Every other clad quarter can be found with full strikes from good dies. Some are easy and some are tough.
Don't get me wrong that there are other dates that can't be found with 100% stikes. Ironically one of the easiest dates to find with solid strikes from brand new dies is the '72-D. But somehow the "2" in the date is NEVER 100% full. It is rarely more than about 80% full; ie- the outer part of the number is not fully struck to the top, If the die were a cup it would fill only about 95%. If I were making the argument that the '72-D is poorly struck or use it as an example then I'd agree that argument was a " No true Scotsman" fallacy.
But the '82-P is a wholly different animal. The vast majority of these in BU condition are struck by heavily worn die with the average being over 200,000 strikes. Even well struck coins will lose detail at this stage. ADDITIONALLY the vast majority of these are from misaligned dies. This is not a subtle misalignment or design problem like the '72-D but rather the entire upper portion of Liberty is not filly struck and frequently it's not really struck at all. This is what makes '66 quarters look so heavily worn; the coin passes from BU to AG with no stops in between because the rim is worn into the lettering. But the misalignment problems hardly stop there because typically there will be other parts not full as well.
After this date was poorly made they almost all got scratched and then most went into circulation.
I define what I call a 99% strike as a minimum requirement for "Gem". A 100% strike would be when every letter is fully struck up and rounded at the top. This is atypical on most coins so 99% has to do. This is a well struck coin made by good serviceable dies. Some dates are common like this and some are quite scarce. But I doubt the '82-P was ever even made like this; not even one single coin and if one were it's a virtual certainty it's worn down to XF right now.
With great effort I tracked down a bag of really nice gemmy 1982-P quarters in 1982. Most of the coins in this bag were quite well struck and the bag was not badly handled before I got it so there were large numbers of very clean coins. I saved out the best few dozen and circulated the rest. As nice as these coins are and the fact that one individual coin was much nicer than all the rest, this special coin is a tweener. It is very gemmy. It was about the 5,000th strike from a very solid die that was very well adjusted. It happens to be very clean but what makes it special is the quality of the strike. I'd grade it right on the line between MS-64 and MS-65. I don't remember right now if it's clean enough to get MS-66 or MS-67 but the point is none of these other coins have 99% stikes. Most of them are poor strikes from poor dies because this is the way they were made.
If you want a nice clean '82-P you can find one. If you want a full strike from good dies then you can't. I've looked at too many of these coins to believe that any exist, I advertised to buy '82 and '83 issues in Gem for $40 each all through the early and mid-'90's. This was back when you could get a roll of '82-D's for $15. You simply wouldn't believe how few I got and how much junk people sent me. I got XF's and BU's that looked like they were run over by a forklift. People didn't raw moderns then and now all raw moderns are coming to a close. They had no '82 and '83 rolls to search to send me the nicest ones. These markets are so thin that nobody has even noticed that a coin of a quality that lists in Redbook for $15 doesn't even exist!!!!
This could last for a long time but I'm going to sell that '82-P anyway as soon as it turns up in a safety deposit box. I'm distributing these one at a time and eventually I'll get to it.
Every other clad quarter can be found with full strikes from good dies. Some are easy and some are tough.
I should also mention that just because other dates are available with 99% strikes this doesn't mean high grades are easily found. Some dates like the '83-P and the '69 are almost always marked, scratched, or have planchet defects (chicken scratching). Very few clad quarters are common in Gem condition. Even the most common like the '72-D is far less common than most people imagine. I'd be surprised if more than 100,000 survive today. This date is significantly more common than any other date at all. And this is an extremely liberal estimate since it's hard to know how many coin dealers put in the cash register.
I'd think it might cause some difficulties in communication (such as your buying attempts noted above) but I don't see any reason you can't have a personal definition of "gem" that nobody else goes by.
@MasonG said:
I'd think it might cause some difficulties in communication (such as your buying attempts noted above) but I don't see any reason you can't have a personal definition of "gem" that nobody else goes by.
I recognize that this is not the current definition. I am the odd man out.
However, I believe ALL collectors seek quality and as these markets mature there will be more people who care about all the design details being present on a coin. This isn't as important on older coins because the range in quality from the best to the worst wasn't nearly as great. Few people care about Morgan dollars with each star fully struck because every Gem looks pretty nice.
But most older clads look like junk to me and I'm sure many collectors will see the same thing. There is a huge difference between the best made '82-P quarter and its design specifications. The typical '82-P quarter is not at all attractive sometimes and some of those high grades are just typical coins with no scratches.
To each his own. I know most collectors don't care that much about strike but I think as this market matures there will be a great deal more people looking to find a True Scotsman rather than a Northern Britisher.
You say these coins don't exist in high grades. Why do you think, as the market matures, there will be more people looking for them when there are none to be found?
@MasonG said:
You say these coins don't exist in high grades. Why do you think, as the market matures, there will be more people looking for them when there are none to be found?
I believe collectors who can't find a Scotsman will settle for whatever they can find that is closest. There are no 99% strikes so they'll seek a 98% strike. If they can't find that at a reasonable price they'll look for a 90%.
Every coins always ends up in the hands of whoever values it the most but if more people demand better strikes then the playing field will simply tip in that direction.
The way we define things is always undergoing revision. When I was young if you lit a match to look in a barrel marked "inflammable" you were in big trouble. Who knows what would happen today that it's not a word at all.
@cladking said:
I believe collectors who can't find a Scotsman will settle for whatever they can find that is closest. There are no 99% strikes so they'll seek a 98% strike. If they can't find that at a reasonable price they'll look for a 90%.
What if they consider the price for a 90% to be unreasonable?
@MasonG said:
>
What if they consider the price for a 90% to be unreasonable?
As I define the term even '82-P quarters don't get a lot worse. A lot of clad, especially early clad, have poorly defined lettering around the rim. There isn't enough metal in the area or sufficient time for the low pressure striking to fill these areas. Now days relief is lower so full strikes (99%) are more common.
I'm sure collectors will collect what they choose. If they choose '82-P quarters to be in their collection they'll probably in most cases just buy the nicest one that suits them even if it's a nicely made XF. I just doubt that poorly made and unattractive moderns will ever be very popular. Mintages are so high and the hobby is and has been obsessed with quality. Even without the focus on quality and even if the pendulum swings and collectors are willing to collect MS-60 moderns the fact remains that a lot of MS-60's are ugly. Standards in 1966 were exceedingly low. Essentially if a quarter leaving the mint worked in vending machines it was "good enough". Ironically they made large numbers of '70-D quarters as well as others that didn't work in vending machines and '74 Ikes that couldn't be stacked. The standard for Barber dimes was far higher so most MS-60's are plenty attractive. Nice MS-60 Barber dimes are common enough that collectors tend to lower their own standards and even might buy an MS-60 that isn't very attractive so long as the luster is excellent.
During these conversations, I always imagine ALL of the remaining 1982 quarters on Earth gathered and piled up in one giant pyramid, millions of coins, with all the worn ones on the bottom and the best Uncirculated ones on top, and one person saying, "those at the top aren't very nice! The very nicest ones should be worth a lot more!"
@cladking said:
I'm sure collectors will collect what they choose. If they choose '82-P quarters to be in their collection they'll probably in most cases just buy the nicest one that suits them even if it's a nicely made XF.
I'd agree with that. Maybe they'll try to cherrypick a nicer raw example but I don't see collectors who are filling albums ever being willing to pay top dollar for high grade slabbed pieces.
@cladking said:
Standards in 1966 were exceedingly low. Essentially if a quarter leaving the mint worked in vending machines it was "good enough". The standard for Barber dimes was far higher so most MS-60's are plenty attractive.
In 1966, the mint was in the second year of trying to replace the entire existing stock of circulating quarters. When you're making nearly a billion coins a year, you're going to be less fussy than when you're only making a couple million.
Earlier, you posted:
@cladking said:
Don't get me wrong that there are other dates that can't be found with 100% stikes. Ironically one of the easiest dates to find with solid strikes from brand new dies is the '72-D. But somehow the "2" in the date is NEVER 100% full.
Just for kicks, I pulled out my Washington quarter album to see what my 72-D looked like. To be perfectly honest, I'm not seeing a weakness in the date like you described and I can't imagine there would be album collector anywhere in the entire country who wouldn't be satisfied with it. Here it is...
What if they consider the price for a 90% to be unreasonable?
To put this in another way, I would expect a nice AU-55 '82-P to bring much more than an MS-63. I would expect some AU-58's (there are a lot of these) to be worth more than some coins that we call MS-65.
The grading scale was invented for old coins made to exacting standards. It is applied to moderns because of market forces but when these markets mature these forces might change simply because of the difference in production standards.
I believe that strike will become a far bigger factor in grading than currently of these coins going forward.
@Baley said:
During these conversations, I always imagine ALL of the remaining 1982 quarters on Earth gathered and piled up in one giant pyramid, millions of coins, with all the worn ones on the bottom and the best Uncirculated ones on top, and one person saying, "those at the top aren't very nice! The very nicest ones should be worth a lot more!"
Wow! Talk about damage and attrition.
There are about 380 million surviving and the average condition is much higher than average condition of much later dates because many have been set aside.
I think what you're missing here is that these coins were almost universally poorly made. The top coin in that pyramid as we currently define the terms and parameters for grading is probably very poorly made from worn misaligned dies. On every single parameter this date falls short. The nicest thing I can say about quarter production in Philly in 1982 is that the planchets were probably average quality. It's not only the dies and strike that was substandard but handling and distribution. The coins were quickly released into circulation during a time that quarter velocity was beginning a steep fall. They were pretty well in circulation by the time Numismatic News reported that there were no rolls available BUT there were millions of specimens that were still sliders and many were gobbled up.
The finest coin is the finest coin no matter how terms are defined but those coins at the top of the pyramid in still BU condition are mostly poorly struck from misaligned and heavily worn dies. There was simply no mechanism for distributing quarters to collectors in 1982 so many of the few that were set aside are simply "typical" for the date. Finding any Gems at all was next to impossible. I was lucky and found a bag of nice specimens but anyone picturing a bunch of MS-70's will be in for a rude awakening if they ever try to collect them.
You can find these coins nearly mark free but finding them well made and mark free might be impossible. I've seen some that are graded at high levels and they are beauties in most cases but they are not full strikes.
This might not be a mint set coin! It's pretty uncommon to see old clad that isn't mint set. The '72-D is more common than most in rolls but rolls are still scarce.
Look at the middle of the "7". I don't believe this was designed this way. The cutting of the date is more angular than other dates but the tops of the digits are still supposed to be "rounded" at the top. You can find other specimens that show this on the "7". Usually it's the "2" that is most poorly struck leading me to suspect it's not mint set.
You can still see how strongly struck the coin is and this is typical for the '72-D. Hammered specimens were even found in BU rolls.
It's only a little atypical for a mint set coin. Most years there's really not much difference except for die and strike quality tends to be higher on the mint set.
@MasonG said:
>
I don't believe there's even a handful of collectors filling holes in a Dansco that would care.
With a really well made date like the '72-D I don't much care either.
I guess I'm having a hard time following your argument. You appear to be more particular about strike on these coins than anybody I've ever encountered, yet you say you're not really bothered by the lack of a full strike on the coin I posted. And you're saying if demand for full strike coins were to increase, prices would skyrocket. So- if you're okay with the coin pictured, and you're about as discriminating as anybody out there, who will be creating this demand?
“So- if you're okay with the coin pictured, and you're about as discriminating as anybody out there, who will be creating this demand?”
Reminds me of a “fetish” I had for more than a dozen years. I wanted fully struck 1953-S Franklins and would outbid everyone at public auction for quite a while on coins that were so, so close to FBL, but, in nearly all cases, honestly just not there for FBL (very few really are including the coins designated as FBL in my view). I always thought “some day, one day many people would join in on my fetish too”. Who wouldn’t want a 98% or 99% FBL fully struck coin for $300 or $400 when a “100% FBL” coin was worth $25,000? Well... a generation later... the answer is almost no one cares. You are either “pregnant” or “not pregnant” when it comes to Franklins with full bell lines. Perhaps the next generation might care about strong strikes.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@MasonG said:
>
I don't believe there's even a handful of collectors filling holes in a Dansco that would care.
With a really well made date like the '72-D I don't much care either.
I guess I'm having a hard time following your argument. You appear to be more particular about strike on these coins than anybody I've ever encountered, yet you say you're not really bothered by the lack of a full strike on the coin I posted. And you're saying if demand for full strike coins were to increase, prices would skyrocket. So- if you're okay with the coin pictured, and you're about as discriminating as anybody out there, who will be creating this demand?
The coin you pictured is a '72-D. These all come well struck. Sure, many of them are ugly anyway because they have planchet marking, were struck by horribly worn dies, or are scratched and gouged. But nice hammered specimens are not difficult to find and are just about typical for the date, especially in mint sets. This date mint set normally doesn't even corrode so attractive coins of this date are exceedingly common. Nice choice attractive BU is typical in the (nearly) one million surviving sets.
My interest in 100% strikes cuts across ALL MODERNS and is not strictly limited to any specific date. But the '72-D is an anomaly and an enigma. It's an anomaly because it's the only date that is typically well made and it's an enigma because it's one of very few dates that doesn't seem to appear with a 100% strike. Even first strikes off of new dies have deficiencies.
But other dates, almost all other dates, are scarce with a 99% strike!!! This is the standard I use for "Gem" yet few coins are of this quality and it's not just quarters but all moderns intended for circulation including coins in mint sets. In other words most clad quarters are scarce in Gem if you define "Gem" as a well made coin from good dies with a minimum of hits.
One of the things that makes this important is that "Gems" can be found for every date (except '82-P) and many of the coins that fail to make the cut are what at least I consider "unattractive". Even more importantly vast numbers of coins in less than MS-63 have significant defects because modern coins were not made to the same standards as classics. There was much more workmanship and pride in 1909. There was more ability to do your job correctly and not be directed to allow shoddiness up and down stream or to produce junk yourself. The mint directed every employee to concentrate on quantity and not quality. Dies were run at low pressure to protect them from wear and were still used down to the nub. Back in the early days when I cut my teeth on clad the well made coin was rarely seen and I just kept focusing on these as the years went by.
It's entirely possible that other collectors in the future won't agree with me whether there are many or few. But the fact remains if even a few start looking for full strikes then their prices will soar. This is nowhere more self evident than the '82-P since so few specimens even have a 95% strike. Coins were removed from bags and most of these bags were typical. Most of the coins removed were typical as well but there are a few exceptions even here. Numismatic News assembled sets and they obviously tried to select nicer coins and nicer strikes as did the Paul & Judy sets. Even the mint sets (souvenir) made by the mint are hardly better than typical and no full strikes appear from this source. If you want a near-FS there are only three sources including what I call the "California sets" in the large manila envelope. I've seen only a very very few of these and can;'t rule out the possibility of a Full Strike (99 or 100%), but the ones I've seen are great strikes. Unfortunately they used unstable packaging and it's entirely possible all of these coins are now ruined.
What you are implying (and claimed in prior threads) is a return to 1960's "mass market" collecting, but on steroids.
No.
I am suggesting that any kind of mass market in moderns would drive prices far higher. We have mass markets for all sorts of coins and there's no reason one can't develop for modern US.
Take modern Russia or India. I have no reason to believe these are even "mass markets" and every reason to believe the enormous run up in prices is being caused by a small number of collectors chasing an even smaller supply.
The same thing exists in the US but it is invisible because of the way we define terms and I've provided this example before. "Gem" as I define it (and I'm sure many modern collectors agre) is a well struck coin, well centered on a good planchet struck by a well made and relatively new die. Most dies are plenty good enough to strike up to ~40,000 Gems before they have excessive wear. There are hundreds of dies so millions of Gem can come off the dies every year. But many presses are set up poorly so every coin from a new pair of dies will be weakly struck or so "hammered" the die wears out early. Presses are often poorly aligned making one side of thew quarter weak. Then the Gem that do get produced are sent out on conveyors and run into hoppers and bags. They often are marred during this process destroying more Gems.
You have been comparing US moderns to the predecessor coinage like the Mercury dime, silver Washington and Buffalo nickel. This is your baseline for "normalcy"; the preference US moderns are "supposed" to have which they do not and never have. The "mass market" in this coinage isn't remotely at the prices implied by your prior post in this thread. Practically all of these classics sell for immaterial prices, except for key dates, a low number of semi-keys and due to generic US collecting practices (TPG, specialization).
Very few of these common US classics also sell for meaningful prices with anything close to the supply you included in your one post. Those that do sell for a high price now do so because they have a history from the prior communication limitation I described.
This isn't going to happen anymore, as the prior communication limitation doesn't exist and the choices primarily now available from the internet. For a very common US modern with 20,000 survivors to all be worth more than hundreds (an example from your prior post here), this coinage would have to be preferred over at least 95% of all coinage ever struck. That's simply not going to happen, ever. It's not going to happen because collectors (or the public) have no predisposition to prefer their circulating change. They didn't in the 1960's except as I stated (key and some semi-key dates), and they aren't going to later either.
As for Russia and India, it's outside the scope of this topic. But even here, your posting history exaggerates this performance since you don't even know what these coins are actually worth. On the few occasions I checked your claims, the examples you used sell for a (low) fraction of what you believe.
You have been comparing US moderns to the predecessor coinage like the Mercury dime, silver Washington and Buffalo nickel. This is your baseline for "normalcy"; ...
I'll read the post when I have more time.
NO!
I am defining "normal" as the historical interest in modern coins. So far as is known there had always been some interest in modern coins right from the very first ones in 700 BC.
You have been comparing US moderns to the predecessor coinage like the Mercury dime, silver Washington and Buffalo nickel. This is your baseline for "normalcy"; ...
I'll read the post when I have more time.
NO!
I am defining "normal" as the historical interest in modern coins. So far as is known there had always been some interest in modern coins right from the very first ones in 700 BC.
There is interest in this coinage now, just not at the prices you insist it should be worth.
The reason I have used this inference repeatedly is because it's the only possible interpretation of your claims. If you are going to claim otherwise again, where did you ever get the idea that anyone else has to agree with you to prefer the coins you do as much as you think they should?
There is no required minimum preference for any coin. That's why I used the example of the 3CN in our initial discussion. It's been among the least preferred US classic series since inception, now 131 years since it was discontinued. There is also no reason to expect it to become noticeably more "popular" later than it is now. It was subject to speculation during the late 80's TPG bubble but that wasn't collecting.
Is there anything unusual in this? No, there isn't any more than there is with the coinage you like. The only difference in applying your claims is that US moderns still circulate while the 3CN does not. I can apply the same reasoning to the 3CN that you have been using and the result is exactly the same.
As I told you before, your complaint is on the price level, not anything else. Most other coins sell at nominal prices, just as US moderns do. You exaggerate the significance of the prices other coins sell for but that's all it is - an exaggeration.
@WCC said:
>
As I told you before, your complaint is on the price level, not anything else.
I have no complaint. I love modern coins and have made a "pretty penny" on them.
If I did have a complaint it would be that many old time collectors feel the need to proselytize against them. Even here, though, this is good for the long term health of these markets because it promotes the idea of controversy and nothing attracts interest like controversy.
I believe moderns really do have everything but I am obviously highly biased. But this bias doesn't mean that I either have a complaint or believe other collectors should collect them. Rather I believe the new generation of collectors will be larger than the previous and a higher percentage will collect them. And, yes, by the way I do believe old nickels and 3c nickels will become more popular as well since they have most everything moderns have and they are old.
As for Russia and India, it's outside the scope of this topic. But even here, your posting history exaggerates this performance since you don't even know what these coins are actually worth. On the few occasions I checked your claims, the examples you used sell for a (low) fraction of what you believe.
You have no idea what kind of Russian, Indian, Korean, or Chinese coins could be bought for a dollar back in the '80's and '90's. If you get them at five for $1 it doesn't really matter if the coins sell for $800 or $3000. The problem with finding rare coins in the '90's and today often has far more to do with finding them than it does with what they cost. Many coins I never did find even a single example. Despite enormous effort some of these coins weren't available and even at higher prices they aren't much more available.
Moderns are still terra incognita and collecting them is about knowledge and perseverance. You can even collect most of them from eBay now days if that is your preference. Why you consider such characteristics as being liabilities, I do not understand. I never found a Chinese 1955 5f in BU. I imagine now it would be pretty easy with eBay. Better date Indian was very difficult as were many common dates in nice condition (like chBU).
Really starting to get silly now. Every coin was a modern at some point. Every single one.
Many of the “moderns” I started talking about here in 2001 are now classics! Franklins, 1932D/S quarters, etc.
Continue to watch for record prices on moderns. Like the 1975 No S Dime I recently sold for $516,000.00 that traded in the $300,000’s just a few years ago. And, most everyone thought that was crazy back then. This coin will become a “classic” coin in the next 5-10 years now. And, so it goes.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Many of the “moderns” I started talking about here in 2001 are now classics! Franklins, 1932D/S quarters, etc.
Perspective is everything.
Most of we-old time collectors think of anything made since 1964 as being modern but when I started in 1957 most collectors thought a '50-D nickel was classic and a '32-D quarter was an ancient.
Goalposts are always moving and they don't move smoothly but in fits and starts. They can move in any direction. As John Prine says, "Time don't fly, it bounds and leaps.".
And always "Time flies" even in between its bounds and leaps.
@wondercoin said:
Really starting to get silly now. Every coin was a modern at some point. Every single one.
Many of the “moderns” I started talking about here in 2001 are now classics! Franklins, 1932D/S quarters, etc.
Continue to watch for record prices on moderns. Like the 1975 No S Dime I recently sold for $516,000.00 that traded in the $300,000’s just a few years ago. And, most everyone thought that was crazy back then. This coin will become a “classic” coin in the next 5-10 years now. And, so it goes.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
With specific coins like the 1975-S "no S" dime, it's effectively a random event which will drive prices. That's not true of the coinage generically being discussed here.
Moderns are still terra incognita and collecting them is about knowledge and perseverance. You can even collect most of them from eBay now days if that is your preference. Why you consider such characteristics as being liabilities, I do not understand. I never found a Chinese 1955 5f in BU. I imagine now it would be pretty easy with eBay. Better date Indian was very difficult as were many common dates in nice condition (like chBU).
To each his own.
I have never said that finding coins on the internet is a liability. I have used the internet as evidence against your claim that collectors will choose any coins in the proportion you imply. That's never going to happen with US moderns or the world coinage you call "modern" in similar proportion as existed in the 1960's with 1933-1964 US coinage.
Hardly any of this coinage is likely remotely scarce. The TPG data prove that Chinese PRC are extremely common. If there as many as 100,000 world coins meeting your definition of "modern", maybe as many as 500 are genuinely rare and a few thousand legitimately scarce. Most of these are almost certainly from obscure countries with limited to no organized collecting where the mintages were also low due to population and economics.
If anyone wants to collect it, great. No reason to believe more than a very low proportion will ever be worth substantially higher material prices than now, adjusted for price changes.
@cladking I do not collect moderns but found your post to be very interesting. I recently needed to acquire some modern proof cents for my "toned" 1936-present set. Not many genuine toned examples that are less than 20-30 years old so I had to fill the moderns with PR70DCAM's. But I might also start a collection of DCAM's back to reasonable date.
But when it comes to moderns, the only quality coins will be proofs. What is the fascination with MS coins other than S, W and D mint marks or no mint marks. And even the worst PR coins will be much nicer than MS coins.
@OldIndianNutKase said: @cladking I do not collect moderns but found your post to be very interesting. I recently needed to acquire some modern proof cents for my "toned" 1936-present set. Not many genuine toned examples that are less than 20-30 years old so I had to fill the moderns with PR70DCAM's. But I might also start a collection of DCAM's back to reasonable date.
But when it comes to moderns, the only quality coins will be proofs. What is the fascination with MS coins other than S, W and D mint marks or no mint marks. And even the worst PR coins will be much nicer than MS coins.
OINK
A lot of people look at the generally poor quality of BU moderns and the superb quality of the proof and collect the proofs. It makes perfect sense to do this. But others Find a challenge or the desire to find good quality circulation strikes even though some are available only in mint sets. There are several circulation strikes that can be comparable to proofs in quality such as '88-D cents. Even some of the clad can be just breathtaking.
If anyone wants to collect it, great. No reason to believe more than a very low proportion will ever be worth substantially higher material prices than now, adjusted for price changes.
People ARE collecting it. I neither know nor care how many but it's pretty obvious that they must be collecting it when $2 coins from 20 years ago are now priced at $1000.
A lot of these are coins I've been looking for for decades but can't find. Many of them are "unicorns"; oft reported but never seen.
People look at boxes and crates of moderns everywhere and believe it's all common junk. I looked in those boxes and crates and was surprised by what I saw but I was simply astonished by what I didn't see. They contained very few circulating moderns except quantities of the same issues that was consistent from one box to the next. When people took in collections to the coin shops these same coins weren't in the collections either.
We BELIEVE high mintages will assure a lasting supply of a coin but it doesn't and DIDN'T work this way. Only collectors and mints save coins and many mints didn't and most collectors had no interest in moderns. We can't retroactively change the facts.
It would be very foolish to try to "invest" in moderns because there are still mountains of many issues. You'd quickly exhaust your wealth on very common coins. But moderns are literally the greatest collecting field of all time and have been for half a century now and this might continue another generation. Many of these coins you can still have an entire area for yourself. There are enough coins from somewhere like Western Samoa to actually form an extensive collection but many issues are elusive. You can specialize in metals like aluminum. You can collect by theme, denomination, or nearly any parameter and bump up against very little competition. Whatever you collect you'll probably have numerous scarce coins and costs will be nominal. And you'll probably have a lot of fun and learn a great deal.
Absolutely! And love your continued enthusiasm. Personally, I collect some Br. Colonial of more recent vintage and Franklin Mint issues that went into circulation, or at least were issued to the Central Banks for that purchase. Occasionally high priced, but on occasion going for chips and yet feature astounding rarity and beautiful designs that are well executed. I like these as much or more than some of the rather costly bits I have in my central collection.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
If anyone wants to collect it, great. No reason to believe more than a very low proportion will ever be worth substantially higher material prices than now, adjusted for price changes.
People ARE collecting it. I neither know nor care how many but it's pretty obvious that they must be collecting it when $2 coins from 20 years ago are now priced at $1000.
A lot of these are coins I've been looking for for decades but can't find. Many of them are "unicorns"; oft reported but never seen.
People look at boxes and crates of moderns everywhere and believe it's all common junk. I looked in those boxes and crates and was surprised by what I saw but I was simply astonished by what I didn't see. They contained very few circulating moderns except quantities of the same issues that was consistent from one box to the next. When people took in collections to the coin shops these same coins weren't in the collections either.
We BELIEVE high mintages will assure a lasting supply of a coin but it doesn't and DIDN'T work this way. Only collectors and mints save coins and many mints didn't and most collectors had no interest in moderns. We can't retroactively change the facts.
It would be very foolish to try to "invest" in moderns because there are still mountains of many issues. You'd quickly exhaust your wealth on very common coins. But moderns are literally the greatest collecting field of all time and have been for half a century now and this might continue another generation. Many of these coins you can still have an entire area for yourself. There are enough coins from somewhere like Western Samoa to actually form an extensive collection but many issues are elusive. You can specialize in metals like aluminum. You can collect by theme, denomination, or nearly any parameter and bump up against very little competition. Whatever you collect you'll probably have numerous scarce coins and costs will be nominal. And you'll probably have a lot of fun and learn a great deal.
I didn't say they aren't collecting it. I'm telling a few things which has little if anything to do with your post. You should know this given our numerous prior exchanges.
First, your posts make it evident you don't know what these coins are worth. You use some random number or the Krause list and then when I go to verify your claims, turns out it isn't worth remotely what you claim. Contrary to what you have implied, most of this coinage isn't under priced in Krause, "scarce" or not. Dealers may be able to sell it at list price but try selling it on eBay and most will either sit unsold indefinitely or realize a fraction. This is true of many or most "classics" also.
Second, I have provided numerous examples of coins which are much older that are easy to find where there is every reason to believe it is much scarcer than your examples, yet you still believe these coins are scarce. As I told you before, you rely more on personal experience (yours and others) versus independently verifiable evidence and common sense.
When I check your claims, same thing as the prices. Of the few I did, it's easy enough to find every one on eBay. I'm not sure what coins you are referring to right now but it's almost certainly predominantly the same coins I specifically mentioned in my last post; mostly from obscure countries (Western Samoa) no one cares about. Regardless, this low number has no bearing on your claims generally.
Third, the primary reason I have disputed your implied future collector base is first, you're extrapolating it to societies with no tradition of collecting and often never even struck their own coinage. You and many others believe its a lack of affluence but it isn't. No amount of affluence is ever going to create any scale in collecting in any country where it doesn't exist today. There are plenty who have the ability to do so at the same financial level as most on this forum right now, yet they do not.
Lastly, your implied future collector base spending the sums you concurrently imply would send the prices of the most preferred world coinage into the stratosphere which is why I claim it's never going to happen either. (This excludes a very low number of highly preferred coins.) You're not the only one who doesn't agree with this claim. Members here don't like it and neither did those in South Africa but it's easy to demonstrate.
The supply of the most preferred coinage in most markets is so low there isn't enough for even the current base to buy, much less many more as you imply. These new collectors aren't going to be buying far less preferred coins including world "moderns" at the prices you imply for the same reasons I provided earlier in this thread.
You don't agree with this because you don't view collecting less preferred coinage as collecting "downward". Well, practically every other collector does and it doesn't just apply to US moderns or low priced world coinage. This is especially true since most collectors seem to place a much higher emphasis on getting their money back than I do. If you are right, I'd have to go from collecting pillar coinage to currently cheap Bolivian Republic decimals for the same prices I pay now. No one is going to do that.
@cladking - Can you post some pictures showing high grades coins that are weak as compared to strongly struct examples you may have? The '72-S quarter was an interesting example. I can buy your argument that at some point moderns may become more popular. However, it seems you have personal grading criteria that is not followed by other collectors.
@yspsales said:
Coin collecting has just evolved and become more efficient.
One day you will all wake up and cuss at the missed opportunities.
Several things are lining up for a bull market in modern coins IMHO.
You don't have to like a design.
You just have to like making money.
What do you see "lining up"? What do you mean by "evolving and becoming more efficient"?
What you are appear to be describing is "collecting" as if it were buying a commodity. Only actual collectors derive any utility from collecting, not anyone else including so-called "investors".
What you are implying already occurred in South Africa. I saw it first hand, only at lower scale. The price level soared with the adoption of TPG for over a decade up to YE 2011 and has since crashed. It occurred for South African "classics" (ZAR and Union) but bypassed their "modern" (RSA) coinage almost completely, except for the Dutch tulip bulb equivalent mania in the 2008 Mandela 5R which has since also collapsed.
My prediction is it will never recover adjusted for price changes, just as many US classic coins haven't recovered from the 1989 TPG bubble.
Contact the ANA and offer a Summer Seminar course on collecting modern clad coinage. Better yet ... take this discussion on the road and offer it as the ANA summer and spring shows.
Seriously, I think you would greatly increase the awareness of collecting clad coinage.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Source: recent CoinWeek podcast mentioned that they had 250,000 visitors to their YouTube Channel in a month! Channel analytics determined most were aged from 25-40.
ErrorsonCoins leaked an interesting nugget about his business model on another thread. He finds one error a day on average because of other collectors hard work.
Our resident experts have been looking for decades and state there is no new supply. They don't exist and few are looking. Inefficient supply if any...
Despite the above numbers, coin shows are fewer in number with fewer attendees (ie... evolving online to collector/collector transactions)
Supply is drying up. Rarely see a dealer bringing fresh old material... and who besides me is looking?
Ebay (and online) has created efficiencies in price, supply, and demand of most series.
Much like Toners and rarer VAM's, there no limitation of price guides like graysheet and it's a coin by coin valuation.
Lastly, looking at the PCGS index's, prices are not that far from the '93 low (much worse when accounting for inflation)
Eventually scarce and rare attract collectors, value hunters, flippers...
Booms and busts happen all the time, and I am not all in on moderns but it pays to be the contrarian.
We are at a resistance level and a floor.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
“With specific coins like the 1975-S "no S" dime, it's effectively a random event which will drive prices. That's not true of the coinage generically being discussed here.”
WCC- Not really. The 1975 No S Dime is an absolute rarity (your “random event”). Likewise, a 1970-D Kennedy Half Dollar in MS68 is an amazing condition rarity (yet another “random event”). Both will drive prices. At the moment, the 70-D MS68 is yet undiscovered as compared to 2 1975 No S Dimes.
Maybe we just haven’t talked enough about great modern condition rarities here. Perhaps because they are so scarce or rare. But, rest assured, they will achieve record levels for “modern” coins in the years and decades ahead as they are discovered and offered out. “Stock up” on yours while you still can folks through cherry-picking for “pennies on the dollar”. Just as CK did almost 45 years ago and I did beginning about 38 years ago.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@yspsales said:
It's a myth that collectors numbers are falling.
In fact they are increasing and are younger.
...
Booms and busts happen all the time, and I am not all in on moderns but it pays to be the contrarian.
We are at a resistance level and a floor.
The growth in the hobby is phenomenal according to the anecdotal evidence. Few of these individuals are buying BU bust halfs or '75-no-S dimes (yet) but they are collecting and most do buy some coins. Most are simply beginners but they won't stay that way forever. They are young.
That's an interesting observation that currently we are at resistance and a floor. This is in part because it's so hard to find supply so prices can't fall and because price guides don't reflect full value so real demand is stifled preventing increases.
Being a contrarian in coins is important even for collectors because excessive competition eliminates supply and raises prices. Everything waxes and wanes so whatever we collect goes in and out of style a couple times over a lifetime.
@wondercoin said:
“With specific coins like the 1975-S "no S" dime, it's effectively a random event which will drive prices. That's not true of the coinage generically being discussed here.”
WCC- Not really. The 1975 No S Dime is an absolute rarity (your “random event”). Likewise, a 1970-D Kennedy Half Dollar in MS68 is an amazing condition rarity (yet another “random event”). Both will drive prices. At the moment, the 70-D MS68 is yet undiscovered as compared to 2 1975 No S Dimes.
Maybe we just haven’t talked enough about great modern condition rarities here. Perhaps because they are so scarce or rare. But, rest assured, they will achieve record levels for “modern” coins in the years and decades ahead as they are discovered and offered out. “Stock up” on yours while you still can folks through cherry-picking for “pennies on the dollar”. Just as CK did almost 45 years ago and I did beginning about 38 years ago.
Wondercoin
I wasn't clear in my last post.
A coin like the 1975-S dime is absolutely scarce by US standards (under one of the specializations). The history of high prices doesn't make the preference random but how much the handful of collectors willing and able to buy it will pay I would say is one.
The future performance of this type of coin or a condition census 1970-D half doesn't have any bearing on the rest of the coinage covered by this thread. These buyers apparently are willing to ignore the price of all other coinage which is why I won't claim it won't overtake other currently more expensive coinage.
@yspsales said:
It's a myth that collectors numbers are falling.
In fact they are increasing and are younger.
Source: recent CoinWeek podcast mentioned that they had 250,000 visitors to their YouTube Channel in a month! Channel analytics determined most were aged from 25-40.
ErrorsonCoins leaked an interesting nugget about his business model on another thread. He finds one error a day on average because of other collectors hard work.
Our resident experts have been looking for decades and state there is no new supply. They don't exist and few are looking. Inefficient supply if any...
Despite the above numbers, coin shows are fewer in number with fewer attendees (ie... evolving online to collector/collector transactions)
Supply is drying up. Rarely see a dealer bringing fresh old material... and who besides me is looking?
Ebay (and online) has created efficiencies in price, supply, and demand of most series.
Much like Toners and rarer VAM's, there no limitation of price guides like graysheet and it's a coin by coin valuation.
Lastly, looking at the PCGS index's, prices are not that far from the '93 low (much worse when accounting for inflation)
Eventually scarce and rare attract collectors, value hunters, flippers...
Booms and busts happen all the time, and I am not all in on moderns but it pays to be the contrarian.
We are at a resistance level and a floor.
Not sure if this post is a reply to my prior one, but there is no such thing as support and resistance in coin collecting.
It also depends upon what coins you are talking about. My comments here are not generally directed toward specialization. I specifically stated it. By specialization, I am referring to:
Condition census coins where the counts are very low and sometimes one grade below it.
Some errors
A very low proportion of die varieties (such as the 69-s/s cent)
Maybe recognized strike designations (though value is mostly contingent on the grade); and
Some toned coins
There is a different dynamic for this coinage than for US moderns generally per my other posts. Concurrently, there is no basis to believe that any critical mass of the collector base is going to prefer what is disproportionately numismatic minutia over other currently preferred coinage. Most of this coinage usually isn't remotely interesting enough to hardly anyone.
Almost no one will pay a "high" price just because some coin is rare, whether actual or imagined. This is especially so under US collecting since there are so many supposedly "rare" coins. South African collectors attempted to make the same claim and unlike US coinage, it actually has a disproportionate percentage which are legitimately scarce.
@cladking said:
Being a contrarian in coins is important even for collectors because excessive competition eliminates supply and raises prices. Everything waxes and wanes so whatever we collect goes in and out of style a couple times over a lifetime.
>
The order of collector preference has never changed between a single US series during my entire life. Mercury dimes retain a lopsided preference over FDR dimes, WLH over the Franklin half and the Morgan dollar over the Peace dollar. This is equally true to the extent I am aware of it in non-US coinage.
There has been some movement within a series and where individual coins in one series move ahead of one in another, but no change in the order.
The biggest changes have been from the adoption of generic collecting practices such as TPG, more recently CAC, registry sets and specialization (more recently toned coins).
Since I started collecting, there appears to have been increased preference in selective areas but this doesn't impact the ability of most collectors to buy what they want. Early large cents are relatively a lot more expensive versus when I started in 1975 but presumably this is driven by EAC. Similar for Charlotte and Dahlonega gold and apparently for "CC" Liberty Seated coinage.
I agree with your comment on excessive competition. For example, I have been able to buy practically every coin in my primary series over the last 10 years since I'm not competing with hardly anyone. Concurrently though, the price level cannot move up to the point where it prices out most of the existing collector base out of most of the coins they actually want to buy, unless someone is going to tell me that it will be mostly rich people collecting in the future.
@cladking said:
Being a contrarian in coins is important even for collectors because excessive competition eliminates supply and raises prices. Everything waxes and wanes so whatever we collect goes in and out of style a couple times over a lifetime.
>
The order of collector preference has never changed between a single US series during my entire life. Mercury dimes retain a lopsided preference over FDR dimes, WLH over the Franklin half and the Morgan dollar over the Peace dollar. This is equally true to the extent I am aware of it in non-US coinage.
I can't think of a single US coin series that hasn't been popular at least once over the years. Even 2c pieces were popular in the mid-'60's. Remember in '89 mercs, walkers, and morgans were all the rage and their prices exploded? In the early '70's art bars were the "thing" to collect. In the mid-'90's nothing was really in favor and prices were in the tank. Foreign and medals/ tokens hadn't collapsed but US coins had except for old rare coins in high grade which were still pretty strong.
Perhaps above a certain level, at the rarefied level of 1804 dollars and Gem large cents things don't change much but at the level I collect, observe, or enjoy the hobby, at the level of 50c to $500 coins there are continual massive changes. Look at the ads in Coin World over the decades and the coins changing hands at the tables at coin shows where they are always busy. This is where the demand shifts. I suppose these aren't "significant" coins to you but to most of the hobby and most dealers these are the bread and butter coins.
Comments
PCGS has graded 270 1982-P MS65s, along with 282 pieces higher- up to MS68. None of those are gems?
I doubt any of these were full strikes from new dies. They were clean but not true "Gems".
No true Scotsman, then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Every other clad quarter can be found with full strikes from good dies. Some are easy and some are tough.
Don't get me wrong that there are other dates that can't be found with 100% stikes. Ironically one of the easiest dates to find with solid strikes from brand new dies is the '72-D. But somehow the "2" in the date is NEVER 100% full. It is rarely more than about 80% full; ie- the outer part of the number is not fully struck to the top, If the die were a cup it would fill only about 95%. If I were making the argument that the '72-D is poorly struck or use it as an example then I'd agree that argument was a " No true Scotsman" fallacy.
But the '82-P is a wholly different animal. The vast majority of these in BU condition are struck by heavily worn die with the average being over 200,000 strikes. Even well struck coins will lose detail at this stage. ADDITIONALLY the vast majority of these are from misaligned dies. This is not a subtle misalignment or design problem like the '72-D but rather the entire upper portion of Liberty is not filly struck and frequently it's not really struck at all. This is what makes '66 quarters look so heavily worn; the coin passes from BU to AG with no stops in between because the rim is worn into the lettering. But the misalignment problems hardly stop there because typically there will be other parts not full as well.
After this date was poorly made they almost all got scratched and then most went into circulation.
I define what I call a 99% strike as a minimum requirement for "Gem". A 100% strike would be when every letter is fully struck up and rounded at the top. This is atypical on most coins so 99% has to do. This is a well struck coin made by good serviceable dies. Some dates are common like this and some are quite scarce. But I doubt the '82-P was ever even made like this; not even one single coin and if one were it's a virtual certainty it's worn down to XF right now.
With great effort I tracked down a bag of really nice gemmy 1982-P quarters in 1982. Most of the coins in this bag were quite well struck and the bag was not badly handled before I got it so there were large numbers of very clean coins. I saved out the best few dozen and circulated the rest. As nice as these coins are and the fact that one individual coin was much nicer than all the rest, this special coin is a tweener. It is very gemmy. It was about the 5,000th strike from a very solid die that was very well adjusted. It happens to be very clean but what makes it special is the quality of the strike. I'd grade it right on the line between MS-64 and MS-65. I don't remember right now if it's clean enough to get MS-66 or MS-67 but the point is none of these other coins have 99% stikes. Most of them are poor strikes from poor dies because this is the way they were made.
If you want a nice clean '82-P you can find one. If you want a full strike from good dies then you can't. I've looked at too many of these coins to believe that any exist, I advertised to buy '82 and '83 issues in Gem for $40 each all through the early and mid-'90's. This was back when you could get a roll of '82-D's for $15. You simply wouldn't believe how few I got and how much junk people sent me. I got XF's and BU's that looked like they were run over by a forklift. People didn't raw moderns then and now all raw moderns are coming to a close. They had no '82 and '83 rolls to search to send me the nicest ones. These markets are so thin that nobody has even noticed that a coin of a quality that lists in Redbook for $15 doesn't even exist!!!!
This could last for a long time but I'm going to sell that '82-P anyway as soon as it turns up in a safety deposit box. I'm distributing these one at a time and eventually I'll get to it.
I should also mention that just because other dates are available with 99% strikes this doesn't mean high grades are easily found. Some dates like the '83-P and the '69 are almost always marked, scratched, or have planchet defects (chicken scratching). Very few clad quarters are common in Gem condition. Even the most common like the '72-D is far less common than most people imagine. I'd be surprised if more than 100,000 survive today. This date is significantly more common than any other date at all. And this is an extremely liberal estimate since it's hard to know how many coin dealers put in the cash register.
I'd think it might cause some difficulties in communication (such as your buying attempts noted above) but I don't see any reason you can't have a personal definition of "gem" that nobody else goes by.
I recognize that this is not the current definition. I am the odd man out.
However, I believe ALL collectors seek quality and as these markets mature there will be more people who care about all the design details being present on a coin. This isn't as important on older coins because the range in quality from the best to the worst wasn't nearly as great. Few people care about Morgan dollars with each star fully struck because every Gem looks pretty nice.
But most older clads look like junk to me and I'm sure many collectors will see the same thing. There is a huge difference between the best made '82-P quarter and its design specifications. The typical '82-P quarter is not at all attractive sometimes and some of those high grades are just typical coins with no scratches.
To each his own. I know most collectors don't care that much about strike but I think as this market matures there will be a great deal more people looking to find a True Scotsman rather than a Northern Britisher.
You say these coins don't exist in high grades. Why do you think, as the market matures, there will be more people looking for them when there are none to be found?
I believe collectors who can't find a Scotsman will settle for whatever they can find that is closest. There are no 99% strikes so they'll seek a 98% strike. If they can't find that at a reasonable price they'll look for a 90%.
Every coins always ends up in the hands of whoever values it the most but if more people demand better strikes then the playing field will simply tip in that direction.
The way we define things is always undergoing revision. When I was young if you lit a match to look in a barrel marked "inflammable" you were in big trouble. Who knows what would happen today that it's not a word at all.
??? Inflammable??? Big trouble Inflammable??? Revision???
What if they consider the price for a 90% to be unreasonable?
As I define the term even '82-P quarters don't get a lot worse. A lot of clad, especially early clad, have poorly defined lettering around the rim. There isn't enough metal in the area or sufficient time for the low pressure striking to fill these areas. Now days relief is lower so full strikes (99%) are more common.
I'm sure collectors will collect what they choose. If they choose '82-P quarters to be in their collection they'll probably in most cases just buy the nicest one that suits them even if it's a nicely made XF. I just doubt that poorly made and unattractive moderns will ever be very popular. Mintages are so high and the hobby is and has been obsessed with quality. Even without the focus on quality and even if the pendulum swings and collectors are willing to collect MS-60 moderns the fact remains that a lot of MS-60's are ugly. Standards in 1966 were exceedingly low. Essentially if a quarter leaving the mint worked in vending machines it was "good enough". Ironically they made large numbers of '70-D quarters as well as others that didn't work in vending machines and '74 Ikes that couldn't be stacked. The standard for Barber dimes was far higher so most MS-60's are plenty attractive. Nice MS-60 Barber dimes are common enough that collectors tend to lower their own standards and even might buy an MS-60 that isn't very attractive so long as the luster is excellent.
During these conversations, I always imagine ALL of the remaining 1982 quarters on Earth gathered and piled up in one giant pyramid, millions of coins, with all the worn ones on the bottom and the best Uncirculated ones on top, and one person saying, "those at the top aren't very nice! The very nicest ones should be worth a lot more!"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I'd agree with that. Maybe they'll try to cherrypick a nicer raw example but I don't see collectors who are filling albums ever being willing to pay top dollar for high grade slabbed pieces.
In 1966, the mint was in the second year of trying to replace the entire existing stock of circulating quarters. When you're making nearly a billion coins a year, you're going to be less fussy than when you're only making a couple million.
Earlier, you posted:
Just for kicks, I pulled out my Washington quarter album to see what my 72-D looked like. To be perfectly honest, I'm not seeing a weakness in the date like you described and I can't imagine there would be album collector anywhere in the entire country who wouldn't be satisfied with it. Here it is...
To put this in another way, I would expect a nice AU-55 '82-P to bring much more than an MS-63. I would expect some AU-58's (there are a lot of these) to be worth more than some coins that we call MS-65.
The grading scale was invented for old coins made to exacting standards. It is applied to moderns because of market forces but when these markets mature these forces might change simply because of the difference in production standards.
I believe that strike will become a far bigger factor in grading than currently of these coins going forward.
Wow! Talk about damage and attrition.
There are about 380 million surviving and the average condition is much higher than average condition of much later dates because many have been set aside.
I think what you're missing here is that these coins were almost universally poorly made. The top coin in that pyramid as we currently define the terms and parameters for grading is probably very poorly made from worn misaligned dies. On every single parameter this date falls short. The nicest thing I can say about quarter production in Philly in 1982 is that the planchets were probably average quality. It's not only the dies and strike that was substandard but handling and distribution. The coins were quickly released into circulation during a time that quarter velocity was beginning a steep fall. They were pretty well in circulation by the time Numismatic News reported that there were no rolls available BUT there were millions of specimens that were still sliders and many were gobbled up.
The finest coin is the finest coin no matter how terms are defined but those coins at the top of the pyramid in still BU condition are mostly poorly struck from misaligned and heavily worn dies. There was simply no mechanism for distributing quarters to collectors in 1982 so many of the few that were set aside are simply "typical" for the date. Finding any Gems at all was next to impossible. I was lucky and found a bag of nice specimens but anyone picturing a bunch of MS-70's will be in for a rude awakening if they ever try to collect them.
You can find these coins nearly mark free but finding them well made and mark free might be impossible. I've seen some that are graded at high levels and they are beauties in most cases but they are not full strikes.
This might not be a mint set coin! It's pretty uncommon to see old clad that isn't mint set. The '72-D is more common than most in rolls but rolls are still scarce.
Look at the middle of the "7". I don't believe this was designed this way. The cutting of the date is more angular than other dates but the tops of the digits are still supposed to be "rounded" at the top. You can find other specimens that show this on the "7". Usually it's the "2" that is most poorly struck leading me to suspect it's not mint set.
You can still see how strongly struck the coin is and this is typical for the '72-D. Hammered specimens were even found in BU rolls.
I don't believe there's even a handful of collectors filling holes in a Dansco that would care.
It came from a mint set.
With a really well made date like the '72-D I don't much care either. But I've looked for a 100% strike for many years.
"It came from a mint set."
It's only a little atypical for a mint set coin. Most years there's really not much difference except for die and strike quality tends to be higher on the mint set.
I guess I'm having a hard time following your argument. You appear to be more particular about strike on these coins than anybody I've ever encountered, yet you say you're not really bothered by the lack of a full strike on the coin I posted. And you're saying if demand for full strike coins were to increase, prices would skyrocket. So- if you're okay with the coin pictured, and you're about as discriminating as anybody out there, who will be creating this demand?
“So- if you're okay with the coin pictured, and you're about as discriminating as anybody out there, who will be creating this demand?”
Reminds me of a “fetish” I had for more than a dozen years. I wanted fully struck 1953-S Franklins and would outbid everyone at public auction for quite a while on coins that were so, so close to FBL, but, in nearly all cases, honestly just not there for FBL (very few really are including the coins designated as FBL in my view). I always thought “some day, one day many people would join in on my fetish too”. Who wouldn’t want a 98% or 99% FBL fully struck coin for $300 or $400 when a “100% FBL” coin was worth $25,000? Well... a generation later... the answer is almost no one cares. You are either “pregnant” or “not pregnant” when it comes to Franklins with full bell lines. Perhaps the next generation might care about strong strikes.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Fantastic discussion.
The coin you pictured is a '72-D. These all come well struck. Sure, many of them are ugly anyway because they have planchet marking, were struck by horribly worn dies, or are scratched and gouged. But nice hammered specimens are not difficult to find and are just about typical for the date, especially in mint sets. This date mint set normally doesn't even corrode so attractive coins of this date are exceedingly common. Nice choice attractive BU is typical in the (nearly) one million surviving sets.
My interest in 100% strikes cuts across ALL MODERNS and is not strictly limited to any specific date. But the '72-D is an anomaly and an enigma. It's an anomaly because it's the only date that is typically well made and it's an enigma because it's one of very few dates that doesn't seem to appear with a 100% strike. Even first strikes off of new dies have deficiencies.
But other dates, almost all other dates, are scarce with a 99% strike!!! This is the standard I use for "Gem" yet few coins are of this quality and it's not just quarters but all moderns intended for circulation including coins in mint sets. In other words most clad quarters are scarce in Gem if you define "Gem" as a well made coin from good dies with a minimum of hits.
One of the things that makes this important is that "Gems" can be found for every date (except '82-P) and many of the coins that fail to make the cut are what at least I consider "unattractive". Even more importantly vast numbers of coins in less than MS-63 have significant defects because modern coins were not made to the same standards as classics. There was much more workmanship and pride in 1909. There was more ability to do your job correctly and not be directed to allow shoddiness up and down stream or to produce junk yourself. The mint directed every employee to concentrate on quantity and not quality. Dies were run at low pressure to protect them from wear and were still used down to the nub. Back in the early days when I cut my teeth on clad the well made coin was rarely seen and I just kept focusing on these as the years went by.
It's entirely possible that other collectors in the future won't agree with me whether there are many or few. But the fact remains if even a few start looking for full strikes then their prices will soar. This is nowhere more self evident than the '82-P since so few specimens even have a 95% strike. Coins were removed from bags and most of these bags were typical. Most of the coins removed were typical as well but there are a few exceptions even here. Numismatic News assembled sets and they obviously tried to select nicer coins and nicer strikes as did the Paul & Judy sets. Even the mint sets (souvenir) made by the mint are hardly better than typical and no full strikes appear from this source. If you want a near-FS there are only three sources including what I call the "California sets" in the large manila envelope. I've seen only a very very few of these and can;'t rule out the possibility of a Full Strike (99 or 100%), but the ones I've seen are great strikes. Unfortunately they used unstable packaging and it's entirely possible all of these coins are now ruined.
You have been comparing US moderns to the predecessor coinage like the Mercury dime, silver Washington and Buffalo nickel. This is your baseline for "normalcy"; the preference US moderns are "supposed" to have which they do not and never have. The "mass market" in this coinage isn't remotely at the prices implied by your prior post in this thread. Practically all of these classics sell for immaterial prices, except for key dates, a low number of semi-keys and due to generic US collecting practices (TPG, specialization).
Very few of these common US classics also sell for meaningful prices with anything close to the supply you included in your one post. Those that do sell for a high price now do so because they have a history from the prior communication limitation I described.
This isn't going to happen anymore, as the prior communication limitation doesn't exist and the choices primarily now available from the internet. For a very common US modern with 20,000 survivors to all be worth more than hundreds (an example from your prior post here), this coinage would have to be preferred over at least 95% of all coinage ever struck. That's simply not going to happen, ever. It's not going to happen because collectors (or the public) have no predisposition to prefer their circulating change. They didn't in the 1960's except as I stated (key and some semi-key dates), and they aren't going to later either.
As for Russia and India, it's outside the scope of this topic. But even here, your posting history exaggerates this performance since you don't even know what these coins are actually worth. On the few occasions I checked your claims, the examples you used sell for a (low) fraction of what you believe.
I'll read the post when I have more time.
NO!
I am defining "normal" as the historical interest in modern coins. So far as is known there had always been some interest in modern coins right from the very first ones in 700 BC.
There is interest in this coinage now, just not at the prices you insist it should be worth.
The reason I have used this inference repeatedly is because it's the only possible interpretation of your claims. If you are going to claim otherwise again, where did you ever get the idea that anyone else has to agree with you to prefer the coins you do as much as you think they should?
There is no required minimum preference for any coin. That's why I used the example of the 3CN in our initial discussion. It's been among the least preferred US classic series since inception, now 131 years since it was discontinued. There is also no reason to expect it to become noticeably more "popular" later than it is now. It was subject to speculation during the late 80's TPG bubble but that wasn't collecting.
Is there anything unusual in this? No, there isn't any more than there is with the coinage you like. The only difference in applying your claims is that US moderns still circulate while the 3CN does not. I can apply the same reasoning to the 3CN that you have been using and the result is exactly the same.
As I told you before, your complaint is on the price level, not anything else. Most other coins sell at nominal prices, just as US moderns do. You exaggerate the significance of the prices other coins sell for but that's all it is - an exaggeration.
I have no complaint. I love modern coins and have made a "pretty penny" on them.
If I did have a complaint it would be that many old time collectors feel the need to proselytize against them. Even here, though, this is good for the long term health of these markets because it promotes the idea of controversy and nothing attracts interest like controversy.
I believe moderns really do have everything but I am obviously highly biased. But this bias doesn't mean that I either have a complaint or believe other collectors should collect them. Rather I believe the new generation of collectors will be larger than the previous and a higher percentage will collect them. And, yes, by the way I do believe old nickels and 3c nickels will become more popular as well since they have most everything moderns have and they are old.
You have no idea what kind of Russian, Indian, Korean, or Chinese coins could be bought for a dollar back in the '80's and '90's. If you get them at five for $1 it doesn't really matter if the coins sell for $800 or $3000. The problem with finding rare coins in the '90's and today often has far more to do with finding them than it does with what they cost. Many coins I never did find even a single example. Despite enormous effort some of these coins weren't available and even at higher prices they aren't much more available.
Moderns are still terra incognita and collecting them is about knowledge and perseverance. You can even collect most of them from eBay now days if that is your preference. Why you consider such characteristics as being liabilities, I do not understand. I never found a Chinese 1955 5f in BU. I imagine now it would be pretty easy with eBay. Better date Indian was very difficult as were many common dates in nice condition (like chBU).
To each his own.
Really starting to get silly now. Every coin was a modern at some point. Every single one.
Many of the “moderns” I started talking about here in 2001 are now classics! Franklins, 1932D/S quarters, etc.
Continue to watch for record prices on moderns. Like the 1975 No S Dime I recently sold for $516,000.00 that traded in the $300,000’s just a few years ago. And, most everyone thought that was crazy back then. This coin will become a “classic” coin in the next 5-10 years now. And, so it goes.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Perspective is everything.
Most of we-old time collectors think of anything made since 1964 as being modern but when I started in 1957 most collectors thought a '50-D nickel was classic and a '32-D quarter was an ancient.
Goalposts are always moving and they don't move smoothly but in fits and starts. They can move in any direction. As John Prine says, "Time don't fly, it bounds and leaps.".
And always "Time flies" even in between its bounds and leaps.
With specific coins like the 1975-S "no S" dime, it's effectively a random event which will drive prices. That's not true of the coinage generically being discussed here.
I have never said that finding coins on the internet is a liability. I have used the internet as evidence against your claim that collectors will choose any coins in the proportion you imply. That's never going to happen with US moderns or the world coinage you call "modern" in similar proportion as existed in the 1960's with 1933-1964 US coinage.
Hardly any of this coinage is likely remotely scarce. The TPG data prove that Chinese PRC are extremely common. If there as many as 100,000 world coins meeting your definition of "modern", maybe as many as 500 are genuinely rare and a few thousand legitimately scarce. Most of these are almost certainly from obscure countries with limited to no organized collecting where the mintages were also low due to population and economics.
If anyone wants to collect it, great. No reason to believe more than a very low proportion will ever be worth substantially higher material prices than now, adjusted for price changes.
@cladking I do not collect moderns but found your post to be very interesting. I recently needed to acquire some modern proof cents for my "toned" 1936-present set. Not many genuine toned examples that are less than 20-30 years old so I had to fill the moderns with PR70DCAM's. But I might also start a collection of DCAM's back to reasonable date.
But when it comes to moderns, the only quality coins will be proofs. What is the fascination with MS coins other than S, W and D mint marks or no mint marks. And even the worst PR coins will be much nicer than MS coins.
OINK
A lot of people look at the generally poor quality of BU moderns and the superb quality of the proof and collect the proofs. It makes perfect sense to do this. But others Find a challenge or the desire to find good quality circulation strikes even though some are available only in mint sets. There are several circulation strikes that can be comparable to proofs in quality such as '88-D cents. Even some of the clad can be just breathtaking.
To each his own.
People ARE collecting it. I neither know nor care how many but it's pretty obvious that they must be collecting it when $2 coins from 20 years ago are now priced at $1000.
A lot of these are coins I've been looking for for decades but can't find. Many of them are "unicorns"; oft reported but never seen.
People look at boxes and crates of moderns everywhere and believe it's all common junk. I looked in those boxes and crates and was surprised by what I saw but I was simply astonished by what I didn't see. They contained very few circulating moderns except quantities of the same issues that was consistent from one box to the next. When people took in collections to the coin shops these same coins weren't in the collections either.
We BELIEVE high mintages will assure a lasting supply of a coin but it doesn't and DIDN'T work this way. Only collectors and mints save coins and many mints didn't and most collectors had no interest in moderns. We can't retroactively change the facts.
It would be very foolish to try to "invest" in moderns because there are still mountains of many issues. You'd quickly exhaust your wealth on very common coins. But moderns are literally the greatest collecting field of all time and have been for half a century now and this might continue another generation. Many of these coins you can still have an entire area for yourself. There are enough coins from somewhere like Western Samoa to actually form an extensive collection but many issues are elusive. You can specialize in metals like aluminum. You can collect by theme, denomination, or nearly any parameter and bump up against very little competition. Whatever you collect you'll probably have numerous scarce coins and costs will be nominal. And you'll probably have a lot of fun and learn a great deal.
Absolutely! And love your continued enthusiasm. Personally, I collect some Br. Colonial of more recent vintage and Franklin Mint issues that went into circulation, or at least were issued to the Central Banks for that purchase. Occasionally high priced, but on occasion going for chips and yet feature astounding rarity and beautiful designs that are well executed. I like these as much or more than some of the rather costly bits I have in my central collection.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I didn't say they aren't collecting it. I'm telling a few things which has little if anything to do with your post. You should know this given our numerous prior exchanges.
First, your posts make it evident you don't know what these coins are worth. You use some random number or the Krause list and then when I go to verify your claims, turns out it isn't worth remotely what you claim. Contrary to what you have implied, most of this coinage isn't under priced in Krause, "scarce" or not. Dealers may be able to sell it at list price but try selling it on eBay and most will either sit unsold indefinitely or realize a fraction. This is true of many or most "classics" also.
Second, I have provided numerous examples of coins which are much older that are easy to find where there is every reason to believe it is much scarcer than your examples, yet you still believe these coins are scarce. As I told you before, you rely more on personal experience (yours and others) versus independently verifiable evidence and common sense.
When I check your claims, same thing as the prices. Of the few I did, it's easy enough to find every one on eBay. I'm not sure what coins you are referring to right now but it's almost certainly predominantly the same coins I specifically mentioned in my last post; mostly from obscure countries (Western Samoa) no one cares about. Regardless, this low number has no bearing on your claims generally.
Third, the primary reason I have disputed your implied future collector base is first, you're extrapolating it to societies with no tradition of collecting and often never even struck their own coinage. You and many others believe its a lack of affluence but it isn't. No amount of affluence is ever going to create any scale in collecting in any country where it doesn't exist today. There are plenty who have the ability to do so at the same financial level as most on this forum right now, yet they do not.
Lastly, your implied future collector base spending the sums you concurrently imply would send the prices of the most preferred world coinage into the stratosphere which is why I claim it's never going to happen either. (This excludes a very low number of highly preferred coins.) You're not the only one who doesn't agree with this claim. Members here don't like it and neither did those in South Africa but it's easy to demonstrate.
The supply of the most preferred coinage in most markets is so low there isn't enough for even the current base to buy, much less many more as you imply. These new collectors aren't going to be buying far less preferred coins including world "moderns" at the prices you imply for the same reasons I provided earlier in this thread.
You don't agree with this because you don't view collecting less preferred coinage as collecting "downward". Well, practically every other collector does and it doesn't just apply to US moderns or low priced world coinage. This is especially true since most collectors seem to place a much higher emphasis on getting their money back than I do. If you are right, I'd have to go from collecting pillar coinage to currently cheap Bolivian Republic decimals for the same prices I pay now. No one is going to do that.
@cladking - Can you post some pictures showing high grades coins that are weak as compared to strongly struct examples you may have? The '72-S quarter was an interesting example. I can buy your argument that at some point moderns may become more popular. However, it seems you have personal grading criteria that is not followed by other collectors.
Coin collecting has just evolved and become more efficient.
One day you will all wake up and cuss at the missed opportunities.
Several things are lining up for a bull market in modern coins IMHO.
You don't have to like a design.
You just have to like making money.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
What do you see "lining up"? What do you mean by "evolving and becoming more efficient"?
What you are appear to be describing is "collecting" as if it were buying a commodity. Only actual collectors derive any utility from collecting, not anyone else including so-called "investors".
What you are implying already occurred in South Africa. I saw it first hand, only at lower scale. The price level soared with the adoption of TPG for over a decade up to YE 2011 and has since crashed. It occurred for South African "classics" (ZAR and Union) but bypassed their "modern" (RSA) coinage almost completely, except for the Dutch tulip bulb equivalent mania in the 2008 Mandela 5R which has since also collapsed.
My prediction is it will never recover adjusted for price changes, just as many US classic coins haven't recovered from the 1989 TPG bubble.
@WCC @cladking @wondercoin
Here's an idea ...
Contact the ANA and offer a Summer Seminar course on collecting modern clad coinage. Better yet ... take this discussion on the road and offer it as the ANA summer and spring shows.
Seriously, I think you would greatly increase the awareness of collecting clad coinage.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
It's a myth that collectors numbers are falling.
In fact they are increasing and are younger.
Source: recent CoinWeek podcast mentioned that they had 250,000 visitors to their YouTube Channel in a month! Channel analytics determined most were aged from 25-40.
ErrorsonCoins leaked an interesting nugget about his business model on another thread. He finds one error a day on average because of other collectors hard work.
Our resident experts have been looking for decades and state there is no new supply. They don't exist and few are looking. Inefficient supply if any...
Despite the above numbers, coin shows are fewer in number with fewer attendees (ie... evolving online to collector/collector transactions)
Supply is drying up. Rarely see a dealer bringing fresh old material... and who besides me is looking?
Ebay (and online) has created efficiencies in price, supply, and demand of most series.
Much like Toners and rarer VAM's, there no limitation of price guides like graysheet and it's a coin by coin valuation.
Lastly, looking at the PCGS index's, prices are not that far from the '93 low (much worse when accounting for inflation)
Eventually scarce and rare attract collectors, value hunters, flippers...
Booms and busts happen all the time, and I am not all in on moderns but it pays to be the contrarian.
We are at a resistance level and a floor.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Tens of thousands of Buffalo Nickels have been graded MS 65 gem by 3 TPG's that are weakly struck
“With specific coins like the 1975-S "no S" dime, it's effectively a random event which will drive prices. That's not true of the coinage generically being discussed here.”
WCC- Not really. The 1975 No S Dime is an absolute rarity (your “random event”). Likewise, a 1970-D Kennedy Half Dollar in MS68 is an amazing condition rarity (yet another “random event”). Both will drive prices. At the moment, the 70-D MS68 is yet undiscovered as compared to 2 1975 No S Dimes.
Maybe we just haven’t talked enough about great modern condition rarities here. Perhaps because they are so scarce or rare. But, rest assured, they will achieve record levels for “modern” coins in the years and decades ahead as they are discovered and offered out. “Stock up” on yours while you still can folks through cherry-picking for “pennies on the dollar”. Just as CK did almost 45 years ago and I did beginning about 38 years ago.
Wondercoin
...
The growth in the hobby is phenomenal according to the anecdotal evidence. Few of these individuals are buying BU bust halfs or '75-no-S dimes (yet) but they are collecting and most do buy some coins. Most are simply beginners but they won't stay that way forever. They are young.
That's an interesting observation that currently we are at resistance and a floor. This is in part because it's so hard to find supply so prices can't fall and because price guides don't reflect full value so real demand is stifled preventing increases.
Being a contrarian in coins is important even for collectors because excessive competition eliminates supply and raises prices. Everything waxes and wanes so whatever we collect goes in and out of style a couple times over a lifetime.
I wasn't clear in my last post.
A coin like the 1975-S dime is absolutely scarce by US standards (under one of the specializations). The history of high prices doesn't make the preference random but how much the handful of collectors willing and able to buy it will pay I would say is one.
The future performance of this type of coin or a condition census 1970-D half doesn't have any bearing on the rest of the coinage covered by this thread. These buyers apparently are willing to ignore the price of all other coinage which is why I won't claim it won't overtake other currently more expensive coinage.
Not sure if this post is a reply to my prior one, but there is no such thing as support and resistance in coin collecting.
It also depends upon what coins you are talking about. My comments here are not generally directed toward specialization. I specifically stated it. By specialization, I am referring to:
Condition census coins where the counts are very low and sometimes one grade below it.
Some errors
A very low proportion of die varieties (such as the 69-s/s cent)
Maybe recognized strike designations (though value is mostly contingent on the grade); and
Some toned coins
There is a different dynamic for this coinage than for US moderns generally per my other posts. Concurrently, there is no basis to believe that any critical mass of the collector base is going to prefer what is disproportionately numismatic minutia over other currently preferred coinage. Most of this coinage usually isn't remotely interesting enough to hardly anyone.
Almost no one will pay a "high" price just because some coin is rare, whether actual or imagined. This is especially so under US collecting since there are so many supposedly "rare" coins. South African collectors attempted to make the same claim and unlike US coinage, it actually has a disproportionate percentage which are legitimately scarce.
>
The order of collector preference has never changed between a single US series during my entire life. Mercury dimes retain a lopsided preference over FDR dimes, WLH over the Franklin half and the Morgan dollar over the Peace dollar. This is equally true to the extent I am aware of it in non-US coinage.
There has been some movement within a series and where individual coins in one series move ahead of one in another, but no change in the order.
The biggest changes have been from the adoption of generic collecting practices such as TPG, more recently CAC, registry sets and specialization (more recently toned coins).
Since I started collecting, there appears to have been increased preference in selective areas but this doesn't impact the ability of most collectors to buy what they want. Early large cents are relatively a lot more expensive versus when I started in 1975 but presumably this is driven by EAC. Similar for Charlotte and Dahlonega gold and apparently for "CC" Liberty Seated coinage.
I agree with your comment on excessive competition. For example, I have been able to buy practically every coin in my primary series over the last 10 years since I'm not competing with hardly anyone. Concurrently though, the price level cannot move up to the point where it prices out most of the existing collector base out of most of the coins they actually want to buy, unless someone is going to tell me that it will be mostly rich people collecting in the future.
I can't think of a single US coin series that hasn't been popular at least once over the years. Even 2c pieces were popular in the mid-'60's. Remember in '89 mercs, walkers, and morgans were all the rage and their prices exploded? In the early '70's art bars were the "thing" to collect. In the mid-'90's nothing was really in favor and prices were in the tank. Foreign and medals/ tokens hadn't collapsed but US coins had except for old rare coins in high grade which were still pretty strong.
Perhaps above a certain level, at the rarefied level of 1804 dollars and Gem large cents things don't change much but at the level I collect, observe, or enjoy the hobby, at the level of 50c to $500 coins there are continual massive changes. Look at the ads in Coin World over the decades and the coins changing hands at the tables at coin shows where they are always busy. This is where the demand shifts. I suppose these aren't "significant" coins to you but to most of the hobby and most dealers these are the bread and butter coins.