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.
You consider modern US coins "minutia" but I don't consider them any more trivial than the country they represent. It's true it's a vastly different country than the one represented by an early Morgan dollar but in some ways the more things change the more they stay exactly the same.
You are trying to compare a clad quarter to a morgan dollar where there is no comparison. Try comparing a Vermont states quarter to an 1804 half cent instead. There are lots more similarities here.
People collected 19804 half cents not because they were rare (they were not), not because they were historic (they were not), and not because they were expected to increase in value (they did not at the time). They collected them because they were US coins and this is the main reason we have nice examples today.
It was unnatural for people to ignore clad coinage for two generations. I doubt this can persist indefinitely.
@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.
The anecdotal evidence of an explosion in interest in coins is ubiquitous. I can't turn on the television or open a magazine without seeing new ads, stories, and references. It's everywhere from bookstores to shopping malls. A few years ago I reported Bob Vila's home improvement web site was selling modern mint sets but this sort of thing hardly surprises me any longer.
Of course it was apparent this was all coming back in 1999 because people started looking at their change again. I hadn't seen anyone much more than glance at change in 35 years since the last of the silver disappeared. Now they began looking at clads!! Of course, their interest broadened and expanded. We'd probably see a lot more of them here but we are more welcoming to people with an interest in old coins and with deep pockets. These people ARE the next generation of collectors. More accurately most of the dedicated collectors who roam the coin shows in 30 to 50 years and scour media for coins and knowledge will have been among this group. Their experiences over the coming decades and their individual natures will determine their preferences. Most of this is unpredictable now because it is dependent on things that have yet to occur.
But some things are certain. These people are not baby boomers. While they are all individuals, we are all a product of our place and time. This is no longer the place that made 1878 morgans nor the one that produced 1804 half cents. There's new math, new history, and there will be new collectors... ...thank God.
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.
Speaking only for myself this already feels just a might tedious. I'm not sure I'd want to take the show on the road or make a profession of it.
But thanks anyway.
Collecting clad is easy. Just get a couple folders and some rolls of quarters and start saving the best ones. It won't take long before you know what to expect and you can start chasing down BU's if that's what you prefer. Frankly, you can make such fantastic collections from pocket change that upgrading isn't really necessary. There's a lot to be said for coins that actually circulate and most of the set can still be found in nice attractive XF.
There are also cents, nickels, and dimes if you find the quarters too easy (you won't).
@Davideo said: @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.
I figured out how to use photobucket once.
It's easy enough to compare different examples and identify the better struck ones. The peripheral lettering is the last thing to fill on an eagle reverse clad quarter so any deficiency in strike will typically show up here most dramatically as well as any high points. There is some variation from date to date and typically with the '82-P quarter the last to fill (the most likely not to be filled) is the LIBERTY. Letters are supposed to have nearly vertical sides and a rounded top but most examples will have nearly flat letters. There will simply be very little height to the letters. The volume of metal in the B of LIBERTY will be less than half of what it should be with most of the deficiency at the bottom. This is typical for the date. An '82-P with 99.9% of the metal in the high points is a rarity. Nice attractive examples exist but full strikes might not. It's not merely a matter that so very few coins were saved but that the number of well made coins was very very few (perhaps none). The few people who saved these were not especially concerned with what the coins looked like so they all tend to look pretty bad.
Some dates of moderns come very very nice but most are poor. Some dates come pretty clean but most are covered in scratches and gouges. All the clads are quite doable in Gem but there are some toughies and more toughies if you want full strikes from good dies. Right now choice Gem is probably the sweet spot for collecting them because they can be had for less than the cost of grading in most instances. Dimes are more readily available though. Cents are easier but most collectors will find a lot of surprises. Attractive examples of some dates are virtually unavailable due to various surface issues.
@Davideo said: @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.
I figured out how to use photobucket once.
It's easy enough to compare different examples and identify the better struck ones. The peripheral lettering is the last thing to fill on an eagle reverse clad quarter so any deficiency in strike will typically show up here most dramatically as well as any high points. There is some variation from date to date and typically with the '82-P quarter the last to fill (the most likely not to be filled) is the LIBERTY. Letters are supposed to have nearly vertical sides and a rounded top but most examples will have nearly flat letters. There will simply be very little height to the letters. The volume of metal in the B of LIBERTY will be less than half of what it should be with most of the deficiency at the bottom. This is typical for the date. An '82-P with 99.9% of the metal in the high points is a rarity. Nice attractive examples exist but full strikes might not. It's not merely a matter that so very few coins were saved but that the number of well made coins was very very few (perhaps none). The few people who saved these were not especially concerned with what the coins looked like so they all tend to look pretty bad.
Some dates of moderns come very very nice but most are poor. Some dates come pretty clean but most are covered in scratches and gouges. All the clads are quite doable in Gem but there are some toughies and more toughies if you want full strikes from good dies. Right now choice Gem is probably the sweet spot for collecting them because they can be had for less than the cost of grading in most instances. Dimes are more readily available though. Cents are easier but most collectors will find a lot of surprises. Attractive examples of some dates are virtually unavailable due to various surface issues.
You no longer need to use photobucket or other third party image hosting. You can upload images right in your posts.
@Davideo said: @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.
I figured out how to use photobucket once.
It's easy enough to compare different examples and identify the better struck ones. The peripheral lettering is the last thing to fill on an eagle reverse clad quarter so any deficiency in strike will typically show up here most dramatically as well as any high points. There is some variation from date to date and typically with the '82-P quarter the last to fill (the most likely not to be filled) is the LIBERTY. Letters are supposed to have nearly vertical sides and a rounded top but most examples will have nearly flat letters. There will simply be very little height to the letters. The volume of metal in the B of LIBERTY will be less than half of what it should be with most of the deficiency at the bottom. This is typical for the date. An '82-P with 99.9% of the metal in the high points is a rarity. Nice attractive examples exist but full strikes might not.
@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.
Every US series has been "popular" according to someone's definition. You are just biased and somehow have come to the incorrect conclusion that there is something unusual with collector preference toward (US) moderns when there isn't.
1989 was caused by the TPG bubble and doesn't have anything to do with your claims, as nothing of the sort will ever happen with the coins you like. It was a "one shot" deal due to the introduction of TPG, just as it was in South Africa.
The rest of your post, still has nothing to do with your claims. To the extent that you are correct, it's no different that what I described in my last post. What you just described is light years away from what you have been predicting in our post exchanges.
What you are at least implying in your predictions is a total realignment in collector preference, not the minor activity occurring at the coin shows you have attended. There is no precedent for such a claim and given why (as I explained) collectors have the most widely held preferences (they bring it into collecting from the external culture), it isn't about to change due to any reason you have ever given.
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.
You consider modern US coins "minutia" but I don't consider them any more trivial than the country they represent. It's true it's a vastly different country than the one represented by an early Morgan dollar but in some ways the more things change the more they stay exactly the same.
You are trying to compare a clad quarter to a morgan dollar where there is no comparison. Try comparing a Vermont states quarter to an 1804 half cent instead. There are lots more similarities here.
People collected 19804 half cents not because they were rare (they were not), not because they were historic (they were not), and not because they were expected to increase in value (they did not at the time). They collected them because they were US coins and this is the main reason we have nice examples today.
It was unnatural for people to ignore clad coinage for two generations. I doubt this can persist indefinitely.
I never said US moderns are minutia.
I am describing any supposed "rarity" based upon specialization to be minutia, regardless of the coinage where it isn't widely collected.
I wouldn't call die variety collecting in US half cents or large cents minutia because it's evident a noticeable number of collectors think otherwise by paying noticeable premiums. I would consider die variety collecting in SQ to be minutia as there are literally tens of thousands of them and nobody is going to pay any premium for about 99% of it.
Every US series has been "popular" according to someone's definition. You are just biased and somehow have come to the incorrect conclusion that there is something unusual with collector preference toward (US) moderns when there isn't.
Of course they have and of course clad has been popular according to someone's definition. I'm sure you think they are very popular in order for a few to be worth thousands of dollars.
But how many series in US history have been shunned by large segments of the collecting community and hobby? Do you think collectors advised newbies to avoid two cent pieces in 1864 because they were base metal junk and anything made in the tens of millions would never be scarce or desirable?
There's an article in this month's Numismatist that apparently has some negative comments about collecting these or those who do (I haven't seen it).
As I keep trying to get across all this negative press isn't getting through to the "bumpkins". A lot of people out there are not even aware clad is just junk and they have been buying it for many years. This is why so much of the supply of "moderns" is drying up; it is being consumed by the unwashed masses who don't even know that you can't collect moderns.
This situation might never change. Maybe when the wholesalers run out of mint sets they'll just package up something different to sell and nobody will notice the transition. The general population will just have to buy AG two cent pieces and partial date buffalo nickels. At least real numismatists won't point at them and scream like something out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
I wouldn't call die variety collecting in US half cents or large cents minutia because it's evident a noticeable number of collectors think otherwise by paying noticeable premiums. I would consider die variety collecting in SQ to be minutia as there are literally tens of thousands of them and nobody is going to pay any premium for about 99% of it.
>
I assume you've never heard of the three types of Wisconsin Denver quarters!
Are you aware the later quarters all came in two types with a satin and regular finish. Have you tried finding superb examples of the regular finish?
The mint did a few things with the states coins. You might want to investigate.
I believe that many people, as they age, like the coins they grew up with. I have given many birth year sets to non-collectors. Many of the younger collectors will come back to their childhood coins as they get older. Just my thoughts based solely on my opinion and what I believe is common sense.
@WCC said:
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.
The order of collector preference not changing over time is interesting, because it certainly changes for me.
I wasn't exposed to older coins until later. So for example, when I was a kid I liked Kennedy Halves, then Franklin Halves, then Seated Halves and now Bust Halves. I like the design of WLHs a lot and they can look amazing but haven't gotten into really collecting them. For dollars, I still like Morgans and but now I like Seated dollars more. I've looked at Flowing Hair Dollars and have a Bust Dollar but still prefer to collect Seated Dollars, for now.
My daughter and I are trying to fill an America The Beautiful quarter album. It’s hard because I don’t really use cash anymore so my pocket change is essentially non existent.
The early years are hard to find in circulation now i would suggest your LCS.
Every US series has been "popular" according to someone's definition. You are just biased and somehow have come to the incorrect conclusion that there is something unusual with collector preference toward (US) moderns when there isn't.
Of course they have and of course clad has been popular according to someone's definition. I'm sure you think they are very popular in order for a few to be worth thousands of dollars.
But how many series in US history have been shunned by large segments of the collecting community and hobby? Do you think collectors advised newbies to avoid two cent pieces in 1864 because they were base metal junk and anything made in the tens of millions would never be scarce or desirable?
There's an article in this month's Numismatist that apparently has some negative comments about collecting these or those who do (I haven't seen it).
As I keep trying to get across all this negative press isn't getting through to the "bumpkins". A lot of people out there are not even aware clad is just junk and they have been buying it for many years. This is why so much of the supply of "moderns" is drying up; it is being consumed by the unwashed masses who don't even know that you can't collect moderns.
This situation might never change. Maybe when the wholesalers run out of mint sets they'll just package up something different to sell and nobody will notice the transition. The general population will just have to buy AG two cent pieces and partial date buffalo nickels. At least real numismatists won't point at them and scream like something out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Your claim that this coinage has been "shunned" is wrong, again. In this entire thread, you continue to make this claim solely because others will not pay the prices you think it should be worth.
In 2019, the US Mint sold 318,000+ mint sets, 561,000+ clad proof sets and hundreds of thousands of single coins in rolls, bags and boxes. Sales of both were much higher in the past, in the low millions yet you still make this claim. https://www.usmint.gov/about/production-sales-figures/cumulative-sales. Sales of mint and proof sets have collapsed from prior decades https://mintsetguide.com/mint-set-mintage/, but it’s likely a better reflection of actual collector demand. My presumption is that much (and maybe most) prior buyers were either casual or even non-collectors.
Did and do these buyers “hate” it?
This coinage has a collectively low preference due to the coin attributes, not due to any claim you have made.
@WCC said:
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.
The order of collector preference not changing over time is interesting, because it certainly changes for me.
I wasn't exposed to older coins until later. So for example, when I was a kid I liked Kennedy Halves, then Franklin Halves, then Seated Halves and now Bust Halves. I like the design of WLHs a lot and they can look amazing but haven't gotten into really collecting them. For dollars, I still like Morgans and but now I like Seated dollars more. I've looked at Flowing Hair Dollars and have a Bust Dollar but still prefer to collect Seated Dollars, for now.
Yes, my preferences have also changed over time, In my most recent iteration as a collector starting in 1998, it was due to becoming aware of coins I didn't know existed before.
However, your post isn't in contradiction to my general claim, as your preferences changed "upwards". That's exactly how it is for presumably at least 99% of the collector base as this is what the price level shows assuming they can afford it. It's strictly a one way street with no noticeable movement in the other direction.
My preferences have also moved "up", as pillar coinage is a more challenging series than South Africa Union (my previous primary series) and most US coinage I preferred as a YN (similar to what you listed above at the end of your post, though I could not afford it).
@dlmtorts said:
I believe that many people, as they age, like the coins they grew up with. I have given many birth year sets to non-collectors. Many of the younger collectors will come back to their childhood coins as they get older. Just my thoughts based solely on my opinion and what I believe is common sense.
Like yes, but not prefer. Take a look at the data.
The single best piece of evidence of an actual collector preference is when someone buys a coin or series over all others, in the same price range. (It's not infallible but "directionally" accurate.) What you are describing isn't generally an actual preference, but a financial limitation. They buy what they buy because they cannot afford the coins they actually prefer the most.
Going by the data, we can conclude that collectors collectively prefer the Lincoln Wheat cent over the IHC because the series is more common (in total and across the quality distribution) yet a noticeable proportion it is still more expensive. Same applies to the Mercury dime, SLQ and WLH over the same Barber denominations, generically (not every date).
Conversely, is the Lincoln Wheat cent preferred over early large cents? It's debatable but I'd say no. The bigger budget collectors can afford most early large cents (even if in lower quality) but it should be evident that the majority of Lincoln Wheat cent collectors would overwhelmingly choose early large cents, if they could afford it and if the coins existed in sufficient supply.
I have never claimed that many more collectors prefer my primary series (Bolivia and Peru pillar minors) but even if they did, only a few more could buy it anyway unless they will settle for circulated dreck which they won't. This is true of many non-US coins where it is still moderately priced but not for any US coins.
@WCC said:
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.
The order of collector preference not changing over time is interesting, because it certainly changes for me.
I wasn't exposed to older coins until later. So for example, when I was a kid I liked Kennedy Halves, then Franklin Halves, then Seated Halves and now Bust Halves. I like the design of WLHs a lot and they can look amazing but haven't gotten into really collecting them. For dollars, I still like Morgans and but now I like Seated dollars more. I've looked at Flowing Hair Dollars and have a Bust Dollar but still prefer to collect Seated Dollars, for now.
Yes, my preferences have also changed over time, In my most recent iteration as a collector starting in 1998, it was due to becoming aware of coins I didn't know existed before.
However, your post isn't in contradiction to my general claim, as your preferences changed "upwards". That's exactly how it is for presumably at least 99% of the collector base as this is what the price level shows assuming they can afford it. It's strictly a one way street with no noticeable movement in the other direction.
My preferences have also moved "up", as pillar coinage is a more challenging series than South Africa Union (my previous primary series) and most US coinage I preferred as a YN (similar to what you listed above at the end of your post, though I could not afford it).
Well, these two are materially different, since one is never changing and one is upgrading, but I get that upgrading is a form of never changing for you.
"The order of collector preference has never changed between a single US series during my entire life."
"my preferences have also changed over time, In my most recent iteration as a collector starting in 1998, it was due to becoming aware of coins I didn't know existed before.
Certainly people who pay a lot for top pop moderns have a big interest in them, but perhaps people don't move from cheaper older coins, to newer more expensive coins.
And I wouldn't necessarily say that "older" coins are moving "upwards". For example, my older coins still cost much less than many modern coins so if I'm i the same price band, it's really a lateral move, not up or down.
@dlmtorts said:
I believe that many people, as they age, like the coins they grew up with. I have given many birth year sets to non-collectors. Many of the younger collectors will come back to their childhood coins as they get older. Just my thoughts based solely on my opinion and what I believe is common sense.
This is not what a combination of the price level and TPG data generally shows. Take a look at the data.
The single best piece of evidence of an actual collector preference is when someone buys a coin or series over all others, in the same price range. (It's not infallible but "directionally" accurate.) What you are describing isn't generally an actual preference, but a financial limitation. They buy what they buy because they cannot afford the coins they actually prefer the most.
Going by the data, we can conclude that collectors collectively prefer the Lincoln Wheat cent over the IHC because the series is more common (in total and across the quality distribution) yet a noticeable proportion it is still more expensive. Same applies to the Mercury dime, SLQ and WLH over the same Barber denominations, generically (not every date).
Conversely, is the Lincoln Wheat cent preferred over early large cents? It's debatable but I'd say no. The bigger budget collectors can afford most early large cents (even if in lower quality) but it should be evident that the majority of Lincoln Wheat cent collectors would overwhelmingly choose early large cents, if they could afford it and if the coins existed in sufficient supply.
I have never claimed that many more collectors prefer my primary series (Bolivia and Peru pillar minors) but even if they did, only a few more could buy it anyway unless they will settle for circulated dreck which they won't. This is true of many non-US coins where it is still moderately priced but not for any US coins.
@WCC said:
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.
The order of collector preference not changing over time is interesting, because it certainly changes for me.
I wasn't exposed to older coins until later. So for example, when I was a kid I liked Kennedy Halves, then Franklin Halves, then Seated Halves and now Bust Halves. I like the design of WLHs a lot and they can look amazing but haven't gotten into really collecting them. For dollars, I still like Morgans and but now I like Seated dollars more. I've looked at Flowing Hair Dollars and have a Bust Dollar but still prefer to collect Seated Dollars, for now.
Yes, my preferences have also changed over time, In my most recent iteration as a collector starting in 1998, it was due to becoming aware of coins I didn't know existed before.
However, your post isn't in contradiction to my general claim, as your preferences changed "upwards". That's exactly how it is for presumably at least 99% of the collector base as this is what the price level shows assuming they can afford it. It's strictly a one way street with no noticeable movement in the other direction.
My preferences have also moved "up", as pillar coinage is a more challenging series than South Africa Union (my previous primary series) and most US coinage I preferred as a YN (similar to what you listed above at the end of your post, though I could not afford it).
Well, these two are materially different, since one is never changing and one is upgrading, but I get that upgrading is a form of never changing for you.
"The order of collector preference has never changed between a single US series during my entire life."
"my preferences have also changed over time, In my most recent iteration as a collector starting in 1998, it was due to becoming aware of coins I didn't know existed before.
I can't speak for you. All I can tell you is that the price data and TPG populations demonstrate the conclusion I provided.
Aggregate collector preferences have not changed. Particularly among US collectors, any supposed "popularity" of a series measured by the size of the collector base is overwhelmingly actually a financial limitation since supply is much less of an issue or not one at all..
When I was a YN, I attempted to collect Bust halves and bought a few but it was out of my price range. I should have collected lower priced US classics or world coinage. I never considered US moderns because even then, I didn't like the designs particularly (Ike somewhat because it was large) and no one influenced my perception. I arrived at this opinion all by myself.
I didn't want to collect what I could afford at the time and quit collecting for a time instead.
However, your post isn't in contradiction to my general claim, as your preferences changed "upwards". That's exactly how it is for presumably at least 99% of the collector base as this is what the price level shows assuming they can afford it. It's strictly a one way street with no noticeable movement in the other direction.
Going older isn't always an "upgrade". For example, I think a lot people prefer Lincolns over IHCs, WLHs over Barbers, Buffalo nickels over Liberty Head nickels, etc.
Conversely, is the Lincoln Wheat cent preferred over early large cents? It's debatable but I'd say no. The bigger budget collectors can afford most early large cents (even if in lower quality) but it should be evident that the majority of Lincoln Wheat cent collectors would overwhelmingly choose early large cents, if they could afford it and if the coins existed in sufficient supply.
Perhaps more detail is necessary here as large cents exist in huge supply and many are not very expensive. It just so happens that many of those are in low grade. I'd be more inclined to agree that completing a set of large cents in high grade may be more expensive than a set of Lincoln's in high grade.
I also think people that like expensive toners generally prefer Lincolns over large cents because Lincolns tone really well whereas most large cents just turn brown and a lot of red ones have been doctored. For example, I don't think anyone can do a color set of large cents link @WingedLiberty1957 has done for Lincolns. I'm also mesmerized by the surfaces and colors of Matte Proof Lincolns and haven't really seen any large cents that capture my attention like that.
Going older isn't always an "upgrade". For example, I think a lot people prefer Lincolns over IHCs, WLHs over Barbers, Buffalo nickels over Liberty Head nickels, etc.
I didn't say this and I specifically agreed with your examples in a prior post right here in this thread just above yours.
One aspect of "upwards" is what most collectors generically prefer but it isn't solely a function of a coin or series being older. A big part of it is the challenge and complexity of collecting the series. I wouldn't necessarily consider switching to the IHC to be "upward" because both are very easy to collect if you have the money. I could complete either series in one day in practically any quality except when using some arbitrary criteria. It also appears that among those who can afford to collect both, there is anecdotal evidence that collectors either collect both simultaneously or will switch between the two.
Perhaps more detail is necessary here as large cents exist in huge supply and many are not very expensive. It just so happens that many of those are in low grade. I'd be more inclined to agree that completing a set of large cents in high grade may be more expensive than a set of Lincoln's in high grade.
I also think people that like expensive toners generally prefer Lincolns over large cents because Lincolns tone really well whereas most large cents just turn brown and a lot of red ones have been doctored. For example, I don't think anyone can do a color set of large cents link @WingedLiberty1957 has done for Lincolns. I'm also mesmerized by the surfaces and colors of Matte Proof Lincolns and haven't really seen any large cents that capture my attention like that.
Yes, that's a function of the existing generic quality preference. I presume it's always existed but it's more evident now. I'm also limiting this comparison to early large cents (up to1814), as the preference for the later dates is much lower.
I am aware there are no absolutes. My primary point when I made this statement is that there is absolutely no basis to claim that aggregate collector preferences are subject to random change where what we see today is going to be turned "upside down" in the future just because new collectors replace existing ones.
That's why I described the primary (not exclusive) attributes (coin size, metal content and coin design) which drive collector preferences. This isn't a random outcome or an accident but the result of external preferences which collectors bring with them from the general culture when they become collectors.
I never claimed this applied to every collector or every coin as I specifically referenced generic changes in (US) collecting where toned coins is one. This preference is specific to the culture within collecting which is why it's a lot easier to change. What I described though is an accurate representation for any coin or series which is as common as practically any 20th century US coin
Your claim that this coinage has been "shunned" is wrong, again. In this entire thread, you continue to make this claim solely because others will not pay the prices you think it should be worth.
No...
Price is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that normally the price of a coin is the easiest means of determining its scarcity. Since most US coins have a similar demand over the long term it is possible to get a very good idea of how many survive simply be its price. Common coins have common prices.
This doesn't work for moderns. Not only do all moderns have a low price relative their scarcity but even the within this group the correlation doesn't work. Some moderns are priced lower than more common moderns.
Obviously this is because there is very little demand and the demand that does exist is less specific and less sophisticated on average. This is unnatural for US coins. This has come to pass because very few baby boomers collect moderns.
Yes, my preferences have also changed over time, In my most recent iteration as a collector starting in 1998, it was due to becoming aware of coins I didn't know existed before.
So if we extrapolate your words here to a population then baby boomers who started with wheaties, buffalo nickels, and rolls of pre-1965 coinage have all moved on to "more important" and "more collectible" coins.
There are alot of unattractive classic designs that gained value simply because of supply of problem free coins, demand, and perceived value.
You mentioned at some point in the past the explosion in value of South African coinage.
How much greater is the collector base of South African coinage to that of US moderns?
I think you have made CK's point.
Edited to add: Much talk about boring design, but I don't collect as a series. A high grade coin is a work of wonder, making it thru the minting process to the grading room. As type coin or individual modern grade rarities it doesn't take much interest to increase value. When dealers realize the scarcity and start buying up supply... the train will have left the station.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Yes, my preferences have also changed over time, In my most recent iteration as a collector starting in 1998, it was due to becoming aware of coins I didn't know existed before.
So if we extrapolate your words here to a population then baby boomers who started with wheaties, buffalo nickels, and rolls of pre-1965 coinage have all moved on to "more important" and "more collectible" coins.
Isn't this EXACTLY what I have been saying?
No, you are claiming that it is somehow unusual when it isn't.
Your claim that this coinage has been "shunned" is wrong, again. In this entire thread, you continue to make this claim solely because others will not pay the prices you think it should be worth.
No...
Price is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that normally the price of a coin is the easiest means of determining its scarcity. Since most US coins have a similar demand over the long term it is possible to get a very good idea of how many survive simply be its price. Common coins have common prices.
This doesn't work for moderns. Not only do all moderns have a low price relative their scarcity but even the within this group the correlation doesn't work. Some moderns are priced lower than more common moderns.
Obviously this is because there is very little demand and the demand that does exist is less specific and less sophisticated on average. This is unnatural for US coins. This has come to pass because very few baby boomers collect moderns.
US moderns are not scarce, except under arbitrary US standards. As I told you, except for the specific coins I listed, US moderns are more common than over 99% of all coins ever struck, whether in "high quality" or otherwise. All "scarcity" in US moderns is based upon the TPG equivalent grade or some specialization. Every coin (literally) is "scarce" if the criteria is arbitrary enough.
The prices differences between US moderns and the closest comparable coinage which is US classics dated 1933-1964 (the baseline for "popularity" you claim you aren't using) are immaterial. You exaggerate these differences, but that all it is..an exaggeration.
Most US collectors don't care about the quality standards used on this forum (especially yours on the strike) and don't care about the difference in scarcity either. Most US moderns are overwhelmingly an R-1 (1250+) in PCGS MS-66 going by the TPG data and prices. If some US modern has several thousand in MS-66 (probably over 95% ) while some common US classic has 10,000 or even more, why would anyone care and why would they pay a noticeable if any difference for this scarcity? All of these coins and the entire series can literally be bought in one day on eBay or through dealers in this quality.
If you are still going to insist that your claim isn't based upon the price, here is my response. Every single coin (literally) is "shunned" by most collectors because they aren't buying it. There is no coin or series which is collected by a majority. US moderns are more widely collected than over 99% of all coins ever struck.
There is no natural state in collecting. If literally no one aside from you likes these coins as much as you do (which is the only thing you are describing), there is absolutely nothing unusual about it. You insist these coins should be worth a lot more, yet you won't even pay these prices yourself.
Why would others who like these coins a lot less than you pay higher prices when you won't?
@yspsales said:
There are alot of unattractive classic designs that gained value simply because of supply of problem free coins, demand, and perceived value.
You mentioned at some point in the past the explosion in value of South African coinage.
How much greater is the collector base of South African coinage to that of US moderns?
I think you have made CK's point.
Edited to add: Much talk about boring design, but I don't collect as a series. A high grade coin is a work of wonder, making it thru the minting process to the grading room. As type coin or individual modern grade rarities it doesn't take much interest to increase value. When dealers realize the scarcity and start buying up supply... the train will have left the station.
I'm not sure how you think I made his point. There are no supply limitations in US moderns, except in specialization, the condition census grade and occasionally one grade below it. This preference is generic to US collecting, it doesn't have anything to do with US moderns, and isn't subject to the general culture collectors bring with them into collecting.
I disagree that condition census coins generally have favorable financial prospects but I could be wrong. (I can explain this also but it's mostly outside the scope of this thread.) This claim is NOT limited to US moderns but any coin where the price difference is disproportionate.
It's one thing for a series or a specific date to sell for a much higher price than previously when the supply is low or very low because it only takes a handful of buyers to make it happen. This IS effectively a "random" event. It's entirely another when the series or a coin is practically as common as dirt, which is exactly what applies to most 20th century US coinage outside of what I described in my first paragraph here.
In 15 years on coin forums, I have occasionally seen someone ask when one of these common series (usually US but also otherwise) is going to sell for a lot more. My answer is literally "never" for all the reasons I provided.
On your last paragraph, I'm not referring to your collecting, mine or any other individual. I never apply my claims this way. In the future, I expect fewer collectors to collect an entire series versus now (noticeably less) due to the variety made possible by the internet. If this happens, it will be a big negative for the prices of most common coins, especially 20th century US.
Since you aren't quoting my post, you'd have to point me to the comments I made on South African coinage for me to know if I am replying to you correctly. The collector base of South African coinage is nowhere near that of US moderns. It's a minimal fraction. The price level is higher in the aggregate but that's because of a much lower supply.
Yea, I wondered about his 165 price for an MS66. Looked but never found one at that level at the time and gave up - I just don't like the look of 65s and think this coin gets a push on grading overall by IMO a point or so....
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
In my limited experience, I use a loose scale in some combination... because of how infrequently they are found by me.
Attractive NT (R5), varieties (R6), cameo (R7), and grade (R8)
Any of those above criteria check the boxes for purchase.
The argument they are out there to be found in quantity is fantasy.
The argument there are no buyers is fantasy.
Not alot different than hunting trophy whitetails.
What is more impressive? You can pay for a guided rifle hunt to Saskatchewan for a 200pt B&C... or you can solo hunt the swamps of Williamsburg County SC with a bow and hope for a 120pt P&Y. Both about as rare and require a certain skill set.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Hmm. Interesting thread. I think I may publish this thread as a book.😁
Most collectors of moderns collect them from change. Kids collectors do care about grades. MS65 or MS66, what does it matter to Jerry Mathers?
Whilst a lot of modern coins may be rarer then most realize, the interest is not there for the most part. I would like to own some varieties, but this will only come about from change finds or cherry picks.
To add, not including other series and Vam's, I spend probably up to 10 hours a week online looking at proof and mint sets from mid 1950's onward. Several thousand listings.
Started tracking my purchases, sales, sub fees and time spent.
Average one modern (my above criteria) keeper per week based on the my rareity scale.
When I was going to shows, it would average two or more per day with toning the likely pick.
Definition of a keeper would be anything that will equal the stabbing fees and my original (low) cost basis.
My collection sustains itself for the most part.
Submit three/sell two and feed the masses.
Found plenty of varieties to keep swinging away knowing that AH DCam is a click away.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Whilst a lot of modern coins may be rarer then most realize, the interest is not there for the most part. I would like to own some varieties, but this will only come about from change finds or cherry picks.
I couldn't agree more.
But all collectors seek nice attractive specimens for their collections. Even low ball collectors want nice even wear on an attractive coin. It's human nature to prefer "beautiful" to "ugly". And this is where the potential for moderns lie. If you assemble an eagle reverse quarter collection from circulation starting today looking a 100 coins per week for five years you'll assemble a complete set. But two or three coins will be culls, a few will be VG+ and several will be in only F condition. A few later dates will be AU but for the most part the coins will be nice attractive VF.
This is a laudable goal and it's not that tough to find all the coins in F or VF if you put the effort into it starting in the next couple years.
The number of collectors doing just this is hardly inconsequential. Whitman and other companies are churning out a lot of folders for clad quarters and it's a safe bet many are being filled. It's also a safe bet that the number of folders being actively worked is increasing quickly and is already "substantial".
The potential is in nice gemmy coins. As a rule clads in grades of MS-63 and lower are very ugly coins because they were struck with worn dies that were poorly adjusted and then the coins were heavily scratched. Even many MS-64 coins are not very attractive. So collectors will gravitate to nice MS-64 and better. Some dates are quite "common" in this grade but about half are somewhat uncommon all the way to scarce. If you want a true Unc 1969 or 1982 that is attractive you'll have your work cut out for you. The '69's are tarnished and the '82-P's mostly all got into circulation.
Collectors might just be surprised to see what some of the XF's and AU's are worth in a few years. Some dates are just made so poorly that they don't look nice even after they get worn down. Meanwhile culls are accumulating in circulation as the percentage of the older quarters is dropping toward 30%. Vast numbers of the old coins are lost now and those in change are slowly "disappearing". In only a few year there will be nothing in circulation except culls and very worn survivors.
There will be no depth to the supply of BU's for the wholesale market. These coins used to come from mint sets but the mint sets have been destroyed to get the half dollars and Ikes and the quarters released to circulation. Now the mint sets almost almost gone and the few left are usually tarnished.
It's not the supply of "Uncs" that is problematical. The issue is the supply of nice attractive clad and nickels in any grade whatsoever. I said twenty years ago people were waiting too long. Now they kindda have waited too long. There are enough collectors now to sop up all the attractive clad in just a couple years.
The existence of many MS-62's of many dates will create a means for low budget collectors to complete collections. But even nice lustrous MS-63's will be elusive for some dates.
People might be interested to note that it is suddenly deucedly difficult to find 1969 mint set from online retailers. There's no shortage on eBay but prices look higher.
It is odd that big wholesalers appear to be sold out.
Although most of these sets are tarnished now they are still the primary (or sole) source for several of the coins in them.
I wish that I could meet and greet Cladking to show him the clad quarters I collected as a kid from 1965 through the early 1980's and placed in Whitman folders. Some are MS and some are EF to AU. His opinions on them would be interesting.
Everytime I look at them I enjoy them more. Nostalgia I guess and the fact that some of them are very eye appealing.
I once bought a huge accumulation of about 40 to 50 rolls of better date quarters in higher grades. This was back in the early '90's and it looked like they had been set aside between about '69 and '74. There were dozens of 1969's in nice AU!!! Most of them were just put right back into circulation to make some other collector's day. I hope I found all the varieties. Some of these are still around and might be the next F you find in change.
I've been going through '65 issues recently and noticing that nostalgia. I'm reminded of that very first clad quarter I got on Thanksgiving of '65. It wouldn't come apart though and they still don't.
Comments
You consider modern US coins "minutia" but I don't consider them any more trivial than the country they represent. It's true it's a vastly different country than the one represented by an early Morgan dollar but in some ways the more things change the more they stay exactly the same.
You are trying to compare a clad quarter to a morgan dollar where there is no comparison. Try comparing a Vermont states quarter to an 1804 half cent instead. There are lots more similarities here.
People collected 19804 half cents not because they were rare (they were not), not because they were historic (they were not), and not because they were expected to increase in value (they did not at the time). They collected them because they were US coins and this is the main reason we have nice examples today.
It was unnatural for people to ignore clad coinage for two generations. I doubt this can persist indefinitely.
The anecdotal evidence of an explosion in interest in coins is ubiquitous. I can't turn on the television or open a magazine without seeing new ads, stories, and references. It's everywhere from bookstores to shopping malls. A few years ago I reported Bob Vila's home improvement web site was selling modern mint sets but this sort of thing hardly surprises me any longer.
Of course it was apparent this was all coming back in 1999 because people started looking at their change again. I hadn't seen anyone much more than glance at change in 35 years since the last of the silver disappeared. Now they began looking at clads!! Of course, their interest broadened and expanded. We'd probably see a lot more of them here but we are more welcoming to people with an interest in old coins and with deep pockets. These people ARE the next generation of collectors. More accurately most of the dedicated collectors who roam the coin shows in 30 to 50 years and scour media for coins and knowledge will have been among this group. Their experiences over the coming decades and their individual natures will determine their preferences. Most of this is unpredictable now because it is dependent on things that have yet to occur.
But some things are certain. These people are not baby boomers. While they are all individuals, we are all a product of our place and time. This is no longer the place that made 1878 morgans nor the one that produced 1804 half cents. There's new math, new history, and there will be new collectors... ...thank God.
Speaking only for myself this already feels just a might tedious.
I'm not sure I'd want to take the show on the road or make a profession of it.
But thanks anyway.
Collecting clad is easy. Just get a couple folders and some rolls of quarters and start saving the best ones. It won't take long before you know what to expect and you can start chasing down BU's if that's what you prefer. Frankly, you can make such fantastic collections from pocket change that upgrading isn't really necessary. There's a lot to be said for coins that actually circulate and most of the set can still be found in nice attractive XF.
There are also cents, nickels, and dimes if you find the quarters too easy (you won't).
I figured out how to use photobucket once.
It's easy enough to compare different examples and identify the better struck ones. The peripheral lettering is the last thing to fill on an eagle reverse clad quarter so any deficiency in strike will typically show up here most dramatically as well as any high points. There is some variation from date to date and typically with the '82-P quarter the last to fill (the most likely not to be filled) is the LIBERTY. Letters are supposed to have nearly vertical sides and a rounded top but most examples will have nearly flat letters. There will simply be very little height to the letters. The volume of metal in the B of LIBERTY will be less than half of what it should be with most of the deficiency at the bottom. This is typical for the date. An '82-P with 99.9% of the metal in the high points is a rarity. Nice attractive examples exist but full strikes might not. It's not merely a matter that so very few coins were saved but that the number of well made coins was very very few (perhaps none). The few people who saved these were not especially concerned with what the coins looked like so they all tend to look pretty bad.
Some dates of moderns come very very nice but most are poor. Some dates come pretty clean but most are covered in scratches and gouges. All the clads are quite doable in Gem but there are some toughies and more toughies if you want full strikes from good dies. Right now choice Gem is probably the sweet spot for collecting them because they can be had for less than the cost of grading in most instances. Dimes are more readily available though. Cents are easier but most collectors will find a lot of surprises. Attractive examples of some dates are virtually unavailable due to various surface issues.
You no longer need to use photobucket or other third party image hosting. You can upload images right in your posts.
Very good info. Thank you.
I wonder how in the world that works. I guess it must just upload the entire photo rather than a link to it.
Maybe I'll get out my camera and see if I can figure it out again.
Every US series has been "popular" according to someone's definition. You are just biased and somehow have come to the incorrect conclusion that there is something unusual with collector preference toward (US) moderns when there isn't.
1989 was caused by the TPG bubble and doesn't have anything to do with your claims, as nothing of the sort will ever happen with the coins you like. It was a "one shot" deal due to the introduction of TPG, just as it was in South Africa.
The rest of your post, still has nothing to do with your claims. To the extent that you are correct, it's no different that what I described in my last post. What you just described is light years away from what you have been predicting in our post exchanges.
What you are at least implying in your predictions is a total realignment in collector preference, not the minor activity occurring at the coin shows you have attended. There is no precedent for such a claim and given why (as I explained) collectors have the most widely held preferences (they bring it into collecting from the external culture), it isn't about to change due to any reason you have ever given.
I never said US moderns are minutia.
I am describing any supposed "rarity" based upon specialization to be minutia, regardless of the coinage where it isn't widely collected.
I wouldn't call die variety collecting in US half cents or large cents minutia because it's evident a noticeable number of collectors think otherwise by paying noticeable premiums. I would consider die variety collecting in SQ to be minutia as there are literally tens of thousands of them and nobody is going to pay any premium for about 99% of it.
Of course they have and of course clad has been popular according to someone's definition. I'm sure you think they are very popular in order for a few to be worth thousands of dollars.
But how many series in US history have been shunned by large segments of the collecting community and hobby? Do you think collectors advised newbies to avoid two cent pieces in 1864 because they were base metal junk and anything made in the tens of millions would never be scarce or desirable?
There's an article in this month's Numismatist that apparently has some negative comments about collecting these or those who do (I haven't seen it).
As I keep trying to get across all this negative press isn't getting through to the "bumpkins". A lot of people out there are not even aware clad is just junk and they have been buying it for many years. This is why so much of the supply of "moderns" is drying up; it is being consumed by the unwashed masses who don't even know that you can't collect moderns.
This situation might never change. Maybe when the wholesalers run out of mint sets they'll just package up something different to sell and nobody will notice the transition. The general population will just have to buy AG two cent pieces and partial date buffalo nickels. At least real numismatists won't point at them and scream like something out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
>
I assume you've never heard of the three types of Wisconsin Denver quarters!
Are you aware the later quarters all came in two types with a satin and regular finish. Have you tried finding superb examples of the regular finish?
The mint did a few things with the states coins. You might want to investigate.
I believe that many people, as they age, like the coins they grew up with. I have given many birth year sets to non-collectors. Many of the younger collectors will come back to their childhood coins as they get older. Just my thoughts based solely on my opinion and what I believe is common sense.
The order of collector preference not changing over time is interesting, because it certainly changes for me.
I wasn't exposed to older coins until later. So for example, when I was a kid I liked Kennedy Halves, then Franklin Halves, then Seated Halves and now Bust Halves. I like the design of WLHs a lot and they can look amazing but haven't gotten into really collecting them. For dollars, I still like Morgans and but now I like Seated dollars more. I've looked at Flowing Hair Dollars and have a Bust Dollar but still prefer to collect Seated Dollars, for now.
savitale page 1
The early years are hard to find in circulation now i would suggest your LCS.
Some people attended these events to acquire them.
https://usmint.gov/news/upcoming-events
Your claim that this coinage has been "shunned" is wrong, again. In this entire thread, you continue to make this claim solely because others will not pay the prices you think it should be worth.
In 2019, the US Mint sold 318,000+ mint sets, 561,000+ clad proof sets and hundreds of thousands of single coins in rolls, bags and boxes. Sales of both were much higher in the past, in the low millions yet you still make this claim. https://www.usmint.gov/about/production-sales-figures/cumulative-sales. Sales of mint and proof sets have collapsed from prior decades https://mintsetguide.com/mint-set-mintage/, but it’s likely a better reflection of actual collector demand. My presumption is that much (and maybe most) prior buyers were either casual or even non-collectors.
Did and do these buyers “hate” it?
This coinage has a collectively low preference due to the coin attributes, not due to any claim you have made.
Yes, my preferences have also changed over time, In my most recent iteration as a collector starting in 1998, it was due to becoming aware of coins I didn't know existed before.
However, your post isn't in contradiction to my general claim, as your preferences changed "upwards". That's exactly how it is for presumably at least 99% of the collector base as this is what the price level shows assuming they can afford it. It's strictly a one way street with no noticeable movement in the other direction.
My preferences have also moved "up", as pillar coinage is a more challenging series than South Africa Union (my previous primary series) and most US coinage I preferred as a YN (similar to what you listed above at the end of your post, though I could not afford it).
Like yes, but not prefer. Take a look at the data.
The single best piece of evidence of an actual collector preference is when someone buys a coin or series over all others, in the same price range. (It's not infallible but "directionally" accurate.) What you are describing isn't generally an actual preference, but a financial limitation. They buy what they buy because they cannot afford the coins they actually prefer the most.
Going by the data, we can conclude that collectors collectively prefer the Lincoln Wheat cent over the IHC because the series is more common (in total and across the quality distribution) yet a noticeable proportion it is still more expensive. Same applies to the Mercury dime, SLQ and WLH over the same Barber denominations, generically (not every date).
Conversely, is the Lincoln Wheat cent preferred over early large cents? It's debatable but I'd say no. The bigger budget collectors can afford most early large cents (even if in lower quality) but it should be evident that the majority of Lincoln Wheat cent collectors would overwhelmingly choose early large cents, if they could afford it and if the coins existed in sufficient supply.
I have never claimed that many more collectors prefer my primary series (Bolivia and Peru pillar minors) but even if they did, only a few more could buy it anyway unless they will settle for circulated dreck which they won't. This is true of many non-US coins where it is still moderately priced but not for any US coins.
Well, these two are materially different, since one is never changing and one is upgrading, but I get that upgrading is a form of never changing for you.
Certainly people who pay a lot for top pop moderns have a big interest in them, but perhaps people don't move from cheaper older coins, to newer more expensive coins.
And I wouldn't necessarily say that "older" coins are moving "upwards". For example, my older coins still cost much less than many modern coins so if I'm i the same price band, it's really a lateral move, not up or down.
I can't speak for you. All I can tell you is that the price data and TPG populations demonstrate the conclusion I provided.
Aggregate collector preferences have not changed. Particularly among US collectors, any supposed "popularity" of a series measured by the size of the collector base is overwhelmingly actually a financial limitation since supply is much less of an issue or not one at all..
When I was a YN, I attempted to collect Bust halves and bought a few but it was out of my price range. I should have collected lower priced US classics or world coinage. I never considered US moderns because even then, I didn't like the designs particularly (Ike somewhat because it was large) and no one influenced my perception. I arrived at this opinion all by myself.
I didn't want to collect what I could afford at the time and quit collecting for a time instead.
Going older isn't always an "upgrade". For example, I think a lot people prefer Lincolns over IHCs, WLHs over Barbers, Buffalo nickels over Liberty Head nickels, etc.
Perhaps more detail is necessary here as large cents exist in huge supply and many are not very expensive. It just so happens that many of those are in low grade. I'd be more inclined to agree that completing a set of large cents in high grade may be more expensive than a set of Lincoln's in high grade.
I also think people that like expensive toners generally prefer Lincolns over large cents because Lincolns tone really well whereas most large cents just turn brown and a lot of red ones have been doctored. For example, I don't think anyone can do a color set of large cents link @WingedLiberty1957 has done for Lincolns. I'm also mesmerized by the surfaces and colors of Matte Proof Lincolns and haven't really seen any large cents that capture my attention like that.
I didn't say this and I specifically agreed with your examples in a prior post right here in this thread just above yours.
One aspect of "upwards" is what most collectors generically prefer but it isn't solely a function of a coin or series being older. A big part of it is the challenge and complexity of collecting the series. I wouldn't necessarily consider switching to the IHC to be "upward" because both are very easy to collect if you have the money. I could complete either series in one day in practically any quality except when using some arbitrary criteria. It also appears that among those who can afford to collect both, there is anecdotal evidence that collectors either collect both simultaneously or will switch between the two.
Yes, that's a function of the existing generic quality preference. I presume it's always existed but it's more evident now. I'm also limiting this comparison to early large cents (up to1814), as the preference for the later dates is much lower.
I am aware there are no absolutes. My primary point when I made this statement is that there is absolutely no basis to claim that aggregate collector preferences are subject to random change where what we see today is going to be turned "upside down" in the future just because new collectors replace existing ones.
That's why I described the primary (not exclusive) attributes (coin size, metal content and coin design) which drive collector preferences. This isn't a random outcome or an accident but the result of external preferences which collectors bring with them from the general culture when they become collectors.
I never claimed this applied to every collector or every coin as I specifically referenced generic changes in (US) collecting where toned coins is one. This preference is specific to the culture within collecting which is why it's a lot easier to change. What I described though is an accurate representation for any coin or series which is as common as practically any 20th century US coin
No...
Price is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that normally the price of a coin is the easiest means of determining its scarcity. Since most US coins have a similar demand over the long term it is possible to get a very good idea of how many survive simply be its price. Common coins have common prices.
This doesn't work for moderns. Not only do all moderns have a low price relative their scarcity but even the within this group the correlation doesn't work. Some moderns are priced lower than more common moderns.
Obviously this is because there is very little demand and the demand that does exist is less specific and less sophisticated on average. This is unnatural for US coins. This has come to pass because very few baby boomers collect moderns.
>
So if we extrapolate your words here to a population then baby boomers who started with wheaties, buffalo nickels, and rolls of pre-1965 coinage have all moved on to "more important" and "more collectible" coins.
Isn't this EXACTLY what I have been saying?
There are alot of unattractive classic designs that gained value simply because of supply of problem free coins, demand, and perceived value.
You mentioned at some point in the past the explosion in value of South African coinage.
How much greater is the collector base of South African coinage to that of US moderns?
I think you have made CK's point.
Edited to add: Much talk about boring design, but I don't collect as a series. A high grade coin is a work of wonder, making it thru the minting process to the grading room. As type coin or individual modern grade rarities it doesn't take much interest to increase value. When dealers realize the scarcity and start buying up supply... the train will have left the station.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
No, you are claiming that it is somehow unusual when it isn't.
US moderns are not scarce, except under arbitrary US standards. As I told you, except for the specific coins I listed, US moderns are more common than over 99% of all coins ever struck, whether in "high quality" or otherwise. All "scarcity" in US moderns is based upon the TPG equivalent grade or some specialization. Every coin (literally) is "scarce" if the criteria is arbitrary enough.
The prices differences between US moderns and the closest comparable coinage which is US classics dated 1933-1964 (the baseline for "popularity" you claim you aren't using) are immaterial. You exaggerate these differences, but that all it is..an exaggeration.
Most US collectors don't care about the quality standards used on this forum (especially yours on the strike) and don't care about the difference in scarcity either. Most US moderns are overwhelmingly an R-1 (1250+) in PCGS MS-66 going by the TPG data and prices. If some US modern has several thousand in MS-66 (probably over 95% ) while some common US classic has 10,000 or even more, why would anyone care and why would they pay a noticeable if any difference for this scarcity? All of these coins and the entire series can literally be bought in one day on eBay or through dealers in this quality.
If you are still going to insist that your claim isn't based upon the price, here is my response. Every single coin (literally) is "shunned" by most collectors because they aren't buying it. There is no coin or series which is collected by a majority. US moderns are more widely collected than over 99% of all coins ever struck.
There is no natural state in collecting. If literally no one aside from you likes these coins as much as you do (which is the only thing you are describing), there is absolutely nothing unusual about it. You insist these coins should be worth a lot more, yet you won't even pay these prices yourself.
Why would others who like these coins a lot less than you pay higher prices when you won't?
I'm not sure how you think I made his point. There are no supply limitations in US moderns, except in specialization, the condition census grade and occasionally one grade below it. This preference is generic to US collecting, it doesn't have anything to do with US moderns, and isn't subject to the general culture collectors bring with them into collecting.
I disagree that condition census coins generally have favorable financial prospects but I could be wrong. (I can explain this also but it's mostly outside the scope of this thread.) This claim is NOT limited to US moderns but any coin where the price difference is disproportionate.
It's one thing for a series or a specific date to sell for a much higher price than previously when the supply is low or very low because it only takes a handful of buyers to make it happen. This IS effectively a "random" event. It's entirely another when the series or a coin is practically as common as dirt, which is exactly what applies to most 20th century US coinage outside of what I described in my first paragraph here.
In 15 years on coin forums, I have occasionally seen someone ask when one of these common series (usually US but also otherwise) is going to sell for a lot more. My answer is literally "never" for all the reasons I provided.
On your last paragraph, I'm not referring to your collecting, mine or any other individual. I never apply my claims this way. In the future, I expect fewer collectors to collect an entire series versus now (noticeably less) due to the variety made possible by the internet. If this happens, it will be a big negative for the prices of most common coins, especially 20th century US.
Since you aren't quoting my post, you'd have to point me to the comments I made on South African coinage for me to know if I am replying to you correctly. The collector base of South African coinage is nowhere near that of US moderns. It's a minimal fraction. The price level is higher in the aggregate but that's because of a much lower supply.
“Sure- up to a point. wondercoin listed these prices for a 1970-D half...
MS65 - $40
MS66 - $165
MS67 - $3,750”
UPDATE: One year later...
MS65- $40
MS66 - $260
MS67 - $5,250
MS67+: $12,500 (now pop 1)
Overall, very nice upward movement on the key grade MS66/MS67 1970-D 50C coins over the past year. About 40%-50% annual increase from what I see.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Yea, I wondered about his 165 price for an MS66. Looked but never found one at that level at the time and gave up - I just don't like the look of 65s and think this coin gets a push on grading overall by IMO a point or so....
Well, just Love coins, period.
In my limited experience, I use a loose scale in some combination... because of how infrequently they are found by me.
Attractive NT (R5), varieties (R6), cameo (R7), and grade (R8)
Any of those above criteria check the boxes for purchase.
The argument they are out there to be found in quantity is fantasy.
The argument there are no buyers is fantasy.
Not alot different than hunting trophy whitetails.
What is more impressive? You can pay for a guided rifle hunt to Saskatchewan for a 200pt B&C... or you can solo hunt the swamps of Williamsburg County SC with a bow and hope for a 120pt P&Y. Both about as rare and require a certain skill set.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Hmm. Interesting thread. I think I may publish this thread as a book.😁
Most collectors of moderns collect them from change. Kids collectors do care about grades. MS65 or MS66, what does it matter to Jerry Mathers?
Whilst a lot of modern coins may be rarer then most realize, the interest is not there for the most part. I would like to own some varieties, but this will only come about from change finds or cherry picks.
To add, not including other series and Vam's, I spend probably up to 10 hours a week online looking at proof and mint sets from mid 1950's onward. Several thousand listings.
Started tracking my purchases, sales, sub fees and time spent.
Average one modern (my above criteria) keeper per week based on the my rareity scale.
When I was going to shows, it would average two or more per day with toning the likely pick.
Definition of a keeper would be anything that will equal the stabbing fees and my original (low) cost basis.
My collection sustains itself for the most part.
Submit three/sell two and feed the masses.
Found plenty of varieties to keep swinging away knowing that AH DCam is a click away.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
I couldn't agree more.
But all collectors seek nice attractive specimens for their collections. Even low ball collectors want nice even wear on an attractive coin. It's human nature to prefer "beautiful" to "ugly". And this is where the potential for moderns lie. If you assemble an eagle reverse quarter collection from circulation starting today looking a 100 coins per week for five years you'll assemble a complete set. But two or three coins will be culls, a few will be VG+ and several will be in only F condition. A few later dates will be AU but for the most part the coins will be nice attractive VF.
This is a laudable goal and it's not that tough to find all the coins in F or VF if you put the effort into it starting in the next couple years.
The number of collectors doing just this is hardly inconsequential. Whitman and other companies are churning out a lot of folders for clad quarters and it's a safe bet many are being filled. It's also a safe bet that the number of folders being actively worked is increasing quickly and is already "substantial".
The potential is in nice gemmy coins. As a rule clads in grades of MS-63 and lower are very ugly coins because they were struck with worn dies that were poorly adjusted and then the coins were heavily scratched. Even many MS-64 coins are not very attractive. So collectors will gravitate to nice MS-64 and better. Some dates are quite "common" in this grade but about half are somewhat uncommon all the way to scarce. If you want a true Unc 1969 or 1982 that is attractive you'll have your work cut out for you. The '69's are tarnished and the '82-P's mostly all got into circulation.
Collectors might just be surprised to see what some of the XF's and AU's are worth in a few years. Some dates are just made so poorly that they don't look nice even after they get worn down. Meanwhile culls are accumulating in circulation as the percentage of the older quarters is dropping toward 30%. Vast numbers of the old coins are lost now and those in change are slowly "disappearing". In only a few year there will be nothing in circulation except culls and very worn survivors.
There will be no depth to the supply of BU's for the wholesale market. These coins used to come from mint sets but the mint sets have been destroyed to get the half dollars and Ikes and the quarters released to circulation. Now the mint sets almost almost gone and the few left are usually tarnished.
It's not the supply of "Uncs" that is problematical. The issue is the supply of nice attractive clad and nickels in any grade whatsoever. I said twenty years ago people were waiting too long. Now they kindda have waited too long. There are enough collectors now to sop up all the attractive clad in just a couple years.
The existence of many MS-62's of many dates will create a means for low budget collectors to complete collections. But even nice lustrous MS-63's will be elusive for some dates.
I didn't mean to kill the thread.
People might be interested to note that it is suddenly deucedly difficult to find 1969 mint set from online retailers. There's no shortage on eBay but prices look higher.
It is odd that big wholesalers appear to be sold out.
Although most of these sets are tarnished now they are still the primary (or sole) source for several of the coins in them.
I wish that I could meet and greet Cladking to show him the clad quarters I collected as a kid from 1965 through the early 1980's and placed in Whitman folders. Some are MS and some are EF to AU. His opinions on them would be interesting.
Everytime I look at them I enjoy them more. Nostalgia I guess and the fact that some of them are very eye appealing.
I really enjoy looking at old clads like this.
I once bought a huge accumulation of about 40 to 50 rolls of better date quarters in higher grades. This was back in the early '90's and it looked like they had been set aside between about '69 and '74. There were dozens of 1969's in nice AU!!! Most of them were just put right back into circulation to make some other collector's day. I hope I found all the varieties. Some of these are still around and might be the next F you find in change.
I've been going through '65 issues recently and noticing that nostalgia. I'm reminded of that very first clad quarter I got on Thanksgiving of '65. It wouldn't come apart though and they still don't.