting in the 1950s they were long gone from circulation.
The 1916-D is a key date from an obsolete series that vanished from circulation long before most of today's collectors began collecting coins. Many of today's collectors consider the Mercury dime to be a type coin, and those that collect sets often opt for the "short sets" starting in 1934 or 1941.
Yes, the 1916-D was a "workhorse" and has a lot of history behind it, but it shares that history with any common date Mercury dime from the 1940s, or for any other coin that circulated in that era or earlier. Such history is not enough to maintain demand for key coins in series that are becoming less desired as complete sets.
By contrast, the 2015-W and P silver proof dimes are members of a currently circulating series that has a much wider collector base, including many who include the proof-only dates in their collections. The Roosevelt series is likely to continue in circulation for many years and perhaps decades to come, attracting a steady stream of new collectors who will be interested in acquiring the low-mintage keys from 2015. There are also collectors of commemorative sets, who will add to the demand for these particular dimes.
I anticipate that the price of obsolete keys such as the 1916-D dime will gradually fall or at best stagnate, while more modern keys such as the 2015-W and P proof silver dimes will maintain their value and likely appreciate from current levels. >>
If the 16-D value falls or stagnates, it will only be temporary. Young collectors will soon realize that Mercury dimes are strikingly beautiful coins, and the completion of a date/mm set is an attainable goal. After Roosevelt dime boredom kicks in (joking), they'll reach back in time for coins that have a special aura about them, rich in symbolism, with a connection to their parent's or grandparent's era.
I never underestimate the alluring quality of certain coins, such as the 16-D; first year issue, extremely low mintage when compared to other dates in the series, and scarce in all grades above VG. If the Mercury dime series had several real "stoppers" or ultra-rare proof only issues, I could see that as a turn-off for new collectors trying to complete a series. The opposite is true, as in most circulated grades, the 16-D is the only very expensive coin in the series.
I grew up with Roosevelt dimes, but I did and still do prefer Mercury dimes. A single example of the type was never enough, and I suspect there are plenty of new collectors who share my thoughts. They want to complete their Mercury dime sets just as we did, and the 16-D is a "must-have" dime.
I interpret "current levels" to pertain to the strength of the market place as it stands now.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>
<< <i>Which business strike Roosevelt dime has a mintage of less than 264K?...and was a work horse of the economy with a low number of survivors? Or are you doing an apples to oranges comparison with low mintage modern proofs where close to 100% are expected to survive in a grade above 60? >>
I would venture a guess that there are more surviving 1916-D Mercury dimes than the total mintage of 2015-W Roosevelt dimes. The scarcity of 1916-D dimes was well known from the beginning, and by the time I started collecting in the 1950s they were long gone from circulation.
The 1916-D is a key date from an obsolete series that vanished from circulation long before most of today's collectors began collecting coins. Many of today's collectors consider the Mercury dime to be a type coin, and those that collect sets often opt for the "short sets" starting in 1934 or 1941.
Yes, the 1916-D was a "workhorse" and has a lot of history behind it, but it shares that history with any common date Mercury dime from the 1940s, or for any other coin that circulated in that era or earlier. Such history is not enough to maintain demand for key coins in series that are becoming less desired as complete sets.
By contrast, the 2015-W and P silver proof dimes are members of a currently circulating series that has a much wider collector base, including many who include the proof-only dates in their collections. The Roosevelt series is likely to continue in circulation for many years and perhaps decades to come, attracting a steady stream of new collectors who will be interested in acquiring the low-mintage keys from 2015. There are also collectors of commemorative sets, who will add to the demand for these particular dimes.
I anticipate that the price of obsolete keys such as the 1916-D dime will gradually fall or at best stagnate, while more modern keys such as the 2015-W and P proof silver dimes will maintain their value and likely appreciate from current levels. >>
Okay, so you never answered my questions. Nice.
No, there are not 75,000 1916-D Mercury Dimes!
Even DIMEMAN doesn't do proofs.
When comparing the the design appeal of Mercury Dimes, it is frequently considered to be one of the most beautiful US Coin designs to grace our history. When trying to see where the Roosevelt dime falls, it just falls and is never a part of the conversation.
When collecting something, I like to know that an END can be seen. With Mercs you can do that. You can't dream of doing that with Roosevelts and all of the Mint's gimics.
Another fun aspect of Mercs is there is at least some intrinsic value if you have the desire to just fill a book with circulated examples.
And returning to the topics of keys, in MS/MSFB, the 16-D is not the primary key and I wish this falsehood would cease to spread like a disease in every article where someone has a platform. Even stating "widely accepted" as the key to the series, or whatever, just seems to spread ignorance. A real analyst would do something similar to what I did. And then getting back to the OP's post and price limitations, according to the PCGS Price Guide, a 1926-S in 63FB or 64 are valued at $2,500. I see value in that coin in the current market place with all of the ignorance.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
71% of the coins are in Poor-Good condition. A lot more than I thought. And approx 83% of them in VG and lower. That sure makes the problem free coins in Fine or better quite elusive. A problem free, totally original, full rimmed Good is probably in the top 30% of survivors. The AG grade is the most populous by far.
P/FR/AG 2679
Good 2014
VG 750
Fine-AU approx 1000
Unc 53
total approx 6600 at PCGS
Even considering worst case conditions of 0 resubmissions, adding in the NGC pops, you have around 10,000 coins. I would think that slabbed specimens easily outnumber the remaining raw coins. And considering the price of a an AG-Good specimens is in the $400-$600 range, that fits reasonably with being approx 5X the issue price of a 2015-W proof dime.
There are 360 2015-W Roosevelt dimes currently up for sale on eBay. Considering the heavy attention being paid to this coin, that's not much higher than the number of 16-D's. Both coins are readily available.
1916-D Mercs began being pulled from circulation shortly after the low mintage was known. Many were also saved as a first year of issue coin. I doubt that 70% of the mintage of this coin evaded capture for decades to be lost or melted.
Most Merc collectors do not collect the series in MS, although I imagine it's a fun pursuit for the 1% or fewer who can afford it. For the huge majority of collectors, the 1916-D *is* the key. And it costs 10 times as much in AG as the 2015-W in PR69.
Yes, Mercs are prettier and they're a closed series, but this has little to do with likely collector demand going forward. No way will new demand for 20th century keys keep up with new demand for 21st century keys, especially at today's elevated price levels.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>I was curious about the 16-d so here are the PCGS pops:
71% of the coins are in Poor-Good condition. A lot more than I thought. And approx 83% of them in VG and lower. That sure makes the problem free coins in Fine or better quite elusive. A problem free, totally original, full rimmed Good is probably in the top 30% of survivors. The AG grade is the most populous by far.
P/FR/AG 2679
Good 2014
VG 750
Fine-AU approx 1000
Unc 53
Even considering worst case conditions of 0 resubmissions, adding in the NGC pops, you have around 10,000 coins. I would think that slabbed specimens easily outnumber the remaining raw coins. >>
I agree, I have estimated for a long time that 1916-D survivors number between 10-12K. I also took into consideration the ANACS pops and maybe gave a little more credit to possible raw examples...even though I know I would never buy a raw example.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>Here is the 2012 thread with my Mercury Dime analysis, demonstrating that the 16-D is
NOT the key to the series in MS/MSFB. A while after I posted this thread, I did examine the
market availability of the 26-S and 16-D in MS/MSFB via a few year snap shot in Heritage
Auctions and that data also supported my initial data.
Anyone still claiming the 16-D is the key, might be a person continuing to
repeat the lies of others, has stared at the mintage figures in the Red Book
for a little too long and never done the analysis for the grade range of interest.
LINKY >>
Bumping this in case someone missed my analysis of Keys/Semi-Keys back in 2012.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
1916-D Mercs began being pulled from circulation shortly after the low mintage was known. .....probably only true if you figure that it took from 1934-1964 for collectors to figure out the low mintage. The first Redbook in 1947 probably helped a lot. But that was already 30 years too late (VG-Fine coins). Seriously, if there were a 70% survival rate of 1916-d dimes, most nearly all of them would be AU-unc. And they'd be common as dirt with 185,000 coins available. That clearly is not the case. 185K is on the same order as surviving 1880s, 1881s and 1882s Bu Morgans. And probably, >70% of those survive in AU-unc. Speaking of silver dollars, only 100,000 1893s dollars were made (est of survivors is 6K-12K). Why wasn't that coin hoarded from the start? Very few uncs survive. Collectors must be dumber than we thought. Only John Clapp and a few others thought to pickup a gem 1893-s from the US mint. The 1914-s Barber quarter has the same mintage as the 1916-d dime....yet very different pricing. It's all based on demand. I'd certainly plunk down the money for a 1914-s 25c in XF before even considering a 16-d dime. But in the end, consumers determine what "rarity" is worth, not mintages or speculators.
While there may be 50 or so PCGS Fr-Good 1916-d dimes on Ebay at the moment, that factors in that dealers list coins in demand, especially key dates costing $200-$1,000 each. They are not going to list every Good 1916-s dime they have or even every 2015-W proof. You can probably find a "lot" of 1901-s quarters and 1893-s dollars as well. A much higher percentage of key dates get advertised vs. lesser coins.
<< <i>There are 250 1916-D Mercury dimes currently up for sale on eBay, including well over 100 in TPG holders.
There are 360 2015-W Roosevelt dimes currently up for sale on eBay. Considering the heavy attention being paid to this coin, that's not much higher than the number of 16-D's. Both coins are readily available.
1916-D Mercs began being pulled from circulation shortly after the low mintage was known. Many were also saved as a first year of issue coin. I doubt that 70% of the mintage of this coin evaded capture for decades to be lost or melted.
Most Merc collectors do not collect the series in MS, although I imagine it's a fun pursuit for the 1% or fewer who can afford it. For the huge majority of collectors, the 1916-D *is* the key. And it costs 10 times as much in AG as the 2015-W in PR69.
Yes, Mercs are prettier and they're a closed series, but this has little to do with likely collector demand going forward. No way will new demand for 20th century keys keep up with new demand for 21st century keys, especially at today's elevated price levels. >>
Holes can be poked all through this mess. Seriously, you are talking about eBay? Please save that for another thread entirely. Still comparing a 100 year old business strike with modern US Mint PROOF gimmicks? I am not sure I completely understand your statement but if you are suggesting a 70% survival rate of the 1916-D...which would be 184,800 then your view of history and actually what happened is seriously skewed. As for your statement about most collectors not collecting the series in MS, seriously? Have you looked through the registry or gone to shows or looked at price guides? If you ignore FBs and varieties, the most expensive MS63 example between 1934-1945 is $60 at full retail. Really, you have to be a 1%er to spend that much on a coin and collect just the short set of Mercs? There are many others that can be had for cheap in MS prior to 1934 as well. You don't have to be a 1%er. People can save their money for months/years and accomplish fantastic things and not be anywhere close to a 1%er.
Comparing bad apples to good oranges is a bad practice.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
As far as what are and are not the Key's is another story. As pointed out coins like the 09-S VDB and the 16-D are expensive not rare.
As far as the Mercs....I agree with the 26-S and would put the 25-S right there with it and the 27-S not far behind.
The 10,000 or so that have been slabbed likely represent well under half of the actual number of 1916-D dimes still around. Thousands probably still exist in sets that were assembled decades ago, by collectors living at the time they could be found in circulation. Not everyone who inherits coin collections dumps them on the market, and not all collectors want their coins to be in TPG holders.
To clarify further: Most Merc collectors do not collect the *entire* series in MS, although I imagine it's a fun pursuit for the 1% or fewer who can afford it. (A complete set of uncirculated and proof Roosevelts, on the other hand, can be assembled for well under $1000, including the 1950-64 proofs and both 2015 keys.)
As for the registry sets, I have looked through them and notice that Roosevelt registry sets outnumber Mercury sets by about 5 to 3. Not that this means a whole lot, since the vast majority of collectors do not participate in registry sets, but it does show that many collectors like Roosevelt dimes and consider them to be more than just “modern junk”.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
In this age, it looks as if key dates should be evaluated based on surviving population and demand. At some point that relationship (surviving population verse demand) may be radically different. I am not so sure the hobby is ready for a radical shift that technology and all the modern conveniences seem to be documenting...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>To clarify: A 30% survival rate for 1916-D dimes implies that the other 70% were lost, melted or otherwise disappeared. Given the attention paid to the 1916-D dime since its release, and especially considering the popularity of collecting date-mintmark sets from circulation between the 1920’s and the 1960’s, a 30% survival rate seems reasonable.
The 10,000 or so that have been slabbed likely represent well under half of the actual number of 1916-D dimes still around. Thousands probably still exist in sets that were assembled decades ago, by collectors living at the time they could be found in circulation. Not everyone who inherits coin collections dumps them on the market, and not all collectors want their coins to be in TPG holders.
To clarify further: Most Merc collectors do not collect the *entire* series in MS, although I imagine it's a fun pursuit for the 1% or fewer who can afford it. (A complete set of uncirculated and proof Roosevelts, on the other hand, can be assembled for well under $1000, including the 1950-64 proofs and both 2015 keys.)
As for the registry sets, I have looked through them and notice that Roosevelt registry sets outnumber Mercury sets by about 5 to 3. Not that this means a whole lot, since the vast majority of collectors do not participate in registry sets, but it does show that many collectors like Roosevelt dimes and consider them to be more than just “modern junk”. >>
You could not be MORE wrong. There are not close to 80,000 1916-D Mercury Dimes. No professional numismatist/dealer/otherwise could possibly agree with this if they had a clear head. There are fewer than 10K slabbed so we allow for a couple of thousand lower grade examples to be raw. That puts us in the 10-15K max range. The heavy weight of AG/G examples are proof that they were NOT pulled from circulation so quickly and saved. Another reason that there are not a lot of raw examples is due to the counterfeits floating around. You never hear professional numismatists suggesting to people to go get a raw one. That is the worst advice ever due to the huge numbers that have been counterfeited. If anyone expects to sell a 16-D for anywhere close to top dollar, it MUST be in a TPG holder because of all of the counterfeits and the 4 different dies used on the reverse of the coin. People tend to be risk adverse when it comes to expensive coins.
I just don't see any well respected member of these forums that are knowledgeable in the series chiming in to support you. Your claims are just way too far out there like Pluto. It is outlandish.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
The fact is that there are many thousands of raw 1916-D dimes out there. Some of them make their way to the TPGs each year, significantly increasing the total number graded over time. There’s no reason to believe that this growth in the certified population is going to come to a sudden stop anytime soon. Just another strong bit of evidence that there are *way more* than 10,000 surviving 1916-D dimes.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
