[Sigh]
cladking
Posts: 28,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
One idea that was suggested at many of the forums was for the Mint to create a “circulating rarity”. It has been decades since the general public could find something in circulation other than mint errors that were of real value.
https://coinweek.com/modern-coins/jeff-garrett-with-the-2019-w-quarter-the-hobby-catches-a-break/
It's a good article and well worth reading.
And I applaud Jeff Garrett's interest in promoting the hobby;
https://coinweek.com/us-mint-news/u-s-mint-seeks-industry-collector-insights-numismatic-forum/
But I, for one certainly find a great deal of coins with "real value" in circulation and i wager history will soon enough agree with me. Coins in circulation aren't "valued" only because they aren't collected. If they were collected then people would know how scarce a coin like a nice well struck 1971 quarter or 1982-P dime are in XF or AU. If they were being collected it would be known there aren't any collections with the coins in them either.
Go figure.,.
Comments
Not everybody is inspired to collect based on the grade of a coin or the quality of strike. Plenty of people are happy filling holes in an album. I remember years ago, reading articles in COINage magazine about underpriced areas in the hobby, such as two cent pieces, shield nickels and three cent nickels. The idea was- if only just a few more people started collecting them, the prices would skyrocket. Seen any fireworks lately? Sometimes, things are not highly valued for a reason.
Stuff made for collectors has always turned me off a bit.
The great rarities of today were mostly accidental, and they didn't happen every year or even every few years.
Same here. When you have to spend several hundred dollars (or more) a year buying from the mint just to keep your collection complete, it gets old.
Something about geese and gold eggs occurs to me just about now.
Demand really is more important than supply. You see it all the time in world and ancient coins: infinitesimal mintages and inexpensive prices.
A manufactured rarity?
Keep it.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I never imagined I'd live to see the day old scarce US coins aren't collected. I never thought I'd see the remnants of high end 1971 quarters circulating right along with heavily worn and beaten 1965 quarters.
It's fine with me if people don't want to collect them or any of the "321" silver BU Haitian 100G Statue of Liberty coins. I certainly understand that there are many reasons not to collect any coin. But it still bothers me when someone suggests there's nothing in circulation of any "value".
There have been many very astute collectors and observers who believe modern coins have value. RS Yeoman, John J Pittman, and Herb Hicks all seemed to believe that moderns are "valuable". Indeed, there are several collectors and dealers doing pretty well in these coins. What there aren't are the numbers of people who like US 3c pieces or British Pennies.
"Moderns" is an interesting description for coins if you think about it. When I started collecting Lincoln pennies as a kid, the 1909-S VDB was more modern than the first clad coins are today.
The 2019-W quarter will be extremely common for as long as it will matter to anyone collecting today. XF or AU coins in these series (regardless of strike) are presumably scarcer than UNC. Nothing unusual about it, as some older series seem to have a disproportionate percentage in low grades, little in the middle and a somewhat higher number on the higher end. Most collectors presumably prefer an UNC, weak strike or not.
Well, value is different than rarity or demand. A circulating 1950-D nickel is rare and has some demand but I'm not sure anyone would refer to that as a circulating coin of "value". And part of that equation is efficiency of the hunt. If I put an S-VDB coin into circulation right now amidst all the billions of circulating cents, it's really not worth anyone's time to go roll searching for it.
It can be said that some of the greatest rarities, the 1913 Liberty nickel and 1804 dollar, are manufactured rarities. From that perspective, they can be pretty high in demand.
It seems like the Mint may have been too successful. Back in the 60s the problem was too many people collecting from circulation. Remove the silver and voila, no more collecting.
Not only that, but collectors have all sorts of differing tastes and preferences related to coins. I like to collect coins with a certain toning look. That isn't something that can be created by minting many or a few coins. The coins themselves have to circulate over years and acquire a patina that no one really knows exactly how it occurs. Then there is the matter of finding coins not cleaned (or cleaned...maybe a collector likes cleaned), or finding coins with few marks or dings (or many marks and dings...maybe a collector likes marked up coins).
A collector could create a beautiful set of say, circulated Washington quarters picking from junk bags of silver to create a matched set of coins with similar toning and wear. Suppose a collector wanted a strict F12 set of common (pick any coin series). The extant population could be in the tens of millions but this is still collecting.
Collectors look for strike, toning, by mint, by birthyear, anniversary year...any special year. None of these collecting preferences can be manufactured.
Some collectors focus on rarity of specific series.... some just on series....others on grade or appearance....demand will dictate price - not always quantity (that is why flippers make money)....witness the market for W quarters right now. Soon it will die down...Create 'demand' and prices will increase.... simple market fundamental. Cheers, RickO
>
The value of coins such as the 1950-D nickel and 1909-S VDB cent is a throwback to the past when collecting was predominantly at FV out of circulation. Most collectors didn't find it in circulation, may not have even seen it at all (depending upon where they lived) and concluded it was "rare". It was a communication limitation of the time which created a scarcity perception which didn't actually exist. (This is a logical inference, not "fact".)
Today, every knowledgeable collector knows every one of these key dates are either common or very common, except under the current narrow definitions of "scarcity" using grade or specialization. The high prices persist anyway, at least for now.
Without the prior communication limitations and the much higher more recent survival rates (particularly since the SQ program), no coin such as the 2019-W quarter will ever have a similar perception.
Yeah, That's pretty much what killed the baseball card market.
Agree
This is probably true but the fact remains Garrett said there are no coins of value in circulation.
It seems to follow that the only coin of value is the W mint mark.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into his and your comments but it seems there's an intermediate condition in between furiously collecting W quarters from circulation and studiously collecting colonial New Jersey or New York coins. It would seem circulating coinage must be collected by many people before any of them go on to spend thousands on the kinds of coins Garrett sells.
I think there's a tremendous number and amount of valuable coins in circulation and every day they continue to wear out and get lost. This has been going on more than half a century simply because they aren't being collected. If a coin isn't in the highest grades it just goes begging independently of its scarcity. Varieties common and rare are ignored and circulating right along with the other outliers.
Are W quarters a set of one? Are they a set of all desirable modern coins?
People have no clue how difficult it is right now to put together a set of nice attractive F clad Washingtons. Most of the early dates can be found even in fine but they'll be beaten up. Indeed, more than 90% of the older clads are beaten and they can be a little tough even in bad condition. When I started here it was still possible to put together an AU set. Now, even a VF set will be a challenge because these coins don't wear smooth in pockets any longer, they get beaten up in counting machines. In a few years a F set will be out and in five years after that sets won't be doable in any condition because a few dates will be gone. By that time nearly 90% of circulating quarters will states and later and the only old quarters will be commons, cull, and heavily worn. And if people still aren't collecting them then even these will get melted by the government and the survivors hauled out with the trash.
Why spend the time searching for a nice XF-AU 1971 Quarter or 1982-P Dime when you can buy them slabbed in 67 for next to nothing???
Yes! Exactly.
I've had a ton of fun assembling my sets of the old clad quarters. But, how can I tell someone that a '78-D dime in AU is a significant find and of real "value" when a roll of nice chBU's that will contain a few Gems can be had wholesale for 11c per coin? Why spend the effort and 10c to obtain an AU coin that can be had for 11c in Gem?
The irony here is that virtually no rolls at all are actually trading at $5.50 which doesn't matter because there is virtually no demand at all. Even the '82-P dime which is scarcer than any of the '31 dimes in BU and scarcer than the most of the Barber dimes in true Gem can be had for mere dollars even in higher grades.
The problem is complex here and involves inaccurate guides and distorted markets but the bottom line is always the lack of interest. I often fault the guides for some of their blatant errors but the fact is these errors couldn't exist to perpetuate the lack of interest if not for the already pervasive lack of interest. It's a chicken/ egg scenario where comments like the lack of value in circulating coinage go hand in hand with my poor advice to put effort into collecting from pocket change while most of the nice attractive and BU examples can be had for less. And this is literal in many cases since the wholesale price of mint sets which always contain the best specimens can be had for less than face value?
I suppose The day will come that collectors blame us for not saving these coins but that day may be very far in the future, still. We didn't save them because we didn't save them because we didn't save them because we didn't save them because we didn't save them...
But the fact remains; there are most assuredly many coins of value in circulation and people are ignoring them all.
1971 in 7 is a pop 6 coin
Would be low to medium four figures.
If this is next to nothing you must be Warren Buffet's nephew.
On the 71 Quarter you would have to drop down to 65 (GEM) which is a robust 8 bucks.
My point was that moderns are dirt cheap and common up to Gem. Some get pricey in ultra Gem.
The 71 in 66 is 275 and 4500 in 67. Who would spend that kind of money on a modern...…..not me! Maybe Hanson.
I wouldn't spend that kind of money for a modern if I had Hanson's money!
Well, Garett was wrong as we both know that there are valuable US coins in circulation from the five specializations currently in vogue in US collecting: condition census (and sometimes one grade below it), selective die varieties, certain toned coins, recognized full strikes (FS, FB) and errors. Of course, it depends upon someone's definition of "valuable" but certainly worth a lot more than a 2019-W quarter.
My prior comments were referring to date/MM combinations generically. Compared to practically every other coin, US circulating moderns have been saved in "high" quality in "large" numbers. It is just (a lot) fewer than some of the predecessor (mostly maybe 1955-1964 during peak roll hoarding) silver coinage as there was no financial reason to do so. Outside of errors, there was also no market for other specializations.
From our prior conversations, you also need to remember that there appears to be (very) limited die variety collecting in the immediate classic predecessors. It appears to be mostly those listed in the Red Book. Today and in the recent past, there may be more die variety collecting for most if not every US modern series than this coinage, even though it has a much lower generic preference. I'd attribute it mostly to the ability to cherry pick and roll searching but more collectors seem to do it.
I still think that you will need to have coins that are actually used in useful commerce if you would like to see the general populations interest in them return. The current denominations are only needed to cover the odd amounts on purchases created by tax. Not very exciting.
I will tell this story again because I think it is insightful. My Granddaughter loved coins (apple not far from the tree). We would look at my collection and go through change together talking about the different kinds of coins. She would look for them everywhere and carried a ziploc bag with her to place her newly found treasure. One day with a big smile she asked me what she could get with her now heavy to her bag of loot. This is where the story ends. Grandpa was selling her trinkets and beads. Sure she still loves me, never asks to see the collection anymore.
Agree but I think it is more than that. I consider the period you seem to be referencing (late 1930's to maybe late 1960's) an aberration in history of coin collecting. This type of mass collecting never existed before and though many still collect out of circulation now, the hobby's "footprint" isn't as evident now.
Today and in the recent past, there are far too many new alternatives for the public's time and money which didn't exist before. US collecting doesn't want to hear this but the hobby generically and this type of collecting specifically isn't as competitive as it used to be.
I also believe there is a balance between too little and too much variety. Prior to the SQ program, US circulating coinage was too stale; same designs in circulation for too long. Since 1999, a case can be made that there is now too much or at least I think so. Instead of the constant change on the reverse designs, I think a lot more interest would be generated by changing the obverses. It's something which has been discussed here in the past.
Compared to practically every other coin, US circulating moderns have been saved in "high" quality in "large" numbers. It is just (a lot) fewer than some of the predecessor (mostly maybe 1955-1964 during peak roll hoarding) silver coinage as there was no financial reason to do so. Outside of errors, there was also no market for other specializations.
There are more high grade moderns than most other pre-1931 US coin series. But moderns haven't had 200 years of attrition yet and most aren't protected by high prices. You won't find an MS-65 1804 dollar in pocket change but you could (in theory) find an equally rare modern. An 1804 dollar is insured, sometimes guarded, and well protected but an equally rare modern might be sitting in a change jar or a collection in someone's closet.
Moderns are destroyed at a rate of about 3% annually and even valuable moderns are over 1%. When was the last time you heard of a rare classic being lost or destroyed?
Were any lost in Nashville, New Orleans, or Paradise, CA? You can bet tens of thousands of modern were destroyed.
What about the moderns that are already rare in one of your five categories?
To each his own.
Maybe a '74 FB would interest you a little more.
As far as the 1974 Dime ……. I have that coin in 66. And don't need the bands.
I think I have already seen this movie. This may be a re-make, but I am sure the outcome will not be any different.
“Maybe a '74 FB would interest you a little more.”
I know collectors right now that are “lining up” for that great coin! A true modern rarity. Unlike these W quarters that I could personally care less about, but will be forced to purchase in some decent grade to maintain my #1 1932-date (near 700 coin) complete series status. CK- as we both know, there are myriad “sleeper” modern rarities in all denominations just waiting to be discovered by the next generation or two. I just put many of them in Safeflips these days and instruct Justin (age 27) to review them carefully when I am “long gone” and he is a old man.
Wondercoin
I don't think it's reasonable to compare absolute rarity to condition rarity, but still... say you found such a modern- what is the likelihood that the modern would command the same sort of interest as the dollar? Isn't that instructive in some way?
It sounds like you're disappointed that others can't seem to be encouraged to be as enthusiastic about moderns as you are.
>
I'm just starting to use up my first order of Safeflips. I'm sure I'm going to have quite a few things that aren't even saleable now but will be appreciated in 50 years.
I know I have some very well struck '74 dimes in one of my safety deposit boxes but can't remember if any are FB (by my old standards) or not.
No. That's not it.
Sure I'm disappointed that so few people are enjoying these great coins but this really doesn't matter much to me any longer. Things have just worked out that way and I still get a great deal of pleasure finding great coins in circulation. I'd not like to lose that.
The thing is that the vast majority of clad never looked good even when it came off the dies. Most Barber dimes looked good and most were at least MS-64 but clad can typically look like garbage and then it gets banged up before leaving the mint. Nice attractive moderns can be tough in every grade.
You look at high end moderns and see contrived rarity. Obviously everything is rare as perfection is approached. But the reality is that many of these coins are elusive even in nice attractive MS-63. And every year most of them are getting more elusive.
I think it's foolish for most people to pay huge premiums for high grade coins when the grades just below it are common, but oftentimes the lower grades are few and far between as well. If someone does choose to pay the premium then more power to them. As I said though the problem isn't that moderns are in too much supply. The problem is lack of demand and people believing "all moderns are common" or "no coins in circulation have much value" contributes to the continued lack of demand. It causes the coins to continue to have far lower prices than their true "value".
My generation is never going to get on board with moderns. I've known this for more than a decade now. Maybe the next one won't either. It would certainly be interesting to see.
I would think their true value is what people are currently willing to pay for them now, not what they might be valued at in some hypothetical world where conditional rarity is comparable to absolute rarity.
Looking back I wish I had just done the Silver Roosies especially since I sold my Seated Dimes in 2016. The ONLY reason I bought the clad Roosies was to fill the slots in my Complete Dime Complete Variety Set 1796 to present. The clad Dimes were cheap, but I imagine I would still take a bath if I tried to sell them. ARGH!
You might think this but this would be a distortion of reality.
I tried to buy mid-1950's Chinese aluminum coins for many years. They listed for nothing because they were mass produced junk. If you could find a roll of them you could pick it up for a dollar or two because there was no demand. I could outbid anyone because I knew they were scarce or rare. But I was lucky to find a nice AU from time to time. Now in high grade they list for prices up to $900!
I didn't know their true value in 1976 any more than I know what it is now. It's not like the catalog listed the prices right then so why assume they do now? All I know is they were scarce then and they are scarcer now. Then you could get them cheap if you found them, now you can't. My guess is there's still not very much demand. There might be ten collectors chasing five coins. Maybe a huge hoard of millions will be discovered.
Without demand "value" really has no meaning. So saying there's nothing of value in circulation is highly misleading and a distortion. One can only say there's nothing in demand in circulation and it's really up to collectors to define things like "rarity", "desirability", "quality", and "value". Without collectors a coin is just a coin and moderns are just pocket change. W-quarters do not change this equation.
Which coin is this?
Getting back to conditional rare modern Dimes. Yes they are hard to find in 68 and up especially with FB. The problem is demand. There are very very few chasing these ultra high grade FB clad Dimes. There is Wondercoin and a few others and that is it. Most collectors that even collect clad Dimes are like me and need only a 66 or 67 that they can get cheap instead of spending hundreds or thousands for a point or two more in grade. JMHO
"Most collectors that even collect clad Dimes are like me and need only a 66 or 67 that they can get cheap instead of spending hundreds or thousands for a point or two more in grade."
Demonstrating the difference between conditional and absolute rarity quite clearly, I'd think.
I can’t “chase” (as in “seriously personally collect”) every modern Mint State coin, so long ago I limited it to just quarters and half dollars (and to a lesser extent great Ike dollars). I like to place “homemade” coins in my sets wherever possible. That is what collecting is all about in my opinion. Not just writing a huge check for another fellow’s set that the other fellow built. How do you learn anything about each specific date and mintmark that way? Don’t get me wrong- I love modern cents, nickels, dimes and dollars. I just, unfortunately, can not afford to collect every modern series.
For the most part, almost everything I do with mint state moderns is based upon condition rarity. Almost Twenty years ago here on the forum, I spoke of 1954-P cents being worth good money in true MS67RD. Nearly 99% of everyone here laughed at the thought. Now, they are about $20,000.00 coins. Watch what the great coins from the 1970s are worth 20 years from now!
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Years ago I originally started putting my sets together from circulation strikes. Washington quarters were one of the 1st sets i completed. Eventually I started thinking about upgrading to more attractive coins, so I started looking at mint sets. I was just surprised at how cheap the majority of the mint sets are. How many mint sets are still out there today? So while it may be hard to find a higher grade in circulation, you can get the modern clad uncirculated for almost every date at very cheap prices.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
First, the attrition on the better coins won't be as high as in the past because a larger number of current collectors are more aware of preserving collectibles as close to the original state as possible. This applies more to SQ and later coinage but there is every reason to believe that earlier coinage will experience lower attrition than in the past. This 3% attrition estimate you gave, it may apply to US moderns generically, but why would it apply to the higher quality coinage? The most likely event to alter what I have told you is if economic conditions force a much higher percentage of the US population (collectors and not) to liquidate anything they have to raise liquidity.
Second, I presume there are more of the widely collected varieties or other specialization out there than is evident now. So yes, some or many of these coins will experience attrition because the owner doesn't know what they have. However, for die varieties generically, it doesn't and won't matter how rare most are, as their is no reason to believe that demand will noticeably increase for more than a very low proportion. There isn't much die variety collecting outside of a (very) low number of series, US or otherwise. Too many and most lack sufficient distinction.
What you wrote isn't just your opinion. It is evident in how people actually spend their money. It is psychology and eco 101. Collectors (and people generally) can say anything they want but the best indication to demonstrate what is important to them is how they spend their time and money.
It should be evident that to the overwhelming percentage of collectors, owning a condition census coin (any coin, not just modern) isn't a priority or else a much larger number would attempt to compete for it. Only a low minority can afford one of these coins (unless shared in multiple) but a much larger multiple can certainly do so even if it is in isolation and not for a full set.
The reason they do not is because first, the financial risk of incurring a loss at resale. There is a big difference in "making the grade" through "cherry picking" and entirely another in paying "full freight" by buying it at the current open market price. And second, because it presumably doesn't provide them more than marginal (if any) utility by making any noticeable difference to their collecting experience.
These Chinese coins aren't scarce, even in the highest grades and I doubt any but maybe the absolute highest grade are worth $900 either. You can see this for yourself by looking in the TPG population data. My recollection is that practically every single one of these coins are recorded in either MS-68 and a few in MS-69. Most of the earlier dates are listed by the hundreds in MS-66 or MS-67, for all metals. Multiple MS-68 isn't unusual either.
@wondercoin
You’re a great contrarian, and I’d wager that in a couple decades more you’ll be proven right about much of this. Trying to get people to join your crusade is going to be an uphill battle, I’m afraid.
Too fine a point. You are redefining demand to mean value to avoid saying modern clad had little value NOW.
It isn't even arguable.
It is more than that. The example used is a poor one because this coinage isn't scarce. He just believed it to be. The coins were hard to find in the 1970's not because it was scarce or rare, but first because of the low market price which reduced the incentive to offer it for sale. And second, possibly because of limited travel between the PRC and everywhere else.
I look at the population reports, regularly. When I need to comment on a thread for a coin I don't know well, I will also look at archive data in eBay or Heritage. Most don't do either, except for what they collect or is of interest to them. For low priced coinage, invariably supposedly scarce coins are available in multiple even in the highest quality any day of the week.
Two minutes worth of effort would have proved that this coinage not only isn't scarce, but extremely common. The NGC data lists almost 22,000 Fen, 20,0002F and 20,000 5F. The vast majority are in grades of MS-65 to MS-67. The counts for the 1950's dates are in many instances higher than later dates, probably because it worth more. As a complete guess, I'd estimate these coins exist in a noticeable multiple to the existing counts even in the highest grades. In "high" quality, there could be tens of thousands easily if not far more for each and every date.
I agree, but I was referring more to his commentary on modern clad coinage. He seems to want to say, in an awkward logical construction: the coins have value but low prices due to lack of demand. What I really think he should stick to is: there is FUTURE value here. That, of course, is just a guess.
He's right that demand is the issue. But demand, or lack thereof, creates low current value. It is unavoidable.
If I had to pick one or the other - poll anyone? - I would suggest it is far more likely that an S-VDB cent decreases significantly in value over the next 20 years than that a 1971 AU quarter goes up at all.
Obviously your point is valid and if we define "value" from a monetary perspective than no date/ mint mark circulating modern has an average value greater than 1c over face value. If you had every single 1982 quarter the average current value would be less than 26c. There are only a handful of each date/ mm combination which have much value and most are at the very high end of the grading scale.
Even in 1964 when people were stashing away rolls of current coinage they were doing it because the coins would have "value" in the future. Of course these coins still have no "value" because so many people saved them from the destruction of circulation that they are still common.
But collectors in the 1880's were buying proofs from the mint. These coins, too, had no "value" at the time but they bought them because of what they represented and because they had "value" beyond their metal and face value. Many of these coins have very high monetary value today.
Mints never or rarely make coins to have value above face value. They make them for commerce or to satisfy collector demand. It's collectors who assign monetary value and it's collectors who define what makes coins valuable. It appears we do this through supply and demand but this has never really been strictly true because supply is virtually irrelevant to collectors. Millions of Morgans have been graded and millions more trade at a steep premium to metal value. Collectors desire them for myriad reasons from nostalgia to historical importance. There is lots of demand and this demand can eat through almost any supply and already has.
Meanwhile @WCC claims there are 20,000 Chinese aluminum coins of three denominations graded. 300 million Americans have eaten up the millions of Morgans graded but somehow we believe 1,300 million Chinese can't go through 20,000 graded aluminum coins from early their country's history.
I could use another word for the moderns in circulation other than "valuable". But let me ask you this, do we let bond buyers define the value of securities or the buyers of securities define bond values? Of course not. Just because Garrettt and almost everyone else has no interest in modern does not make them valueless. It merely means there is very low demand and very low monetary value.
Sure, I've been predicting they'd soar since 1972. I was wrong in '72 and I'm apparently wrong now despite false starts in '89 and '17. Perhaps they will never acquire much monetary value but, as I said, this is no longer important to me and I'm finally a net seller anyway. I'm no longer even really promoting these coins and it's more inertia than anything that leads me to post threads like this.
I still hope more people will come to recognize their real and potential value for many reasons but chief among them is that these have given me a lot of joy and it would be nice to know future generations can experience this as well. I also hope that the Gems I saved will help people remember the last half a century in the best possible light. While we've had some bad things going on there have also been a great deal of good things and human and individual triumphs. A beat up cull '69 quarter is more likely to remind people in the future of the rioting but a nice Gem might remind them of "A giant leap for mankind".
I'm going to have a lot of time on my hands in the next century and need to plan my activities now.
Mint sets are the greatest boon and greatest albatross for modern's progress and perception of value. The best coins made by the mints each year almost all go into mint sets making them readily available. But since nobody collects moderns no one has noticed these sets are virtually gone in their entirety. More than half of the older sets have been "distributed" to circulation, folders, and albums. Many have been destroyed to get Gems in the last 20 years.
But most of the few remaining are tarnished and many (far from all) have already been cherry picked to death. It's just the dregs and remnants that survive.
Of course, if you can find sets early in the supply chain (at the corner coin shop) you can still get fresh sets with Gems. Most mint set coins are just junk. Believe it or not only the nicest 45% of some coins like '76-P type I Ikes can even be sold as chBU!!! Now days it's much lower because so many sets are tarnished.
The notion that there are millions of nice Gems in mint sets never really was right and it couldn't be more wrong today.
https://www.pcgs.com/news/Destruction-of-Mint-Sets/