Question for Cladking. Mint set coins had a satin finish for several years. We’re many business strike uncirculated coins saved then? Are they readily available today?
@dlmtorts said:
Question for Cladking. Mint set coins had a satin finish for several years. We’re many business strike uncirculated coins saved then? Are they readily available today?
I really don't know but I have the sense a lot were saved but little care was put into looking for nice specimens. Even today there is little demand or notice of non-matte coins for these dates. Most of the wholesale demand for states issues is in the first three or four years suggesting there were ample numbers saved.
@koynekwest said:
"The only moderns with a significant premium are Gems and varieties which barely exist at all in rolls compiled from mint sets."
Concerning the variety aspect of Mint sets, many years ago I purchased a full roll of 1970-D dimes that were cut from Mint sets looking for the better doubled die reverses. In this roll I found 34 doubled reverse dies about equally divided into the two best DDRs-Die #1 and Die#4. As with the '74-D half dollar they were all nice, early die states. Die states for many doubled dies are almost as important as is the grade.
Die state is especially important when the spread is very small. Some of these coins I don't even look for but this is probably a mistake. The '74-D and '70 DDR's are nice but some of the more obscure doubled dies are even hard to see on well struck coins.
@koynekwest said:
"The only moderns with a significant premium are Gems and varieties which barely exist at all in rolls compiled from mint sets."
Concerning the variety aspect of Mint sets, many years ago I purchased a full roll of 1970-D dimes that were cut from Mint sets looking for the better doubled die reverses. In this roll I found 34 doubled reverse dies about equally divided into the two best DDRs-Die #1 and Die#4. As with the '74-D half dollar they were all nice, early die states. Die states for many doubled dies are almost as important as is the grade.
If more than 2/3 of a 50 coin sample are DDRs, perhaps the non Doubled Die coins are the "better" variety?
OBW '69 quarters are possible but highly improbable. While such a thing is a rarity and the coins in it are also a rarity and most completely identifiable as being issued for circulation there is no market at the current time for "circulation issue" '69 quarters. The coins are "always" low grade in these rolls. I've said before I have some of the nicest made for circulation but they really can't hold a candle to better mint set coins.
Here are some of my saved items on eBay. I chose these two dates as both are among the lowest MS-66 counts in the TPG data. I make no claim for how many are MS-66, only that this is an example that meets the requirements for most collectors, even if not you.
I don't know what the demand for mint (or proof) sets is now but expect both to decrease later. I also expect series collecting to decrease noticeably. I expect it because the internet makes it possible to collect a much wider variety which most collectors (more knowledgeable ones at least) find a lot more interesting.
@cladking said:
But I am a close observer of the markets and can assure you there was no wholesale supply for clad quarters in 1998.
That's what I said (absent the "1998" part) yesterday. You said there was.
When there is so little demand for a coin and most collectors are getting them from mint sets the question of whether a wholesale market exists or not is mostly semantical. Obviously if there were suddenly lots of dealers looking for moderns a real wholesale market would spring up. The real question is at what price and how many collectors can be supported at a given price level. I am saying that the supply is so thin that a mass market can not be supported at any price unless most collectors are satisfied with unattractive or circulating coinage. Nice attractive clad of most dates is much scarcer than something like a '50-D nickel. chBU rolls can not flow into the wholesalers at any significant rate because it simply doesn't exist any longer. The reason they can accumulate quantities now is that the demand is so limited. They don't accumulate quantities normally because there is little interest.
Wrappers are irrelevant. Those are apparently really original rolls of '69's and the first I've seen as such. Mine were loose when I bought them. They are also pretty nice coins but it's highly improbable there's anything over MS-64.
I don't know what the demand for mint (or proof) sets is now but expect both to decrease later. I also expect series collecting to decrease noticeably. I expect it because the internet makes it possible to collect a much wider variety which most collectors (more knowledgeable ones at least) find a lot more interesting.
@cladking said:
When there is so little demand for a coin and most collectors are getting them from mint sets the question of whether a wholesale market exists or not is mostly semantical.
Yesterday, you told me that wholesalers exist. Today, you said they do not.
What dealers are looking for, how many are looking, what buyers want, how much they're willing to pay, what sorts of coins are available and whether there is a market for them are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not wholesalers exist.
Either they do or they do not. There is no other option.
I don't know what the demand for mint (or proof) sets is now but expect both to decrease later. I also expect series collecting to decrease noticeably. I expect it because the internet makes it possible to collect a much wider variety which most collectors (more knowledgeable ones at least) find a lot more interesting.
Why do you expect the trends to reverse?
Please see my last post, the verbiage above. People are creatures of habit but the internet makes collecting different from when you and I started collecting. I don't have access to the data to definitively support this claim but if I did, I believe this explains the declining prices for a number of US series which I believe have lost "share of wallet" to (world) NCLT, like the Franklin half.
Yesterday, you told me that wholesalers exist. Today, you said they do not.
The wholesalers deal in mint sets and chBU rolls of halves and dollars.
It's not so easy to make a few phone calls and secure rolls of other clads.
It's possible to get mint sets from wholesalers but few people do. They do not maintain large inventories and the sets are cut up periodically.
I can't say it any more simply. Wholesalers create no supply where there is no demand. There is little demand for mint sets because there enough people can find their own and there is no demand for small clad for the exact same reason. Now there is insufficient supply for the larger coins and the simple fact is most of the mint sets are gone or tarnished and so are the small clad that was once in them. And there is still little demand.
Please see my last post, the verbiage above. People are creatures of habit but the internet makes collecting different from when you and I started collecting. I don't have access to the data to definitively support this claim but if I did, I believe this explains the declining prices for a number of US series which I believe have lost "share of wallet" to (world) NCLT, like the Franklin half.
I expect series collecting to decrease as well. More accurately I believe it has been decreasing for several years but that it might be approaching its lowest level. It doesn't matter if it becomes even less popular than it is today; what matters is how many people want the small clads relative the supply. I believe the growing number of collectors for all the clad series including the larger coins is likely to continue to grow no matter what happens to the total number of series collectors. This is why I believe the demand is exceeding the supply. If I'm correct that the price increase reflects more demand then it certainly follows that the number of collectors is growing. At the very least it is growing relative to the supply.
Life and coin collecting are not zero sum gain. Most cycles tend to repeat again and again but new ones arise and old ones can become obsolete. Cycles build one on another to create perfect storms. I simply maintain that a market that has allowed virtually the entire supply to be wasted even before there is any demand is essentially an example of the "perfect storm". Again, there is an assumption here that the increased prices for mint sets isn't just a rationalization of the market and that the demand for Ikes is greatly exceeding the number of coins coming to market; the wholesalers.
It's really too early to be certain of anything but I wager this marks the end of raw moderns and the free lunch composed of low hanging fruit, sandwich coins, and rolls. There could easily be a glut of quarters now if a larger percentage begin getting saved since there is still highly limited demand. But this "glut" will be nothing like the old days because, did I mention, the mint sets are mostly gone and the survivors are tarnished.
As an owner of many of these sets, how does one go about storing them properly?
Should the coins be broken out of the sets or is there no hope and eventually every set will tarnish in some way because of its packaging.
Please see my last post, the verbiage above. People are creatures of habit but the internet makes collecting different from when you and I started collecting. I don't have access to the data to definitively support this claim but if I did, I believe this explains the declining prices for a number of US series which I believe have lost "share of wallet" to (world) NCLT, like the Franklin half.
I expect series collecting to decrease as well. More accurately I believe it has been decreasing for several years but that it might be approaching its lowest level. It doesn't matter if it becomes even less popular than it is today; what matters is how many people want the small clads relative the supply. I believe the growing number of collectors for all the clad series including the larger coins is likely to continue to grow no matter what happens to the total number of series collectors. This is why I believe the demand is exceeding the supply. If I'm correct that the price increase reflects more demand then it certainly follows that the number of collectors is growing. At the very least it is growing relative to the supply.
Life and coin collecting are not zero sum gain. Most cycles tend to repeat again and again but new ones arise and old ones can become obsolete. Cycles build one on another to create perfect storms. I simply maintain that a market that has allowed virtually the entire supply to be wasted even before there is any demand is essentially an example of the "perfect storm". Again, there is an assumption here that the increased prices for mint sets isn't just a rationalization of the market and that the demand for Ikes is greatly exceeding the number of coins coming to market; the wholesalers.
I will refer you to my prior post in this thread describing how collectors do not collect in a vacuum, especially with any claim of noticeably higher prices for coinage with a preference as low as these. Whether it is feasible depends upon the increase you are implying now.
As for cycles, I have already told you what the evidence has to say about that.
@ClosedLoop said:
As an owner of many of these sets, how does one go about storing them properly?
Good question. I think there's an answer but don't know what it is. I know steady temperature and dry conditions are desirable but don't know what temperature or how dry.
Should the coins be broken out of the sets or is there no hope and eventually every set will tarnish in some way because of its packaging.
I suspect every pre-1985 set is going to tarnish in the next few decades as well as many of the '85 to date. For now I'm just working on bad ones of any date and all pre-1985 sets.
BU rolls aren't necessarily much better. I recently went through all of them and lots of them were a total loss.
I'm hoping the stabilized coins will be OK and so far they seem to be. Fortunately I stabilized some of the worst coins like '68 cents many years ago and they are still OK.
@koynekwest said:
"The only moderns with a significant premium are Gems and varieties which barely exist at all in rolls compiled from mint sets."
Concerning the variety aspect of Mint sets, many years ago I purchased a full roll of 1970-D dimes that were cut from Mint sets looking for the better doubled die reverses. In this roll I found 34 doubled reverse dies about equally divided into the two best DDRs-Die #1 and Die#4. As with the '74-D half dollar they were all nice, early die states. Die states for many doubled dies are almost as important as is the grade.
Die state is especially important when the spread is very small. Some of these coins I don't even look for but this is probably a mistake. The '74-D and '70 DDR's are nice but some of the more obscure doubled dies are even hard to see on well struck coins.
If I can't see a doubled die with my 5X glass I pay it no heed.
Die state is important for most of the "biggies" too. The 1934 DDO-001 is an example where the difference between an EDS and LDS can be dramatic.
You have a point with the non-d die coins being the better ones. But I did manage to sell all of the ones I found for $25 or so each on Teletrade.
I skimmed the thread, but is it a correct summary that there is little demand for higher end moderns, however, if demand increases at some point in the future acquiring raw specimens will be difficult?
As an aside, I do wonder what will remain of zinc cents in a hundred or two hundred years when so many of them have corroded away.
@Davideo said:
I skimmed the thread, but is it a correct summary that there is little demand for higher end moderns, however, if demand increases at some point in the future acquiring raw specimens will be difficult?
The evidence from how markets work and how collectors collect doesn't lead to the conclusion that the supply on eBay will disappear. It's easy to buy any of it there now. If the demand increases "substantially" (something I do not believe), price adjustments take care of that.
There will be continued attrition but not where this will make it difficult to buy this coinage either. Many world coins aren't rare or even that scarce while being somewhat (but usually not that difficult) to buy due to the low price but doesn't apply here.
@Davideo said:
I skimmed the thread, but is it a correct summary that there is little demand for higher end moderns, however, if demand increases at some point in the future acquiring raw specimens will be difficult?
The evidence from how markets work and how collectors collect doesn't lead to the conclusion that the supply on eBay will disappear. It's easy to buy any of it there now. If the demand increases "substantially" (something I do not believe), price adjustments take care of that.
There will be continued attrition but not where this will make it difficult to buy this coinage either. Many world coins aren't rare or even that scarce while being somewhat (but usually not that difficult) to buy due to the low price but doesn't apply here.
If tens of thousands of people start collecting clads where exactly do you suppose the supply will come from? You see huge mintages and assume the coins are common. They are not common.
@Davideo said:
I skimmed the thread, but is it a correct summary that there is little demand for higher end moderns, however, if demand increases at some point in the future acquiring raw specimens will be difficult?
As an aside, I do wonder what will remain of zinc cents in a hundred or two hundred years when so many of them have corroded away.
No. There's little demand for any moderns but most of the demand is centered on half dollars and dollars.
Zinc cents actually hold up pretty well with proper storage. They'll corrode very quickly if they are exposed to moisture even briefly. Just be sure to get the pre-'85 issues out of mint set packaging. This may change going forward and the attrition is still stunningly high but I believe there will be specimens for a long time.
The issue is not higher grade moderns; the issue is the small supply of nice attractive dimes and quarters vis a vis the apparent current shortage of halves and dollars.
If the small coins had the same demand as the larger coins their prices would likely be far higher to bring supply and demand into balance.
“If tens of thousands of people start collecting clads where exactly do you suppose the supply will come from? You see huge mintages and assume the coins are common. They are not common.”
I’m still waiting for the MILLIONS of state quarter collectors to drive the price of my state quarters up to even just 35 cents. Lauren just had to drop off around 3,000 fresh Unc. Coins from 3 original bags of the year 2000. That’s a total of 21 years of lost interest on that money. Just the tip of the iceberg for me in wasted money buying $1,000 state quarter bags!
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@jmlanzaf said:
Now, that doesn't mean that there will ever be a problem here. It's quite possible that no one ever wants more of these coins than are in plastic already. But he's not wrong that there is an ongoing attrition problem with early clad coinage.
No, he's not. But I never said he was wrong about that. There has been ongoing attrition (whether it's a problem is > @cladking said:
@Davideo said:
I skimmed the thread, but is it a correct summary that there is little demand for higher end moderns, however, if demand increases at some point in the future acquiring raw specimens will be difficult?
The evidence from how markets work and how collectors collect doesn't lead to the conclusion that the supply on eBay will disappear. It's easy to buy any of it there now. If the demand increases "substantially" (something I do not believe), price adjustments take care of that.
There will be continued attrition but not where this will make it difficult to buy this coinage either. Many world coins aren't rare or even that scarce while being somewhat (but usually not that difficult) to buy due to the low price but doesn't apply here.
If tens of thousands of people start collecting clads where exactly do you suppose the supply will come from? You see huge mintages and assume the coins are common. They are not common.
There are hundreds of thousands of clad coins of all dates available. There are hundreds of thousands of UNC clads of all dates. There may not be tens of thousands of gem uncs of all dates, but so what?
@Davideo said:
I skimmed the thread, but is it a correct summary that there is little demand for higher end moderns, however, if demand increases at some point in the future acquiring raw specimens will be difficult?
The evidence from how markets work and how collectors collect doesn't lead to the conclusion that the supply on eBay will disappear. It's easy to buy any of it there now. If the demand increases "substantially" (something I do not believe), price adjustments take care of that.
There will be continued attrition but not where this will make it difficult to buy this coinage either. Many world coins aren't rare or even that scarce while being somewhat (but usually not that difficult) to buy due to the low price but doesn't apply here.
If tens of thousands of people start collecting clads where exactly do you suppose the supply will come from? You see huge mintages and assume the coins are common. They are not common.
Did you even read my post?
Name me one example where collectors find coins as common as these so compelling that they won't sell it even if prices rise substantially? That's what I said in my post and it is accurate.
You can't because it's never happened.
The only reason you "took exception" is because I called this coinage common. It is common, relatively common and that is a fact. None of it is hard to buy, except under the arbitrary and narrow standards invented by US collecting.
@jmlanzaf said:
Now, that doesn't mean that there will ever be a problem here. It's quite possible that no one ever wants more of these coins than are in plastic already. But he's not wrong that there is an ongoing attrition problem with early clad coinage.
No, he's not. But I never said he was wrong about that. There has been ongoing attrition (whether it's a problem is > @cladking said:
@Davideo said:
I skimmed the thread, but is it a correct summary that there is little demand for higher end moderns, however, if demand increases at some point in the future acquiring raw specimens will be difficult?
The evidence from how markets work and how collectors collect doesn't lead to the conclusion that the supply on eBay will disappear. It's easy to buy any of it there now. If the demand increases "substantially" (something I do not believe), price adjustments take care of that.
There will be continued attrition but not where this will make it difficult to buy this coinage either. Many world coins aren't rare or even that scarce while being somewhat (but usually not that difficult) to buy due to the low price but doesn't apply here.
If tens of thousands of people start collecting clads where exactly do you suppose the supply will come from? You see huge mintages and assume the coins are common. They are not common.
There are hundreds of thousands of clad coins of all dates available. There are hundreds of thousands of UNC clads of all dates. There may not be tens of thousands of gem uncs of all dates, but so what?
He already knows this, just as we and everyone else here do. Any claim that there is a "shortage" or potential "shortage" of this coinage is ridiculous and it has nothing to do with anyone liking or not liking it.
Even if what he is implying occurs with the price level, the price will adjust to make the coins available. This is true with the overwhelming majority of coins. I look at auction records of expensive US coinage intermittently and only a very few do not sell fairly regularly. From the 20th century, as a date/MM, the only ones I know with virtual certainty unlikely to be available right now are the 1913 LHN, patterns, and a very low number of Indian head eagles and Saints. This excludes narrow "scarcity" based upon the grade or specialization.
@jmlanzaf said:
Now, that doesn't mean that there will ever be a problem here. It's quite possible that no one ever wants more of these coins than are in plastic already. But he's not wrong that there is an ongoing attrition problem with early clad coinage.
No, he's not. But I never said he was wrong about that. There has been ongoing attrition (whether it's a problem is > @cladking said:
@Davideo said:
I skimmed the thread, but is it a correct summary that there is little demand for higher end moderns, however, if demand increases at some point in the future acquiring raw specimens will be difficult?
The evidence from how markets work and how collectors collect doesn't lead to the conclusion that the supply on eBay will disappear. It's easy to buy any of it there now. If the demand increases "substantially" (something I do not believe), price adjustments take care of that.
There will be continued attrition but not where this will make it difficult to buy this coinage either. Many world coins aren't rare or even that scarce while being somewhat (but usually not that difficult) to buy due to the low price but doesn't apply here.
If tens of thousands of people start collecting clads where exactly do you suppose the supply will come from? You see huge mintages and assume the coins are common. They are not common.
There are hundreds of thousands of clad coins of all dates available. There are hundreds of thousands of UNC clads of all dates. There may not be tens of thousands of gem uncs of all dates, but so what?
Yes! There are hundreds of thousands of most dates of clad quarters in chBU and more than half are attractive enough to be put into collections. There are only a few thousand or several hundred true Gems of some dates but everyone isn't going to be collecting Gems. Supply and demand must come into balance anyway when there is substantial demand.
But you are missing the point. There are far fewer nice attractive clad dimes and quarters than there are halves and dollars and the halves and dollars appear to be in short supply right now. Of course it's possible that this is a temporary shortage and lots of sets will be found to ease the shortage but I believe all these sets are now gone or tarnished. Obviously clads are not scarce or rare other than some Gems and varieties but there are not enough coins now for a mass market and this has been true for many years as the numbers dwindle.
Name me one example where collectors find coins as common as these so compelling that they won't sell it even if prices rise substantially? That's what I said in my post and it is accurate.
I can cite dozens, perhaps hundreds but let's stick to what is relevant. If it's true that Ikes are is short supply it implies between a quarter and half a million collectors for these. This is based on the fact these have been popular for years and are chiefly responsible for wiping out the mint sets. If many of these collectors switch to smaller clad there won't be enough to go around. But this isn't the most likely source for most future demand. The most likely source is the millions and millions of states quarter collectors deciding that the older coins in circulation might be fun. There is precedence for this historically but consider the millions of folders and albums that have been made specifically to house the older clad quarters. You can claim that there is no possible demand for so many coins and that this demand couldn't strip eBay clean of clad in a few days but then it is merely a claim that is ignoring the points here.
Of course many collectors will sell if the price goes up substantially but first prices haver to go up substantially. Indeed, coins will come out of the woodwork if prices rise substantially but as I've pointed out and shown there are insubstantial numbers of coins available from old collections and woodwork.
Obviously clads are not scarce or rare other than some Gems and varieties but there are not enough coins now for a mass market and this has been true for many years as the numbers dwindle.
I have not read anyone here claiming otherwise.
The key theme from your posts in this entire thread is "mass market".
There is no "mass market" for more than a very low proportion at prices most collectors consider "meaningful". Most or at least a high proportion of this low minority, are bought for financial reasons or it's a motivating factor.
That's what I told you in a prior rely right here. There wasn't and isn't a "mass market" for 1933-1964 US classics, except at nominal prices.
Name me one example where collectors find coins as common as these so compelling that they won't sell it even if prices rise substantially? That's what I said in my post and it is accurate.
I can cite dozens, perhaps hundreds but let's stick to what is relevant. If it's true that Ikes are is short supply it implies between a quarter and half a million collectors for these. This is based on the fact these have been popular for years and are chiefly responsible for wiping out the mint sets. If many of these collectors switch to smaller clad there won't be enough to go around. But this isn't the most likely source for most future demand. The most likely source is the millions and millions of states quarter collectors deciding that the older coins in circulation might be fun. There is precedence for this historically but consider the millions of folders and albums that have been made specifically to house the older clad quarters. You can claim that there is no possible demand for so many coins and that this demand couldn't strip eBay clean of clad in a few days but then it is merely a claim that is ignoring the points here.
Of course many collectors will sell if the price goes up substantially but first prices haver to go up substantially. Indeed, coins will come out of the woodwork if prices rise substantially but as I've pointed out and shown there are insubstantial numbers of coins available from old collections and woodwork.
You are still missing my point.
I never said that there is supply for everyone who "potentially" wants one in the quality you claim or imply.
What I am telling you is that we will never see the day when anyone who wants one who has the money won't be able to buy it. That's how markets work.
I'm sure that every Mercury dime collector would like to buy a "high quality" 1916-D at a fraction of the current price but they can't because the supply doesn't accommodate this price.
I am aware that this coinage in the quality you claim or infer is scarcer than the general collector population believes. Most here presumably know that too. It's not relevant at the scale you claim because hardly anyone cares about your quality criteria, not where they will pay for it.
The whole theme of your post is an interesting academic exercise, but nothing more.
Obviously clads are not scarce or rare other than some Gems and varieties but there are not enough coins now for a mass market and this has been true for many years as the numbers dwindle.
I have not read anyone here claiming otherwise.
The key theme from your posts in this entire thread is "mass market".
Yes, we have no mass market. This is exactly the point.
That's what I told you in a prior rely right here. There wasn't and isn't a "mass market" for 1933-1964 US classics, except at nominal prices.
Many of these coins are excessively common. They appeal to some people and many enjoy seeking high grades but there is little chance there could ever be enough of a market to absorb five or ten million '55-S cents in chBU. No modern is so common other than bicentennial quarters and states coins. I like these coins and the sets are interesting. But they aren't nearly as rare as moderns.
In 1964 the '50-D nickel was worth about $300 in today's money. This coin is less rare than almost every single eagle reverse clad quarter in chBU and still is.
That's what I told you in a prior rely right here. There wasn't and isn't a "mass market" for 1933-1964 US classics, except at nominal prices.
Many of these coins are excessively common. They appeal to some people and many enjoy seeking high grades but there is little chance there could ever be enough of a market to absorb five or ten million '55-S cents in chBU. No modern is so common other than bicentennial quarters and states coins. I like these coins and the sets are interesting. But they aren't nearly as rare as moderns.
In 1964 the '50-D nickel was worth about $300 in today's money. This coin is less rare than almost every single eagle reverse clad quarter in chBU and still is.
Yes, this was part of my point. You are implicitly using this coinage as your baseline. It's an aberration, not the norm.
The other part of your point seems to be that because there is an inadequate supply for the collector base you believe will want it in the future, that the price will adjust to your expectations. If you aren't claiming it now, you certainly have in the past.
That's never going to happen either, for all the reason I have told you. Just because the 1950-D nickel and other common classic key dates sell or sold for inflated prices doesn't mean a single US modern should or will also. It was a combination of a price bubble and communication limitation which no longer exists. There have been much smaller price bubbles with a few moderns (by my definition) such as the Wisconsin Leaf SQ, but collectors are a lot more aware of the actual supply which is why it didn't last either.
Yes, this was part of my point. You are implicitly using this coinage as your baseline. It's an aberration, not the norm.
This was merely an example.
I could have mentioned the high prices at which civil war tokens traded at in the 1890's or any number of other times that various coins and collectibles became popular. There are many reasons any collectible might become popular but clad quarters have them all working in their favor. These are important and historical coins that circulated widely for many years during one of the most important and changing times in human history. We've seen the advent of the modern age, mass communications, and streamlining of economic activity. And all of these things work in the favor of collecting circulating clad since a neophyte can go from beginner to advanced collector virtually overnight simply by asking Siri or Jeeves the right questions.
There aren't countless billions of civil war tokens in circulation beckoning 325 million Americans to collect them. Nor are there any '50-D nickels because in those days virtually every single rarity was set aside in its entirety. You couldn't find '50-D nickels in circulation in 1950 and you can't find them today. But what you can find today are actually rare and desirable US coins for face value.
These coins don't appeal to you and they don't appeal to most older collectors either. But younger people don't have a problem collecting base metal coins. They just don't expect to find silver and gold in circulation.
The other part of your point seems to be that because there is an inadequate supply for the collector base you believe will want it in the future, that the price will adjust to your expectations. If you aren't claiming it now, you certainly have in the past.
Again, there is apparently an inadequate supply of Ikes in the here and now and there are far more Ikes than there are clad quarters.
That's never going to happen either, for all the reason I have told you. Just because the 1950-D nickel and other common classic key dates sell or sold for inflated prices doesn't mean a single US modern should or will also. It was a combination of a price bubble and communication limitation which no longer exists. There have been much smaller price bubbles with a few moderns (by my definition) such as the Wisconsin Leaf SQ, but collectors are a lot more aware of the actual supply which is why it didn't last either.
Nobody can predict the future. We roll the dice and take our chances. But just maybe the future is unfolding right now which is exactly the point of this thread.
@jmlanzaf said:
Now, that doesn't mean that there will ever be a problem here. It's quite possible that no one ever wants more of these coins than are in plastic already. But he's not wrong that there is an ongoing attrition problem with early clad coinage.
No, he's not. But I never said he was wrong about that. There has been ongoing attrition (whether it's a problem is a matter of perspective) with just about every coin type ever put into circulation. How many gem standing liberty quarters do you see?
Where I think he is wrong is the claim that clads are undervalued. The coins are worth what they're worth today based on collector interest and demand (or lack thereof)- no more, no less. Dealers aren't going to stock coins nobody is looking for in the hope that one day, they might start looking. Do you intentionally buy and hold coins you can't sell, with the idea that maybe in the future somebody might want them?
I mentioned three cent nickels earlier, they share some features with clad coinage- not much collector interest when issued, contain no silver, well struck pieces are scarce. Will they ever be any more popular with collectors than they are today? I'm guessing probably not, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's the same with clads. Will this change in the future? I don't know- my Magic 8-Ball is uncharacteristically noncommittal on the subject.
I mostly agree. For a market as large and well developed as "US coins", I don't think there is any coin that is "undervalued". The Market has spoken. The coins may be "unappreciated", like 3 cent nickels, but that is a different matter.
After all, I'm completely unappreciated on this forum. However, I don't think anyone is going to argue that I'm "undervalued"...well, except for my mother.> @cladking said:
Obviously clads are not scarce or rare other than some Gems and varieties but there are not enough coins now for a mass market and this has been true for many years as the numbers dwindle.
I have not read anyone here claiming otherwise.
The key theme from your posts in this entire thread is "mass market".
Yes, we have no mass market. This is exactly the point.
That's what I told you in a prior rely right here. There wasn't and isn't a "mass market" for 1933-1964 US classics, except at nominal prices.
Many of these coins are excessively common. They appeal to some people and many enjoy seeking high grades but there is little chance there could ever be enough of a market to absorb five or ten million '55-S cents in chBU. No modern is so common other than bicentennial quarters and states coins. I like these coins and the sets are interesting. But they aren't nearly as rare as moderns.
In 1964 the '50-D nickel was worth about $300 in today's money. This coin is less rare than almost every single eagle reverse clad quarter in chBU and still is.
You are passionate, I'll give you that. You are also cherrypicking data to make a point that almost isn't worth making.
There was a lot of speculation on 1950-D nickels in 1964. These are NOW $10 coins in Ch BU. Are there more of this in BU than clad? Maybe, but only because they were hoarded in roll quantities. But you really can't compare the overall rarity of the 1950-D nickels to clad coinage, especially at the price point that collectors are willing to pay to fill the hole in the album.
To @WCC 's point, most clad collectors are happy pulling a sub-gem coin out of a Mint set or even an XF/AU out of rolls or circulation. 1950-D nickels in any grade are more scarce than your clad coins by a large margin. This forces collectors to pay more than face value as there is no significant source of even circ coins because 1950-D coins, contrary to your point, are MUCH MUCH MUCH rarer than the clad. They may well be more common in 65 or better, but even that isn't really clear. You can't easily assess the supply of clads in 65 because no one certifies them and no one wants to pay more than $1 to acquire one to fill a hole because the price is so low.
Personally, I think you are focusing too much on one side of the equation. There is already a huge demand for clad coins. Almost every estate I buy has albums full of moderns. The fact that prices are muted indicates that there is more than sufficient supply in the grades that people are willing to collect them. Sure, if the 100,000 clad collectors all decided to collect only in 65 or better there might be a supply shortage. But, so what? If all Merc collectors chose to only collect in 65 or better you'd have an even bigger problem.
And, again to @WCC's point, the same is true of the silver coinage through 1964. How many 65 or better 1960 quarters are there? But this is again a coin that is largely collected in high grade circ because most collectors prefer to pick them out of silver buckets rather than pay premiums for them. The current PCGS population of 1969 quarters in 65 or better is about 400. The current population of 1960 quarters in 65 or better is only about 2000. These are simply not coins that people insist on collecting in Gem or better and so prices remain low and there is no incentive to slab them.
Greysheet bid on a roll of UNC 1960 quarters is $204. The CPG shows a price of $265. The silver value is around $200. This coins are sold as bullion and probably not hoarded in UNC any more than the 1969 quarters.
Yes, this was part of my point. You are implicitly using this coinage as your baseline. It's an aberration, not the norm.
This was merely an example.
I could have mentioned the high prices at which civil war tokens traded at in the 1890's or any number of other times that various coins and collectibles became popular. There are many reasons any collectible might become popular but clad quarters have them all working in their favor. These are important and historical coins that circulated widely for many years during one of the most important and changing times in human history. We've seen the advent of the modern age, mass communications, and streamlining of economic activity. And all of these things work in the favor of collecting circulating clad since a neophyte can go from beginner to advanced collector virtually overnight simply by asking Siri or Jeeves the right questions.
There aren't countless billions of civil war tokens in circulation beckoning 325 million Americans to collect them. Nor are there any '50-D nickels because in those days virtually every single rarity was set aside in its entirety. You couldn't find '50-D nickels in circulation in 1950 and you can't find them today. But what you can find today are actually rare and desirable US coins for face value.
These coins don't appeal to you and they don't appeal to most older collectors either. But younger people don't have a problem collecting base metal coins. They just don't expect to find silver and gold in circulation.
Same rehash of our prior debates. Nothing I write on this subject has a single thing to do with whether I like or do not like a coin.
I have already identified the attributes which explain relative collector preferences. It's easy enough to make any claim in the abstract. That's what you and every single other source (on coin forums or coin articles) I have ever read always do. Always generalities with no specifics. I have never read even one exception.
The relevant question is this one. What's going to change where collectors will like and pay more for US moderns than they do now versus other coins? I ask because there is no possibility of the collector base growing anywhere near your prior implied claims where they are concurrently spending a lot more in the aggregate; other than as casual collectors.
This covers the coin size, design, metal content and relative scarcity. Before you or anyone else who agrees with you can be proven remotely correct, future collectors will have to substantially if not entirely change how they view these attributes. What's going to make it happen other than "it's possible"?
The Ike and Kennedy half have the benefit of being larger coins but this still doesn't make collectors like the other attributes over those on other coinage. The scarcer coins in better grades aren't exactly that cheap either.
As for your comments on younger versus older collectors, demographic turnover will never lead to your expectations. Just because these collectors no longer "hate" moderns doesn't mean they like them much either.
The other part of your point seems to be that because there is an inadequate supply for the collector base you believe will want it in the future, that the price will adjust to your expectations. If you aren't claiming it now, you certainly have in the past.
Again, there is apparently an inadequate supply of Ikes in the here and now and there are far more Ikes than there are clad quarters.
I already answered this with my example of the 1916-D dime. Price is the equalizing factor.
There may be a shortage of the coins I collect (Peru and Lima pillar minors) because this is an inefficient "market". (I wouldn't call it a market at all.) The coins are actually not available in the quality most collectors will accept, assuming the number who might want it is even noticeably larger than is apparent now which may not even be true. Price discovery is impossible or at least a lot more difficult because of communication limitations where those who might be inclined to buy it have no idea what any particular coin is "worth".
That's never going to happen either, for all the reason I have told you. Just because the 1950-D nickel and other common classic key dates sell or sold for inflated prices doesn't mean a single US modern should or will also. It was a combination of a price bubble and communication limitation which no longer exists. There have been much smaller price bubbles with a few moderns (by my definition) such as the Wisconsin Leaf SQ, but collectors are a lot more aware of the actual supply which is why it didn't last either.
Nobody can predict the future. We roll the dice and take our chances. But just maybe the future is unfolding right now which is exactly the point of this thread.
It appears the future has begun.
See my prior post.
I don't need to be a fortune teller to predict that the relative preference for this coinage will remain essentially where it is now for as long as it will matter to anyone reading this thread, in the aggregate.
@jmlanzaf said:
To @WCC 's point, most clad collectors are happy pulling a sub-gem coin out of a Mint set or even an XF/AU out of rolls or circulation.
I have made this point in prior discussions. Collectors are far more likely to have a price range they're comfortable paying for coins and then, look for the best coin they can get in that range than they are choosing a grade and then paying whatever it takes to buy coins in that grade. In such an environment, lack of gems is immaterial.
Great discussion here and isn’t CK doing a great job defending his position even if you do not agree with it 100%!
Look- at the core of CK’s analysis is the rising prices on the Mint sets (in some cases “20x the premium” of just a couple years ago). I clearly demonstrated that a simple explanation for these rising prices is not the incredible rise in collectors wanting MS62 and MS63 common moderns, but the reality that the pricing guides’ skewed values on these mint sets were way behind the proper individual values of the coins in the set. In fact, CK acknowledged that even today, an $8 1975 valued mint set actually contains “$15” in coin value based upon the individual prices. So, I just raised my buy on that set as well to the highest buy price I see in the land, but not because any new collectors are banging on my door for these coins.
But, when I demonstrated that the roll “bid” prices of the individual coins (INCLUDING THE IKES AND KENNEDY 50C) have not moved up in price in years, CK dismissed this as immaterial. CK didn’t consider the roll prices all that relevant to the discussion as, if I understood him correctly, the quality wasn’t as good in the rolls. And, here is where I believe CK’s argument misses the mark as…
It is true that the quality of my rolls isn’t as good as the quality in the “fresh” mint sets I started with (39) years ago as I may have pulled 2-5 gummy quality coins per 100 sets I examined. But, it shouldn’t matter at all to the theory that tens of thousands of collectors are pouring into the hobby to gobble up these moderns in high end circs. and lower Choice to Gem MS quality if there is also a large pool of rolls that were “homemade” over the past (20) years with these grades in them by breaking up mint sets (and proof sets). I, myself, literally have thousands of BU and proof rolls of nice coins pulled from Mint Sets and Proof sets over the past (39) years. Of course, “hungry” collectors will feed their hunger with these Choice to Gem coins from my rolls. Many of my coins in these rolls look like the coins in Bailey’s album that CK loves! I simply want the “needle in the haystack” superb gems that have always been nearly nonexistent.
There will be plenty of coins to go around to feed the new clad lover’s hunger for these coins. Only a few people ever dive into the deep waters of pursuing the super premium gems. For example, I noticed my Top 5 Franklin Mint State FBL set went to #6 recently. I said “I wonder who the new player is”. I wasn’t the least bit surprised to see it was Mr Hansen now listing his 3rd set in the top 5 (this time under a family member’s name it appears). The Franklins ended nearly (60) years ago and you can count the “players” chasing the best of the best on a few fingers!! And 4 of the top six Registry sets after nearly 25 years of Registry Set collecting this super popular Silver 50C series are now me and Mr Hansen, Mr Hansen and Mr. Hansen! With just (2) other folks (one who hasn’t updated his set in years if not more than a decade) in the Universe rounding out the Top 6 Registry sets. This speaks volumes to me! And, I believe is quite relevant to this discussion.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
There will be plenty of coins to go around to feed the new clad lover’s hunger for these coins. Only a few people ever dive into the deep waters of pursuing the super premium gems.
This is the point many posters have been making. CK keeps insisting that if demand for these gems increases, there won't be enough for everybody when, in fact, everybody is not going to be interested in them, especially at prices which are many multiples of coins which are not Top Pop quality. CK's interest in high quality clads appears to be getting in his way of recognizing that not everybody sees these coins as he does and for most people, gems are not a necessity for their collection- a lower quality coin works just fine.
@jmlanzaf said:
To @WCC 's point, most clad collectors are happy pulling a sub-gem coin out of a Mint set or even an XF/AU out of rolls or circulation.
I have made this point in prior discussions. Collectors are far more likely to have a price range they're comfortable paying for coins and then, look for the best coin they can get in that range than they are choosing a grade and then paying whatever it takes to buy coins in that grade. In such an environment, lack of gems is immaterial.
I agree with you, but the opposite makes perfect sense if you assume collector motivation contrary to how most actually behave.
@wondercoin said:
There will be plenty of coins to go around to feed the new clad lover’s hunger for these coins. Only a few people ever dive into the deep waters of pursuing the super premium gems.
This is the point many posters have been making. CK keeps insisting that if demand for these gems increases, there won't be enough for everybody when, in fact, everybody is not going to be interested in them, especially at prices which are many multiples of coins which are not Top Pop quality. CK's interest in high quality clads appears to be getting in his way of recognizing that not everybody sees these coins as he does and for most people, gems are not a necessity for their collection- a lower quality coin works just fine.
From my prior debates with him, he assumes two things primarily.
First, that the non-collecting public is a lot more interested in collecting than is evident by any available evidence. That's where the flood of new collectors is supposed to come from which makes his collector base for US moderns feasible. Collecting of this coinage is primarily a substitute for low cost consumption as a recreational activity, just as it was for US classics in the 1960's. There is a lot more reason to believe this type of collecting is a lot less competitive for the public's time and money now than it was then.
Second, that collectors will like this coinage in much greater proportion over most other coins than has ever been evident in the past. His implied "baseline" is 1933-1964 US classics but collectors never liked these coins as much as he infers either. There is no predisposition by the public to prefer their circulating change, as collecting at FV or immaterial premiums doesn't equate to an actual preference.
The 1933-1964 period was also an aberration. It was the first instance of "mass market" collecting but where collectors were limited in what they could collect. This doesn't exist now with the internet and besides this, there is a noticeable supply of subsequent coinage (using 1999 as an arbitrary cut-off with the start of SQ) which competes with 1965-1998 US moderns. This will continue for as long as coinage continues to be struck and it matter a lot due to the very low relative generic preference these coins actually have.
I have yet to find any MS 1966 circulation strike quarter that is eye appealing and well made. This date is in the running for the ugliest clad quarter. The high grade examples of this coin shown on Coin Facts have some eye appeal, but many of them show how poorly made they are.
As for the differing opinions set forth in the replies to this thread, to each their own.
I think that collectors have and will devote time and money to collecting clad coinage. Whether these efforts will see a substantial increase in prices for coins that are not at or near "Top Pop" quality (i.e choice BU or lower) is unknown. For me I simply enjoy my Dansco quarter album that contains coins similar to those exhibited by Baley.
>
I, myself, literally have thousands of BU and proof rolls of nice coins pulled from Mint Sets and Proof sets over the past (39) years. Of course, “hungry” collectors will feed their hunger with these Choice to Gem coins from my rolls. Many of my coins in these rolls look like the coins in Bailey’s album that CK loves! I simply want the “needle in the haystack” superb gems that have always been nearly nonexistent.
It doesn't take a noticeable number of collectors or even non-collector hoarders to create an outsized supply for the current and prospective future demand, not just for US moderns but for most coins. I happen to believe and agree that clad was saved in lower numbers than many 1933-1964 classics in better quality but that doesn't make it anything close to scarce.
$10 was "noticeable" money to tie up in a roll (original or not) back in the late 60's and into the early 1970's. It isn't now which means the opportunity cost is a lot lower, even if interest rates move up noticeably from here. This means that there is less motivation to dump it back into circulation, absent economic adversity. Collectors today generally also are better aware of storage which increases the proportion which will survive at or near the current condition.
There was a lot of speculation on 1950-D nickels in 1964. These are NOW $10 coins in Ch BU. Are there more of this in BU than clad? Maybe, but only because they were hoarded in roll quantities. But you really can't compare the overall rarity of the 1950-D nickels to clad coinage, especially at the price point that collectors are willing to pay to fill the hole in the album.
It wasn't ALL speculation. There were (and again are) many thousands of people putting together Jefferson sets from circulation. The "speculation" you call it was merely that there would not be enough '50-D's to satisfy the demand. This is not at all the case with clad quarters. There are very very few clad quarters and far far fewer collectors. There are so few collectors everyone who wants one can find a mint set with them.
..,. most clad collectors are happy pulling a sub-gem coin out of a Mint set or even an XF/AU out of rolls or circulation.
There are no XF/AU coins in circulation any longer and most modern collectors prefer chBU. I didn't say "Gem", I said chBU. There is no supply for chBU for a mass market.
1950-D nickels in any grade are more scarce than your clad coins by a large margin.
No they aren't. Today there are still millions of '50-D nickels with most in chBU. There are no eagle reverse clad quarters that even approach this level. Most have only a half to a million coins and the bulk of these are not available to the wholesale market and would not become available even at much higher prices. They are dispersed among the general public most of whom don't track coin values. Many of these coins would be degraded before they became available to wholesalers.
Personally, I think you are focusing too much on one side of the equation. There is already a huge demand for clad coins. Almost every estate I buy has albums full of moderns. The fact that prices are muted indicates that there is more than sufficient supply in the grades that people are willing to collect them. Sure, if the 100,000 clad collectors all decided to collect only in 65 or better there might be a supply shortage. But, so what? If all Merc collectors chose to only collect in 65 or better you'd have an even bigger problem.
You will have great difficulty trying to find a roll set of of these. A wholesaler needs a bag set just to be in the market but I wager not one single wholesalers has this much stock or even approaching it because there is no wholesale demand.
How many 65 or better 1960 quarters are there?
There are millions of the silver quarters in rolls. Most 1960's aren't that nice but most collectors would be content with most of the coins in the average roll. Most of the '69 quarters made for mint sets have been in circulation for decades and most of the few that are left are tarnished. Even in 100 pristine coins (if you could find them) about half look like junk.
@cladking said:
There are no XF/AU coins in circulation any longer and most modern collectors prefer chBU. I didn't say "Gem", I said chBU. There is no supply for chBU for a mass market.
Okay, forget gem. Now, you say Ch BUs don't exist in large enough numbers to matter, either. Then collectors will go with a BU example. And if that's too expensive, AU or XF. As you noted...
"Most 1960's aren't that nice but most collectors would be content with most of the coins in the average roll."
The relevant question is this one. What's going to change where collectors will like and pay more for US moderns than they do now versus other coins? I ask because there is no possibility of the collector base growing anywhere near your prior implied claims where they are concurrently spending a lot more in the aggregate; other than as casual collectors.
Who said they have top pay "more" or any given amount. If a collector buys a '72-D quarter today in MS-66 he can get it for half a buck ungraded or $5 from a knowledgeable collector. He can pay 20 to $40 on eBay. He can buy a roll assembled from mint sets with about five nice Gems in it for $16 if he can find a seller. He can probably buy 40 mint sets for $150 and have a 66 and a shot at a 67. He can then sell the half dollar rolls for about $80 and have only $70 in it. He can find a nice attractive VF for 25c in circulation. Who's going to pay a lot of money today for a BU quarter?
This just isn't the way markets work. First there has top be a market which magically comes into existence when there aren't enough of something. I believe this is what's emerging now; a market. If so it will be the result of not enough coins on eBay and elsewhere to maintain a wholesale price of 40c.
I'm sure you believe '72 clad quarters aren't worth 40c and never will be but I maintain that you could be wrong. These coins are not nearly so common as detractors believe them to be because they have been neglected by the hobby and collectors so long.
This covers the coin size, design, metal content and relative scarcity. Before you or anyone else who agrees with you can be proven remotely correct, future collectors will have to substantially if not entirely change how they view these attributes. What's going to make it happen other than "it's possible"?
No. All that must happen for higher prices is for the demand to exceed the weak supply. It doesn't matter why people collect only that they do. Just as it doesn't matter why the supply is as small or large as it is, merely that it is.
The Ike and Kennedy half have the benefit of being larger coins but this still doesn't make collectors like the other attributes over those on other coinage. The scarcer coins in better grades aren't exactly that cheap either.
Life is not a zero sum gain and neither is the coin market. Someone doesn't have to quit collecting silver South African coins in order for a '72-D quarter to go from a demand of 1000 to 1001. Zar coins don't have to crash for clad to soar. Someone doesn't have to pass away for another collector to join the ranks.
I have made this point in prior discussions. Collectors are far more likely to have a price range they're comfortable paying for coins and then, look for the best coin they can get in that range than they are choosing a grade and then paying whatever it takes to buy coins in that grade. In such an environment, lack of gems is immaterial.
Two things;
First, I'm not suggesting otherwise.
Second, clad is not like earlier coinage which was made to a much higher production standard and with many pristine examples available for decades.
A great number of clad coins are poorly struck from worn dies and then get scratched and gouged before leaving the mint. Old time collectors often didn't care about grade because they had cookie cutter quality and the nicer coins were usually not so hard to find anyway. This has all changed in the last 50 years but one of the big changes is that the moderns are tarnished as well,
There are very very few clad quarters and far far fewer collectors.
There are hundreds of thousands of most dates of clad quarters in chBU and more than half are attractive enough to be put into collections.
There are no XF/AU coins in circulation any longer and most modern collectors prefer chBU. I didn't say "Gem", I said chBU. There is no supply for chBU for a mass market.
(quotes above from this page)
. Not many quarters are available.
. More than half of what's available are nice enough for sets.
. There is no supply for collectors.
The relevant question is this one. What's going to change where collectors will like and pay more for US moderns than they do now versus other coins? I ask because there is no possibility of the collector base growing anywhere near your prior implied claims where they are concurrently spending a lot more in the aggregate; other than as casual collectors.
Who said they have top pay "more" or any given amount. If a collector buys a '72-D quarter today in MS-66 he can get it for half a buck ungraded or $5 from a knowledgeable collector. He can pay 20 to $40 on eBay. He can buy a roll assembled from mint sets with about five nice Gems in it for $16 if he can find a seller. He can probably buy 40 mint sets for $150 and have a 66 and a shot at a 67. He can then sell the half dollar rolls for about $80 and have only $70 in it. He can find a nice attractive VF for 25c in circulation. Who's going to pay a lot of money today for a BU quarter?
This just isn't the way markets work. First there has top be a market which magically comes into existence when there aren't enough of something. I believe this is what's emerging now; a market. If so it will be the result of not enough coins on eBay and elsewhere to maintain a wholesale price of 40c.
I'm sure you believe '72 clad quarters aren't worth 40c and never will be but I maintain that you could be wrong. These coins are not nearly so common as detractors believe them to be because they have been neglected by the hobby and collectors so long.
I never disagreed with you that anyone will pay the immaterial amounts in this post. It's financially irrelevant.
This covers the coin size, design, metal content and relative scarcity. Before you or anyone else who agrees with you can be proven remotely correct, future collectors will have to substantially if not entirely change how they view these attributes. What's going to make it happen other than "it's possible"?
No. All that must happen for higher prices is for the demand to exceed the weak supply. It doesn't matter why people collect only that they do. Just as it doesn't matter why the supply is as small or large as it is, merely that it is.
You completely ignored or missed my point. I wasn't referring to the immaterial amounts you describe here.
The Ike and Kennedy half have the benefit of being larger coins but this still doesn't make collectors like the other attributes over those on other coinage. The scarcer coins in better grades aren't exactly that cheap either.
Life is not a zero sum gain and neither is the coin market. Someone doesn't have to quit collecting silver South African coins in order for a '72-D quarter to go from a demand of 1000 to 1001. Zar coins don't have to crash for clad to soar. Someone doesn't have to pass away for another collector to join the ranks.
Once again, you are misinterpreting what I said. I never either claimed or implied what you stated. My point is that collectors have a limited budget which matters to the proposed scale you have previously implied.
This is the point many posters have been making. CK keeps insisting that if demand for these gems increases, there won't be enough for everybody when, in fact, everybody is not going to be interested in them, especially at prices which are many multiples of coins which are not Top Pop quality. CK's interest in high quality clads appears to be getting in his way of recognizing that not everybody sees these coins as he does and for most people, gems are not a necessity for their collection- a lower quality coin works just fine.
You are fixating on Gems and this is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about chBU clad. By "chBU" I simply mean any coin that is fully lustrous and attractive. For '72-D quarters in mint sets that was about 95% of production and for '69 quarters that was about 60%. For '76 type I Ikes it was about 50%. In some cases there are no other sources than the mint sets but now the mint sets are gone and the few survivors are tarnished.
Wondercoin and I both set aside nice Gem coins but I saved a lot of very choice coins as well. But this isn't where all the mint sets went because only one set in ten or twelve has a true Gem in it (2 in 3 have a gemmy coin). The mint sets were destroyed through neglect because there was a glut of them comparted to the demand. They were cut up by dealers and put in the cash register because they weren't worth postage. They have been annihilated by time, neglect, and apathy. Then the few that survived have been destroyed with tarnish.
Now we might be approaching a point that there are not enough sets to even supply the wholesale markets for halves and dollars!!! The quarters are gone and there aren't enough sets to meet the demand. What happens if the already skyrocketing demand for quarters continues exactly as it has been for 30 years?
What happens if the already skyrocketing demand for quarters continues exactly as it has been for 30 years?
What price are you forecasting if it happens? This will answer your question if it will or won't. I asked this earlier here and you did not provide an answer.
Comments
Question for Cladking. Mint set coins had a satin finish for several years. We’re many business strike uncirculated coins saved then? Are they readily available today?
I really don't know but I have the sense a lot were saved but little care was put into looking for nice specimens. Even today there is little demand or notice of non-matte coins for these dates. Most of the wholesale demand for states issues is in the first three or four years suggesting there were ample numbers saved.
Die state is especially important when the spread is very small. Some of these coins I don't even look for but this is probably a mistake. The '74-D and '70 DDR's are nice but some of the more obscure doubled dies are even hard to see on well struck coins.
If more than 2/3 of a 50 coin sample are DDRs, perhaps the non Doubled Die coins are the "better" variety?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Here are some of my saved items on eBay. I chose these two dates as both are among the lowest MS-66 counts in the TPG data. I make no claim for how many are MS-66, only that this is an example that meets the requirements for most collectors, even if not you.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/370354989437 1969-P roll from mint sets. There is also a newer listing where someone has sold 85.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/402638977960 (7) 1971-P rolls, not claimed as OBW.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/184288577337 Another batch of 1971-P quarters with a stock photo.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/154355343995?nma=true&si=3XaIFqMGeNBImRfsOTY3YnWQ7lo%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 Two supposed OBW rolls of 1969-P quarters. Someone else here will know if the wrappers support the claim.
I don't know what the demand for mint (or proof) sets is now but expect both to decrease later. I also expect series collecting to decrease noticeably. I expect it because the internet makes it possible to collect a much wider variety which most collectors (more knowledgeable ones at least) find a lot more interesting.
When there is so little demand for a coin and most collectors are getting them from mint sets the question of whether a wholesale market exists or not is mostly semantical. Obviously if there were suddenly lots of dealers looking for moderns a real wholesale market would spring up. The real question is at what price and how many collectors can be supported at a given price level. I am saying that the supply is so thin that a mass market can not be supported at any price unless most collectors are satisfied with unattractive or circulating coinage. Nice attractive clad of most dates is much scarcer than something like a '50-D nickel. chBU rolls can not flow into the wholesalers at any significant rate because it simply doesn't exist any longer. The reason they can accumulate quantities now is that the demand is so limited. They don't accumulate quantities normally because there is little interest.
Wrappers are irrelevant. Those are apparently really original rolls of '69's and the first I've seen as such. Mine were loose when I bought them. They are also pretty nice coins but it's highly improbable there's anything over MS-64.
Why do you expect the trends to reverse?
Yesterday, you told me that wholesalers exist. Today, you said they do not.
What dealers are looking for, how many are looking, what buyers want, how much they're willing to pay, what sorts of coins are available and whether there is a market for them are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not wholesalers exist.
Either they do or they do not. There is no other option.
Please see my last post, the verbiage above. People are creatures of habit but the internet makes collecting different from when you and I started collecting. I don't have access to the data to definitively support this claim but if I did, I believe this explains the declining prices for a number of US series which I believe have lost "share of wallet" to (world) NCLT, like the Franklin half.
The wholesalers deal in mint sets and chBU rolls of halves and dollars.
It's not so easy to make a few phone calls and secure rolls of other clads.
It's possible to get mint sets from wholesalers but few people do. They do not maintain large inventories and the sets are cut up periodically.
I can't say it any more simply. Wholesalers create no supply where there is no demand. There is little demand for mint sets because there enough people can find their own and there is no demand for small clad for the exact same reason. Now there is insufficient supply for the larger coins and the simple fact is most of the mint sets are gone or tarnished and so are the small clad that was once in them. And there is still little demand.
I expect series collecting to decrease as well. More accurately I believe it has been decreasing for several years but that it might be approaching its lowest level. It doesn't matter if it becomes even less popular than it is today; what matters is how many people want the small clads relative the supply. I believe the growing number of collectors for all the clad series including the larger coins is likely to continue to grow no matter what happens to the total number of series collectors. This is why I believe the demand is exceeding the supply. If I'm correct that the price increase reflects more demand then it certainly follows that the number of collectors is growing. At the very least it is growing relative to the supply.
Life and coin collecting are not zero sum gain. Most cycles tend to repeat again and again but new ones arise and old ones can become obsolete. Cycles build one on another to create perfect storms. I simply maintain that a market that has allowed virtually the entire supply to be wasted even before there is any demand is essentially an example of the "perfect storm". Again, there is an assumption here that the increased prices for mint sets isn't just a rationalization of the market and that the demand for Ikes is greatly exceeding the number of coins coming to market; the wholesalers.
It's really too early to be certain of anything but I wager this marks the end of raw moderns and the free lunch composed of low hanging fruit, sandwich coins, and rolls. There could easily be a glut of quarters now if a larger percentage begin getting saved since there is still highly limited demand. But this "glut" will be nothing like the old days because, did I mention, the mint sets are mostly gone and the survivors are tarnished.
As an owner of many of these sets, how does one go about storing them properly?
Should the coins be broken out of the sets or is there no hope and eventually every set will tarnish in some way because of its packaging.
I will refer you to my prior post in this thread describing how collectors do not collect in a vacuum, especially with any claim of noticeably higher prices for coinage with a preference as low as these. Whether it is feasible depends upon the increase you are implying now.
As for cycles, I have already told you what the evidence has to say about that.
You are moving the goalposts.
What wholesalers do is not relevant to what I wrote. I can't say it any more simply.
Good question. I think there's an answer but don't know what it is. I know steady temperature and dry conditions are desirable but don't know what temperature or how dry.
I suspect every pre-1985 set is going to tarnish in the next few decades as well as many of the '85 to date. For now I'm just working on bad ones of any date and all pre-1985 sets.
BU rolls aren't necessarily much better. I recently went through all of them and lots of them were a total loss.
I'm hoping the stabilized coins will be OK and so far they seem to be. Fortunately I stabilized some of the worst coins like '68 cents many years ago and they are still OK.
If I can't see a doubled die with my 5X glass I pay it no heed.
Die state is important for most of the "biggies" too. The 1934 DDO-001 is an example where the difference between an EDS and LDS can be dramatic.
You have a point with the non-d die coins being the better ones. But I did manage to sell all of the ones I found for $25 or so each on Teletrade.
I skimmed the thread, but is it a correct summary that there is little demand for higher end moderns, however, if demand increases at some point in the future acquiring raw specimens will be difficult?
As an aside, I do wonder what will remain of zinc cents in a hundred or two hundred years when so many of them have corroded away.
The evidence from how markets work and how collectors collect doesn't lead to the conclusion that the supply on eBay will disappear. It's easy to buy any of it there now. If the demand increases "substantially" (something I do not believe), price adjustments take care of that.
There will be continued attrition but not where this will make it difficult to buy this coinage either. Many world coins aren't rare or even that scarce while being somewhat (but usually not that difficult) to buy due to the low price but doesn't apply here.
If tens of thousands of people start collecting clads where exactly do you suppose the supply will come from? You see huge mintages and assume the coins are common. They are not common.
No. There's little demand for any moderns but most of the demand is centered on half dollars and dollars.
Zinc cents actually hold up pretty well with proper storage. They'll corrode very quickly if they are exposed to moisture even briefly. Just be sure to get the pre-'85 issues out of mint set packaging. This may change going forward and the attrition is still stunningly high but I believe there will be specimens for a long time.
The issue is not higher grade moderns; the issue is the small supply of nice attractive dimes and quarters vis a vis the apparent current shortage of halves and dollars.
If the small coins had the same demand as the larger coins their prices would likely be far higher to bring supply and demand into balance.
“If tens of thousands of people start collecting clads where exactly do you suppose the supply will come from? You see huge mintages and assume the coins are common. They are not common.”
I’m still waiting for the MILLIONS of state quarter collectors to drive the price of my state quarters up to even just 35 cents. Lauren just had to drop off around 3,000 fresh Unc. Coins from 3 original bags of the year 2000. That’s a total of 21 years of lost interest on that money. Just the tip of the iceberg for me in wasted money buying $1,000 state quarter bags!
Wondercoin
There are hundreds of thousands of clad coins of all dates available. There are hundreds of thousands of UNC clads of all dates. There may not be tens of thousands of gem uncs of all dates, but so what?
Did you even read my post?
Name me one example where collectors find coins as common as these so compelling that they won't sell it even if prices rise substantially? That's what I said in my post and it is accurate.
You can't because it's never happened.
The only reason you "took exception" is because I called this coinage common. It is common, relatively common and that is a fact. None of it is hard to buy, except under the arbitrary and narrow standards invented by US collecting.
He already knows this, just as we and everyone else here do. Any claim that there is a "shortage" or potential "shortage" of this coinage is ridiculous and it has nothing to do with anyone liking or not liking it.
Even if what he is implying occurs with the price level, the price will adjust to make the coins available. This is true with the overwhelming majority of coins. I look at auction records of expensive US coinage intermittently and only a very few do not sell fairly regularly. From the 20th century, as a date/MM, the only ones I know with virtual certainty unlikely to be available right now are the 1913 LHN, patterns, and a very low number of Indian head eagles and Saints. This excludes narrow "scarcity" based upon the grade or specialization.
Yes! There are hundreds of thousands of most dates of clad quarters in chBU and more than half are attractive enough to be put into collections. There are only a few thousand or several hundred true Gems of some dates but everyone isn't going to be collecting Gems. Supply and demand must come into balance anyway when there is substantial demand.
But you are missing the point. There are far fewer nice attractive clad dimes and quarters than there are halves and dollars and the halves and dollars appear to be in short supply right now. Of course it's possible that this is a temporary shortage and lots of sets will be found to ease the shortage but I believe all these sets are now gone or tarnished. Obviously clads are not scarce or rare other than some Gems and varieties but there are not enough coins now for a mass market and this has been true for many years as the numbers dwindle.
I can cite dozens, perhaps hundreds but let's stick to what is relevant. If it's true that Ikes are is short supply it implies between a quarter and half a million collectors for these. This is based on the fact these have been popular for years and are chiefly responsible for wiping out the mint sets. If many of these collectors switch to smaller clad there won't be enough to go around. But this isn't the most likely source for most future demand. The most likely source is the millions and millions of states quarter collectors deciding that the older coins in circulation might be fun. There is precedence for this historically but consider the millions of folders and albums that have been made specifically to house the older clad quarters. You can claim that there is no possible demand for so many coins and that this demand couldn't strip eBay clean of clad in a few days but then it is merely a claim that is ignoring the points here.
Of course many collectors will sell if the price goes up substantially but first prices haver to go up substantially. Indeed, coins will come out of the woodwork if prices rise substantially but as I've pointed out and shown there are insubstantial numbers of coins available from old collections and woodwork.
Obviously clads are not scarce or rare other than some Gems and varieties but there are not enough coins now for a mass market and this has been true for many years as the numbers dwindle.
I have not read anyone here claiming otherwise.
The key theme from your posts in this entire thread is "mass market".
There is no "mass market" for more than a very low proportion at prices most collectors consider "meaningful". Most or at least a high proportion of this low minority, are bought for financial reasons or it's a motivating factor.
That's what I told you in a prior rely right here. There wasn't and isn't a "mass market" for 1933-1964 US classics, except at nominal prices.
You are still missing my point.
I never said that there is supply for everyone who "potentially" wants one in the quality you claim or imply.
What I am telling you is that we will never see the day when anyone who wants one who has the money won't be able to buy it. That's how markets work.
I'm sure that every Mercury dime collector would like to buy a "high quality" 1916-D at a fraction of the current price but they can't because the supply doesn't accommodate this price.
I am aware that this coinage in the quality you claim or infer is scarcer than the general collector population believes. Most here presumably know that too. It's not relevant at the scale you claim because hardly anyone cares about your quality criteria, not where they will pay for it.
The whole theme of your post is an interesting academic exercise, but nothing more.
Yes, we have no mass market. This is exactly the point.
Many of these coins are excessively common. They appeal to some people and many enjoy seeking high grades but there is little chance there could ever be enough of a market to absorb five or ten million '55-S cents in chBU. No modern is so common other than bicentennial quarters and states coins. I like these coins and the sets are interesting. But they aren't nearly as rare as moderns.
In 1964 the '50-D nickel was worth about $300 in today's money. This coin is less rare than almost every single eagle reverse clad quarter in chBU and still is.
Yes, this was part of my point. You are implicitly using this coinage as your baseline. It's an aberration, not the norm.
The other part of your point seems to be that because there is an inadequate supply for the collector base you believe will want it in the future, that the price will adjust to your expectations. If you aren't claiming it now, you certainly have in the past.
That's never going to happen either, for all the reason I have told you. Just because the 1950-D nickel and other common classic key dates sell or sold for inflated prices doesn't mean a single US modern should or will also. It was a combination of a price bubble and communication limitation which no longer exists. There have been much smaller price bubbles with a few moderns (by my definition) such as the Wisconsin Leaf SQ, but collectors are a lot more aware of the actual supply which is why it didn't last either.
This was merely an example.
I could have mentioned the high prices at which civil war tokens traded at in the 1890's or any number of other times that various coins and collectibles became popular. There are many reasons any collectible might become popular but clad quarters have them all working in their favor. These are important and historical coins that circulated widely for many years during one of the most important and changing times in human history. We've seen the advent of the modern age, mass communications, and streamlining of economic activity. And all of these things work in the favor of collecting circulating clad since a neophyte can go from beginner to advanced collector virtually overnight simply by asking Siri or Jeeves the right questions.
There aren't countless billions of civil war tokens in circulation beckoning 325 million Americans to collect them. Nor are there any '50-D nickels because in those days virtually every single rarity was set aside in its entirety. You couldn't find '50-D nickels in circulation in 1950 and you can't find them today. But what you can find today are actually rare and desirable US coins for face value.
These coins don't appeal to you and they don't appeal to most older collectors either. But younger people don't have a problem collecting base metal coins. They just don't expect to find silver and gold in circulation.
Again, there is apparently an inadequate supply of Ikes in the here and now and there are far more Ikes than there are clad quarters.
Nobody can predict the future. We roll the dice and take our chances. But just maybe the future is unfolding right now which is exactly the point of this thread.
It appears the future has begun.
I mostly agree. For a market as large and well developed as "US coins", I don't think there is any coin that is "undervalued". The Market has spoken. The coins may be "unappreciated", like 3 cent nickels, but that is a different matter.
After all, I'm completely unappreciated on this forum. However, I don't think anyone is going to argue that I'm "undervalued"...well, except for my mother.> @cladking said:
You are passionate, I'll give you that. You are also cherrypicking data to make a point that almost isn't worth making.
There was a lot of speculation on 1950-D nickels in 1964. These are NOW $10 coins in Ch BU. Are there more of this in BU than clad? Maybe, but only because they were hoarded in roll quantities. But you really can't compare the overall rarity of the 1950-D nickels to clad coinage, especially at the price point that collectors are willing to pay to fill the hole in the album.
To @WCC 's point, most clad collectors are happy pulling a sub-gem coin out of a Mint set or even an XF/AU out of rolls or circulation. 1950-D nickels in any grade are more scarce than your clad coins by a large margin. This forces collectors to pay more than face value as there is no significant source of even circ coins because 1950-D coins, contrary to your point, are MUCH MUCH MUCH rarer than the clad. They may well be more common in 65 or better, but even that isn't really clear. You can't easily assess the supply of clads in 65 because no one certifies them and no one wants to pay more than $1 to acquire one to fill a hole because the price is so low.
Personally, I think you are focusing too much on one side of the equation. There is already a huge demand for clad coins. Almost every estate I buy has albums full of moderns. The fact that prices are muted indicates that there is more than sufficient supply in the grades that people are willing to collect them. Sure, if the 100,000 clad collectors all decided to collect only in 65 or better there might be a supply shortage. But, so what? If all Merc collectors chose to only collect in 65 or better you'd have an even bigger problem.
And, again to @WCC's point, the same is true of the silver coinage through 1964. How many 65 or better 1960 quarters are there? But this is again a coin that is largely collected in high grade circ because most collectors prefer to pick them out of silver buckets rather than pay premiums for them. The current PCGS population of 1969 quarters in 65 or better is about 400. The current population of 1960 quarters in 65 or better is only about 2000. These are simply not coins that people insist on collecting in Gem or better and so prices remain low and there is no incentive to slab them.
Greysheet bid on a roll of UNC 1960 quarters is $204. The CPG shows a price of $265. The silver value is around $200. This coins are sold as bullion and probably not hoarded in UNC any more than the 1969 quarters.
Same rehash of our prior debates. Nothing I write on this subject has a single thing to do with whether I like or do not like a coin.
I have already identified the attributes which explain relative collector preferences. It's easy enough to make any claim in the abstract. That's what you and every single other source (on coin forums or coin articles) I have ever read always do. Always generalities with no specifics. I have never read even one exception.
The relevant question is this one. What's going to change where collectors will like and pay more for US moderns than they do now versus other coins? I ask because there is no possibility of the collector base growing anywhere near your prior implied claims where they are concurrently spending a lot more in the aggregate; other than as casual collectors.
This covers the coin size, design, metal content and relative scarcity. Before you or anyone else who agrees with you can be proven remotely correct, future collectors will have to substantially if not entirely change how they view these attributes. What's going to make it happen other than "it's possible"?
The Ike and Kennedy half have the benefit of being larger coins but this still doesn't make collectors like the other attributes over those on other coinage. The scarcer coins in better grades aren't exactly that cheap either.
As for your comments on younger versus older collectors, demographic turnover will never lead to your expectations. Just because these collectors no longer "hate" moderns doesn't mean they like them much either.
I already answered this with my example of the 1916-D dime. Price is the equalizing factor.
There may be a shortage of the coins I collect (Peru and Lima pillar minors) because this is an inefficient "market". (I wouldn't call it a market at all.) The coins are actually not available in the quality most collectors will accept, assuming the number who might want it is even noticeably larger than is apparent now which may not even be true. Price discovery is impossible or at least a lot more difficult because of communication limitations where those who might be inclined to buy it have no idea what any particular coin is "worth".
None of this is true for any US modern.
See my prior post.
I don't need to be a fortune teller to predict that the relative preference for this coinage will remain essentially where it is now for as long as it will matter to anyone reading this thread, in the aggregate.
I have made this point in prior discussions. Collectors are far more likely to have a price range they're comfortable paying for coins and then, look for the best coin they can get in that range than they are choosing a grade and then paying whatever it takes to buy coins in that grade. In such an environment, lack of gems is immaterial.
Great discussion here and isn’t CK doing a great job defending his position even if you do not agree with it 100%!
Look- at the core of CK’s analysis is the rising prices on the Mint sets (in some cases “20x the premium” of just a couple years ago). I clearly demonstrated that a simple explanation for these rising prices is not the incredible rise in collectors wanting MS62 and MS63 common moderns, but the reality that the pricing guides’ skewed values on these mint sets were way behind the proper individual values of the coins in the set. In fact, CK acknowledged that even today, an $8 1975 valued mint set actually contains “$15” in coin value based upon the individual prices. So, I just raised my buy on that set as well to the highest buy price I see in the land, but not because any new collectors are banging on my door for these coins.
But, when I demonstrated that the roll “bid” prices of the individual coins (INCLUDING THE IKES AND KENNEDY 50C) have not moved up in price in years, CK dismissed this as immaterial. CK didn’t consider the roll prices all that relevant to the discussion as, if I understood him correctly, the quality wasn’t as good in the rolls. And, here is where I believe CK’s argument misses the mark as…
It is true that the quality of my rolls isn’t as good as the quality in the “fresh” mint sets I started with (39) years ago as I may have pulled 2-5 gummy quality coins per 100 sets I examined. But, it shouldn’t matter at all to the theory that tens of thousands of collectors are pouring into the hobby to gobble up these moderns in high end circs. and lower Choice to Gem MS quality if there is also a large pool of rolls that were “homemade” over the past (20) years with these grades in them by breaking up mint sets (and proof sets). I, myself, literally have thousands of BU and proof rolls of nice coins pulled from Mint Sets and Proof sets over the past (39) years. Of course, “hungry” collectors will feed their hunger with these Choice to Gem coins from my rolls. Many of my coins in these rolls look like the coins in Bailey’s album that CK loves! I simply want the “needle in the haystack” superb gems that have always been nearly nonexistent.
There will be plenty of coins to go around to feed the new clad lover’s hunger for these coins. Only a few people ever dive into the deep waters of pursuing the super premium gems. For example, I noticed my Top 5 Franklin Mint State FBL set went to #6 recently. I said “I wonder who the new player is”. I wasn’t the least bit surprised to see it was Mr Hansen now listing his 3rd set in the top 5 (this time under a family member’s name it appears). The Franklins ended nearly (60) years ago and you can count the “players” chasing the best of the best on a few fingers!! And 4 of the top six Registry sets after nearly 25 years of Registry Set collecting this super popular Silver 50C series are now me and Mr Hansen, Mr Hansen and Mr. Hansen! With just (2) other folks (one who hasn’t updated his set in years if not more than a decade) in the Universe rounding out the Top 6 Registry sets. This speaks volumes to me! And, I believe is quite relevant to this discussion.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
This is the point many posters have been making. CK keeps insisting that if demand for these gems increases, there won't be enough for everybody when, in fact, everybody is not going to be interested in them, especially at prices which are many multiples of coins which are not Top Pop quality. CK's interest in high quality clads appears to be getting in his way of recognizing that not everybody sees these coins as he does and for most people, gems are not a necessity for their collection- a lower quality coin works just fine.
I agree with you, but the opposite makes perfect sense if you assume collector motivation contrary to how most actually behave.
From my prior debates with him, he assumes two things primarily.
First, that the non-collecting public is a lot more interested in collecting than is evident by any available evidence. That's where the flood of new collectors is supposed to come from which makes his collector base for US moderns feasible. Collecting of this coinage is primarily a substitute for low cost consumption as a recreational activity, just as it was for US classics in the 1960's. There is a lot more reason to believe this type of collecting is a lot less competitive for the public's time and money now than it was then.
Second, that collectors will like this coinage in much greater proportion over most other coins than has ever been evident in the past. His implied "baseline" is 1933-1964 US classics but collectors never liked these coins as much as he infers either. There is no predisposition by the public to prefer their circulating change, as collecting at FV or immaterial premiums doesn't equate to an actual preference.
The 1933-1964 period was also an aberration. It was the first instance of "mass market" collecting but where collectors were limited in what they could collect. This doesn't exist now with the internet and besides this, there is a noticeable supply of subsequent coinage (using 1999 as an arbitrary cut-off with the start of SQ) which competes with 1965-1998 US moderns. This will continue for as long as coinage continues to be struck and it matter a lot due to the very low relative generic preference these coins actually have.
I have yet to find any MS 1966 circulation strike quarter that is eye appealing and well made. This date is in the running for the ugliest clad quarter. The high grade examples of this coin shown on Coin Facts have some eye appeal, but many of them show how poorly made they are.
As for the differing opinions set forth in the replies to this thread, to each their own.
I think that collectors have and will devote time and money to collecting clad coinage. Whether these efforts will see a substantial increase in prices for coins that are not at or near "Top Pop" quality (i.e choice BU or lower) is unknown. For me I simply enjoy my Dansco quarter album that contains coins similar to those exhibited by Baley.
>
I, myself, literally have thousands of BU and proof rolls of nice coins pulled from Mint Sets and Proof sets over the past (39) years. Of course, “hungry” collectors will feed their hunger with these Choice to Gem coins from my rolls. Many of my coins in these rolls look like the coins in Bailey’s album that CK loves! I simply want the “needle in the haystack” superb gems that have always been nearly nonexistent.
It doesn't take a noticeable number of collectors or even non-collector hoarders to create an outsized supply for the current and prospective future demand, not just for US moderns but for most coins. I happen to believe and agree that clad was saved in lower numbers than many 1933-1964 classics in better quality but that doesn't make it anything close to scarce.
$10 was "noticeable" money to tie up in a roll (original or not) back in the late 60's and into the early 1970's. It isn't now which means the opportunity cost is a lot lower, even if interest rates move up noticeably from here. This means that there is less motivation to dump it back into circulation, absent economic adversity. Collectors today generally also are better aware of storage which increases the proportion which will survive at or near the current condition.
It wasn't ALL speculation. There were (and again are) many thousands of people putting together Jefferson sets from circulation. The "speculation" you call it was merely that there would not be enough '50-D's to satisfy the demand. This is not at all the case with clad quarters. There are very very few clad quarters and far far fewer collectors. There are so few collectors everyone who wants one can find a mint set with them.
There are no XF/AU coins in circulation any longer and most modern collectors prefer chBU. I didn't say "Gem", I said chBU. There is no supply for chBU for a mass market.
1950-D nickels in any grade are more scarce than your clad coins by a large margin.
No they aren't. Today there are still millions of '50-D nickels with most in chBU. There are no eagle reverse clad quarters that even approach this level. Most have only a half to a million coins and the bulk of these are not available to the wholesale market and would not become available even at much higher prices. They are dispersed among the general public most of whom don't track coin values. Many of these coins would be degraded before they became available to wholesalers.
You will have great difficulty trying to find a roll set of of these. A wholesaler needs a bag set just to be in the market but I wager not one single wholesalers has this much stock or even approaching it because there is no wholesale demand.
There are millions of the silver quarters in rolls. Most 1960's aren't that nice but most collectors would be content with most of the coins in the average roll. Most of the '69 quarters made for mint sets have been in circulation for decades and most of the few that are left are tarnished. Even in 100 pristine coins (if you could find them) about half look like junk.
Okay, forget gem. Now, you say Ch BUs don't exist in large enough numbers to matter, either. Then collectors will go with a BU example. And if that's too expensive, AU or XF. As you noted...
"Most 1960's aren't that nice but most collectors would be content with most of the coins in the average roll."
Who said they have top pay "more" or any given amount. If a collector buys a '72-D quarter today in MS-66 he can get it for half a buck ungraded or $5 from a knowledgeable collector. He can pay 20 to $40 on eBay. He can buy a roll assembled from mint sets with about five nice Gems in it for $16 if he can find a seller. He can probably buy 40 mint sets for $150 and have a 66 and a shot at a 67. He can then sell the half dollar rolls for about $80 and have only $70 in it. He can find a nice attractive VF for 25c in circulation. Who's going to pay a lot of money today for a BU quarter?
This just isn't the way markets work. First there has top be a market which magically comes into existence when there aren't enough of something. I believe this is what's emerging now; a market. If so it will be the result of not enough coins on eBay and elsewhere to maintain a wholesale price of 40c.
I'm sure you believe '72 clad quarters aren't worth 40c and never will be but I maintain that you could be wrong. These coins are not nearly so common as detractors believe them to be because they have been neglected by the hobby and collectors so long.
No. All that must happen for higher prices is for the demand to exceed the weak supply. It doesn't matter why people collect only that they do. Just as it doesn't matter why the supply is as small or large as it is, merely that it is.
Life is not a zero sum gain and neither is the coin market. Someone doesn't have to quit collecting silver South African coins in order for a '72-D quarter to go from a demand of 1000 to 1001. Zar coins don't have to crash for clad to soar. Someone doesn't have to pass away for another collector to join the ranks.
\
Two things;
First, I'm not suggesting otherwise.
Second, clad is not like earlier coinage which was made to a much higher production standard and with many pristine examples available for decades.
A great number of clad coins are poorly struck from worn dies and then get scratched and gouged before leaving the mint. Old time collectors often didn't care about grade because they had cookie cutter quality and the nicer coins were usually not so hard to find anyway. This has all changed in the last 50 years but one of the big changes is that the moderns are tarnished as well,
(quotes above from this page)
. Not many quarters are available.
. More than half of what's available are nice enough for sets.
. There is no supply for collectors.
Not a very coherent argument, seems to me.
I never disagreed with you that anyone will pay the immaterial amounts in this post. It's financially irrelevant.
You completely ignored or missed my point. I wasn't referring to the immaterial amounts you describe here.
Once again, you are misinterpreting what I said. I never either claimed or implied what you stated. My point is that collectors have a limited budget which matters to the proposed scale you have previously implied.
You are fixating on Gems and this is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about chBU clad. By "chBU" I simply mean any coin that is fully lustrous and attractive. For '72-D quarters in mint sets that was about 95% of production and for '69 quarters that was about 60%. For '76 type I Ikes it was about 50%. In some cases there are no other sources than the mint sets but now the mint sets are gone and the few survivors are tarnished.
Wondercoin and I both set aside nice Gem coins but I saved a lot of very choice coins as well. But this isn't where all the mint sets went because only one set in ten or twelve has a true Gem in it (2 in 3 have a gemmy coin). The mint sets were destroyed through neglect because there was a glut of them comparted to the demand. They were cut up by dealers and put in the cash register because they weren't worth postage. They have been annihilated by time, neglect, and apathy. Then the few that survived have been destroyed with tarnish.
Now we might be approaching a point that there are not enough sets to even supply the wholesale markets for halves and dollars!!! The quarters are gone and there aren't enough sets to meet the demand. What happens if the already skyrocketing demand for quarters continues exactly as it has been for 30 years?
What happens if the already skyrocketing demand for quarters continues exactly as it has been for 30 years?
What price are you forecasting if it happens? This will answer your question if it will or won't. I asked this earlier here and you did not provide an answer.