10 Year Population Change & The Story of the Semi-key 1931-D Mercury Dime

keyman64

Don't misunderstand this post. The 1931-D Merc is NOT RARE. Just merely a technical semi-key for the series based on the mintage figure of 1,260,000. As for pricing/value etc, no need in this thread even though I am aware of the info...I want to just keep the discussion strictly to the dramatic population change with a possible dose of gradeflation.

About 10 years and 20 days apart, I have now purchased my second PCGS MS67FB Example.

In August 2010, I purchased the Joshua II 67FB example. I sold it in 2015. In August 2010, there were 39 in MS67FB with 0 finer at PCGS.

Fast forward to over 10 years later since I just bought a 67FB CAC example on Sunday night...however, this was a Top Pop Cherrypick DDO FS-101 unattributed. Back in the day, I only owned the DDO in 65FB. So, it is seldom that we get a VERY CLEAR look at dramatic population change with a possible dose of gradeflation 10 years apart. Today at PCGS, there are 76 in 67FB with 8 Finer! To me it is absolutely crazy. Shocking, even. I know in 2010, I had viewed photos of close to 10 67FB examples and was not impressed with most of them just based on carbon spots, finger prints or hits.

Thankfully for me, my example is really a Pop of 2/0 (once I get it through attribution) and it's a point higher than Hansen's example. Is my newest example crazy beautiful? No and I am not particularly thrilled with it but it is better than plenty of examples that I have viewed in hand and via photos. When you cherrypick varieites, you frequently just take what you can find. I will continue in my search.

Any other dramatic population changes with a possible dose of gradeflation examples you would like to share?

Catbert

I don’t think our host will appreciate your assertions.

keets

maybe I'm missing something but I don't view an increase in graded numbers to be an indication of grade-flation. it could be the result of a variety of things.

keyman64

@Catbert @keets Fair thoughts you have there. I modified the post accordingly. Thank you.

Elcontador1

Sometimes, new coins are just discovered. Four or five years ago, a roll or half roll of supergrade 12 S and 1886 Nickels were discovered.

Then you have the other scenario: In 2004, there was a pop 4 for the business strike 1896 Liberty Nickel in a PC 6 holder. I know someone who paid $17K for one of them. In 2016, I passed on an all there example of the same coin for $6K. I think the pop was either 13 or 17 at the time.

291fifth

Playing the top pop grading game is dangerous to the wallet. Thin markets are risky markets especially when "opinions" are involved.

ShaunBC5

How much of this would you guys attribute to the crackout game and/or crossovers? I’m just curious how many are the same coin getting the same grade. (I know no one can know, but you guys who play the game or watch it might have guesses)

ricko

The top pop grading game is just another facet of coin collecting. There certainly are dangers involved...High prices paid and suddenly new coins are found/graded.... Values can change quickly. Cheers, RickO

Walkerguy21D

@ShaunBC5 said:
How much of this would you guys attribute to the crackout game and/or crossovers? I’m just curious how many are the same coin getting the same grade. (I know no one can know, but you guys who play the game or watch it might have guesses)

That's why you have to be careful with pop reports....unless people are sending labels in, or the original slabs, then you get inflated numbers, especially with big price jumps in the next grade up. I'm sure many coins are sent in over and over, hoping for that winning lottery number.

Agree on the comments about pop top collecting, especially with later date coins. I remember people spending big money on late date walkers in high grades. I was content with 64's for the most part, occasionally a 65 if the price was right. There were always stacks of nice raw ones at shows, I figured it was merely a matter of time before the >65 coins became more common. The early dates are a different story.....with a few exceptions, XF-AU early dates were legitimately scarce at shows. That's where I put my serious $.

keyman64

@ShaunBC5 said:
How much of this would you guys attribute to the crackout game and/or crossovers? I’m just curious how many are the same coin getting the same grade. (I know no one can know, but you guys who play the game or watch it might have guesses)

I would guess that a dozen or so could be crossovers from other grading companies or those that were just kept raw and were graded for the first time. But it seems like someone "found" an additional 45 examples when there were previously only 39 in the top pop position. That's like almost finding a COMPLETE ROLL of top pop worthy 1931-D dimes. For me, that is hard to believe and since the pop report has only gone up steadily over the last 10 years I would say that is not the reason. So yes, there could be a dose of what you suggest.

Jimnight

Elcontador1

I try to focus on coins that I see as nice for the grade - not shot coins - and get an opinion from someone who knows more than I do before buying them.

I am not concerned about pop reports, for reasons discussed above. New coins get discovered: the biggest recent find were the SS Central America 1850s S mint double eagles. Then there are successful crosses and upgrades.

I think pop reports are fluid for late 19th century coins forward. That's Liberty Nickels, Barber coinage and more recent.

A sweet spot may be mid 19th century coinage (I don't anticipate a repeat of an SS Central America find). Except for nickels, they were usually well struck and people weren't saving coins by the rolls at this time.

Early 19th century coinage presents its own set of problems; I'm more concerned about an early copper going bad than having new ones for the grade being made. Re silver coinage, the main issue is a coin which was previously deemed not gradeable being reclassified as market acceptable. Light cleaning is tolerated on Bust Dollars, but not Seated Dollars. Where you draw the line between a slabable coin which has been bleached or lightly cleaned, and one which not acceptable, is where I get off the bus.

Crypto

@291fifth said:
Playing the top pop grading game is dangerous to the wallet. Thin markets are risky markets especially when "opinions" are involved.

This should be part of collector 101 when they enter the hobby. Some coins that are grades above their (also rare) peers like the BM PF63 1856o double eagle. are worthy of trophy hunters looking for nothing but the best. Paying multiples of the undergrade on a common coin when there are thousands left to be graded is foolish and purely an ego thing.

WCC

@Crypto said:

@291fifth said:
Playing the top pop grading game is dangerous to the wallet. Thin markets are risky markets especially when "opinions" are involved.

This should be part of collector 101 when they enter the hobby. Some coins that are grades above their (also rare) peers like the BM PF63 1856o double eagle. are worthy of trophy hunters looking for nothing but the best. Paying multiples of the undergrade on a common coin when there are thousands left to be graded is foolish and purely an ego thing.

I share your sentiments.

In this particular instance, I agree there are probably a noticeable proportion of resubmissions and maybe cross overs. I haven't checked the prices. Generally though, I certainly wouldn't assume it when deciding how much to pay.

For most post-1933 US, I assume the coins are (a lot) more common than indicated by the population data.

Crypto

@WCC said:

@Crypto said:

@291fifth said:
Playing the top pop grading game is dangerous to the wallet. Thin markets are risky markets especially when "opinions" are involved.

This should be part of collector 101 when they enter the hobby. Some coins that are grades above their (also rare) peers like the BM PF63 1856o double eagle. are worthy of trophy hunters looking for nothing but the best. Paying multiples of the undergrade on a common coin when there are thousands left to be graded is foolish and purely an ego thing.

I share your sentiments.

In this particular instance, I agree there are probably a noticeable proportion of resubmissions and maybe cross overs. I haven't checked the prices. Generally though, I certainly wouldn't assume it when deciding how much to pay.

For most post-1933 US, I assume the coins are (a lot) more common than indicated by the population data.

I would assume everything around 1875 and later is much more common than advertised. Few US coins are naturally rare. Some have been hit by attrition at much higher levels and then when broken down to die (like an error, DDR or mint mark variance) there can be specific rarities. But there are not many truly rare coin like the 1879o double eagle after the 1870s

keyman64

In Aug 2010 the PCGS Price Guide was $2400. In early 2015 I believe the PCGS Price Guide was about $1800 but there were a couple of examples that sold for less than $1000. Right now the PCGS Price Guide is $2000.

During the 10 year period via Auctions, PCGS MS67FB Examples have sold for just below $800 to a little over $5000.

WCC

@Crypto said:

@WCC said:

@Crypto said:

@291fifth said:
Playing the top pop grading game is dangerous to the wallet. Thin markets are risky markets especially when "opinions" are involved.

This should be part of collector 101 when they enter the hobby. Some coins that are grades above their (also rare) peers like the BM PF63 1856o double eagle. are worthy of trophy hunters looking for nothing but the best. Paying multiples of the undergrade on a common coin when there are thousands left to be graded is foolish and purely an ego thing.

I share your sentiments.

In this particular instance, I agree there are probably a noticeable proportion of resubmissions and maybe cross overs. I haven't checked the prices. Generally though, I certainly wouldn't assume it when deciding how much to pay.

For most post-1933 US, I assume the coins are (a lot) more common than indicated by the population data.

I would assume everything around 1875 and later is much more common than advertised. Few US coins are naturally rare. Some have been hit by attrition at much higher levels and then when broken down to die (like an error, DDR or mint mark variance) there can be specific rarities. But there are not many truly rare coin like the 1879o double eagle after the 1870s

I was trying to be generous but I think you are correct. I have looked at the survival estimates in Coin Facts for many coins and it appears to be impossible to reconcile what is known to the estimates.

The best example I can think of is the 1802 half dime which is a legitimately rare coin. My recollection is the estimate is 35-40 based upon prior research where the author purportedly identified 35 individual specimens. This was decades ago, in the 30's or 40's I believe. The TPG data currently records 14 last time I checked, including three AU-50 at NGC where it's possible it's one coin. NGC doesn't record any "details" coins to my recollection and I'm not aware PCGS publishes this data.

So while some may have been lost in the last six or seven decades, it's hard to believe up to 21 were. And if there really are proportionately many more for the 1802 half dime, I absolutely agree that practically every US coin potentially has many more (proportionately or in total) across the grade distribution.

WCC

@keyman64 said:
In Aug 2010 the PCGS Price Guide was $2400. In early 2015 I believe the PCGS Price Guide was about $1800 but there were a couple of examples that sold for less than $1000. Right now the PCGS Price Guide is $2000.

During the 10 year period via Auctions, PCGS MS67FB Examples have sold for just below $800 to a little over $5000.

I wasn't clear in my last post. I was actually referring to the price difference between the 67 and one lower. I assume the $800 (or near it) is more recent and wouldn't expect it to influence resubmissions much. $5000, a lot more.

keyman64

@WCC said:

@keyman64 said:
In Aug 2010 the PCGS Price Guide was $2400. In early 2015 I believe the PCGS Price Guide was about $1800 but there were a couple of examples that sold for less than $1000. Right now the PCGS Price Guide is $2000.

During the 10 year period via Auctions, PCGS MS67FB Examples have sold for just below $800 to a little over $5000.

I wasn't clear in my last post. I was actually referring to the price difference between the 67 and one lower. I assume the $800 (or near it) is more recent and wouldn't expect it to influence resubmissions much. $5000, a lot more.

I recall an auction sale of about $788 in 2014 or 2015 when the market was down and it was not a pretty example. 2015 is when I sold my first example so I was keen to the pricing about that time.

remumc

Here's mine. 67+FB.

https://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/30728580_Medium.jpg

keyman64

@remumc said:
Here's mine. 67+FB.

https://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/30728580_Medium.jpg

That's a nice example, Wayne. CAC thinks so as well.