@cladking said:
Until about 1993 Madison Avenue used ONLY 1964 and earlier coinage when they used in in advertising. Krause didn't list values for moderns until about 1995.
So? Even if they did, it's irrelevant to my post. Read it again: "I've never heard anyone talking about..."
@cladking said:
There used to be a thread here almost every day advising people not to collect moderns or not to collect specific moderns. It is irrelevant that some of the derogatory comments were accurate or even spot-on. We almost never see this applied to old coins.
Read my post again: "Aside from this message board..."
@cladking said:
How many coin dealers just automatically tell people to spend things like mint sets and BU rolls.
Lots of them, I'm sure. If, in their opinion, the coins are only worth face value, what else would they do?
@cladking said:
I've even seen them tell people to spend scarce quarter rolls and would have seen it far more except scarce coins are rarely seen.
Scarce in your opinion. It's clear from the many posts you've made on the topic not everybody shares your thoughts on this.
@cladking said:
Remember where I got my '69 circulation issue quarters, from a coin dealer's cash register. A few of the coins in these rolls are excessively scarce due to their condition as non mint set Gems. All of them are quite scarce as well made and chBU non mint set '69 quarters.
Again, not relevant to my post. I wrote about my experiences, not yours. Read it again if you don't believe me.
@cladking said:
Why do you think Redbook lists moderns at a fraction of wholesale and classics wholesale at a fraction of quoted prices? It's not because they like moderns so much.
I don't know why the Redbook does what it does. And neither do you. Either way, it's not relevant to my post.
@cladking said:
In 1965 nobody hated clads more than I did. They replaced and drove from circulation all the coins I loved and they were all the same.
Getting exceedingly close to beating a dead horse here, but once again, read what I wrote: "I've never heard anyone talking about...". You never told me you hated them.
@cladking said:
I had been punished for the perception that collectors had caused a coin shortage in addition to having cheap, debased, and ugly coins thrust upon me. But times changed and I found not all of the new coins were ugly and they gained a lot character and variety over the years.
Ok. So?
@cladking said:
It is not reasonable to expect a quarter to be made out of silver in 2021 even if it weren't so far-fetched in 1968.
Did I say it was? Read what I wrote and get back to me on that.
Aggregate collector preference is, by definition, the aggregate of individuals. If there is a generational difference, and I believe there is, you will not see the current aggregate preferences remain unchanged.
Earlier, I specifically used ethnic demographic change as you did. This is a cultural difference that directly impacts collectors preferences, to a point. Unlike non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic collectors presumably have a higher propensity to prefer other coinage, Latin as opposed to US (with dead presidential portraits or otherwise) for which they have less cultural affinity.
The primary point I was making is that collector preferences aren't detached from the general culture and those which influence collecting most aren't determined by anyone's age or their generation.
This is the third generation to have used clad their entire life: mine (Gen-X,) Millennials, and Gen-Z. All three prefer silver quarters and dimes over clad and to whatever extent it differs, it's insignificant to the price level. To my knowledge, the order between US series hasn't changed either my entire life, at minimum.
There has been movement within series where some coins have gained or lost value relative to others but that's all. There have also been generic changes impacting all coins (TPG, CAC) but that's mostly specific to collecting,.
From what I know, the biggest difference with "younger" collectors is that they collect NCLT in much higher proportion (not clad) and world coinage somewhat more. Most NCLT didn't exist for my generation and world coinage was more difficult to collect before the internet.. The internet is a macro cultural factor and yes, it has and will impact what people collect.
Agree on the NCLT point, buying some brand-new, this or last year made, precious metal "items" for 15% or 50% over melt value of the metal, with a pretty girl, or dragon, or tiger, or skull on it, is much more generally appealing to the crowd than a base metal dime or quarter, worth next to nothing intrinsically, that looks just like your pocket change, and all the collectors value is in "how nice this one is!" which you can only monetize by spending $20 to certify and entomb, and then when you show it to your family and friends, they??? 😜🤯???
Almost everyone prefers gold to silver yet very few baby boomers collect gold; they collect silver. And the boomers who don't collect silver are likely to collect indian cents or old 3c nickels. Two cent piece collectors don't prefer copper to gold, they prefer 2C pcs to double eagles. What most of us don't collect are clad coins because existing coin collectors usually hat clad coins and this goes double for older collectors.
I have never said gold and silver are the only or even necessarily deciding factor. I compared clad dimes and quarters to the silver because the coins are otherwise identical. I have conceded to you that collectors may or do incorrectly overestimate clad survival in better quality but this isn't relevant to most (over 99%) because they do not care about your quality criteria.
Those who collect 2C or similar coins generally cannot afford gold US coinage. This choice doesn't mean they prefer it.
Not collecting clad does not equal "hating" it. Most younger collectors overwhelmingly prefer NCLT and the reason they do is because of what I told you, the coin attributes.
@cladking said:
I never suggested that not hating clad will lead to clad coin collecting. I said the number of individuals who desire clad among a group that doesn't hate clad will far exceed the number of individuals who collect clad in a group that hates clad. Considering the former group that doesn't hate clad is several fold LARGER than the group who hates it the total number of individuals collecting clad COULD be substantially larger. Considering the number of clad collectors is obviously soaring the transition has at least begun from a clad hating hobby to a non clad hating hobby. This suggests some of the problems will simply fix themselves as younger people take over responsibilities for making price lists, for instance. I believe demand is severely suppressed by lists that show moderns at under wholesale prices. If a collector wants a coin and is willing to spend the catalog price he might not be willing to pay a far higher price that the coin ACTUALLY ALREADY COMMANDS. This has the effect of reducing the demand and increasing the supply. The coin remains for sale and the demand does not become manifest until it is actually satisfied.
There is a big difference between not "hating" clad and the collector base and price level you infer, as in light years apart.
“In 1965 nobody hated clads more than I did. They replaced and drove from circulation all the coins I loved and they were all the same. I had been punished for the perception that collectors had caused a coin shortage in addition to having cheap, debased, and ugly coins thrust upon me”
Now we are getting somewhere! Any shrinks in the house? 😂
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Scarce in your opinion. It's clear from the many posts you've made on the topic not everybody shares your thoughts on this.
My "thoughts" on this are irrelevant. It is a simple fact that coins like attractive chBU '82 quarters are scarce. If you disagree then why don't you try acquiring a roll or even a single example. Prove me wrong!
By the same token it's also a simple fact that every coin shop once had stacks of nice fresh pristine min sets and now they don't. In the interim they sold almost no sets at all to walk in traffic. The sets were cut up or shipped to wholesalers who cut them up. Now the few surviving sets are tarnished. Just because you neglected the sets and are not familiar with what's been going on doesn't change my experience to "thoughts".
Why not present evidence I'm wrong. Even 20 years ago I used to be able to find small lots of mint sets on eBay now a search turned up almost nothing. Lots of singles but no quantities. Even the major sellers of mint sets have fewer than 20 sets in stock usually. The biggest seller recently ran out of '69 mint sets. Keep in mind that these sellers constitute most of the market and there are fewer than a dozen of them.
It is highly improbable that there are any large accumulations of BU clad quarters because there is nearly no demand. Most of these end up in circulation and you can see quarters with the very distinctive mint set crimping damage in change, sometimes with extensive wear.
There are some competent and knowledgeable people who think I overestimate the number destroyed but I have watched and been more familiar with these markets than nearly anyone else. I've seen these destroyed by the truckload. Few people even realize these wholesalers have multiple truck docks because they sometimes have multiple trucks being loaded or unloaded at a time. They fill up dumpsters with mint set packaging and have been doing it for fifty years. The destruction caused by wholesalers might pale in significance to the destruction caused by individual collectors who need a few kennedies and ikes for their albums.
The sets are nowhere to be seen. It is not reasonable to assume 60 million mint sets have been absorbed by a generation that hates clads and if they were then why don't they walk in to coin shops with the rest of their collections. I believe the only reasonable conclusion is that about 1% have been destroyed annually by misfortune and another 4% have been destroyed intentionally to get desirable coins from them. This has been what I see. The heirs of the original buyers sell them on the market and the market ships them to be destroyed for singles.
Getting exceedingly close to beating a dead horse here, but once again, read what I wrote: "I've never heard anyone talking about...". You never told me you hated them.
This happens on every site.
20 years ago I considered being a wiki contributor but every time I research something with which I am familiar they are wrong. Wiki is always wrong and it's impossible to fix it because contributors can only propagate the status quo. This makes them a valuable resource but when the common wisdom is all wrong so is wiki. And the common wisdom is always wrong at least in part. They proudly stated that clad coins are uncollectible. The common wisdom was, and still is, that moderns are junk, but people are far less likely to say so any longer and fewer people still believe it.
Things have changed quite a bit in the last ten years but there's still the occasional article comparing moderns to chucky cheese tokens or plugs from electrical boxes. There is still a very tiny demand but it is exploding.
This is the third generation to have used clad their entire life: mine (Gen-X,) Millennials, and Gen-Z. All three prefer silver quarters and dimes over clad and to whatever extent it differs, it's insignificant to the price level. To my knowledge, the order between US series hasn't changed either my entire life, at minimum.
People who did like clads were largely weeded out of the ranks until well into the third millennia. They are told that clads are junk and they should collect New Jersey coppers or real coins like CC Morgans. This is EXACTLY why the number of collectors crashed from 1965 to 1999.
As late as 2005 the ANA was still slamming moderns in their promotional literature for new collectors. How many kids have gone into coin shops to get a states quarter and told they are junk? This is still going on but is not so ubiquitous as it was several years ago.
Even today many new and younger collectors are hanging out anywhere but the message boards. They have their own hangouts on the net.
Is it really any wonder it's taken so long for moderns?
Many of the collectors who didn't get far starting in 1999 will return to the hobby some day and a lot more of them will be collecting clads than the boomers did.
@wondercoin said:
“In 1965 nobody hated clads more than I did. They replaced and drove from circulation all the coins I loved and they were all the same. I had been punished for the perception that collectors had caused a coin shortage in addition to having cheap, debased, and ugly coins thrust upon me”
Now we are getting somewhere! Any shrinks in the house? 😂
Wondercoin
If there were, they would be busy 24/7 on this forum!
@cladking said:
It is a simple fact that coins like attractive chBU '82 quarters are scarce. If you disagree then why don't you try acquiring a roll or even a single example. Prove me wrong!
There's a PCGS MS67 on eBay right now. It took about 30 seconds to find.
The supply of Ikes in what grade? I tell people to spend circ Ikes all the time. I just don't see why people can't be collecting AU Ikes 50 years from now rather than Gem or Choice Uncs. And, frankly, I would say the same for all the clad coins. Would you tell someone not to collect Barber coins because there aren't enough Ch Uncs? Especially with Ikes and Kennedy halves, I don't think there is any attrition to speak of since they don't circulate and hardly ever did.
And, frankly, it is really hard for me to imagine that 50 years from now in an all digital currency world that people are suddenly going to want to put together date/mm sets of Ch Bu Roosevelts or Washington quarters. The sheer length and monotony of the series is enough to make most people type collectors.
If you want another counterargument, I would argue that Roosevelt's reputation will have faded when you are 3 generations or more removed from WW II. And Washington is already becoming somewhat controversial. The icons of the future might barely have reached adulthood in 2021. And demographics will make the country increasingly LatinX and their nostalgia might well lead them to non-U.S. coins not memorial coins to dead Presidents who are controversial. I think there is far more working against an increase in collectors for these series than in favor of them.
>
>
>
This is an interesting point in regards to digital currency. What were to happen if the transition took place quite sooner, perhaps in a few years, and assuming many of the circulating clads were also reclaimed/exchanged for digital currency, wouldn't the circulating coinage be more rare than the BU? Also considering that many collectors would had saved, and preserved those uncirculated gems. In the future, could there be more demand for one of those crummy coins that saw great use in commerce before the transition took place? Would there be more interest into the nostalgia of what our moderns looked like from actual use/wear? Maybe we should be saving that worn out crap.
The supply of Ikes in what grade? I tell people to spend circ Ikes all the time. I just don't see why people can't be collecting AU Ikes 50 years from now rather than Gem or Choice Uncs. And, frankly, I would say the same for all the clad coins. Would you tell someone not to collect Barber coins because there aren't enough Ch Uncs? Especially with Ikes and Kennedy halves, I don't think there is any attrition to speak of since they don't circulate and hardly ever did.
And, frankly, it is really hard for me to imagine that 50 years from now in an all digital currency world that people are suddenly going to want to put together date/mm sets of Ch Bu Roosevelts or Washington quarters. The sheer length and monotony of the series is enough to make most people type collectors.
If you want another counterargument, I would argue that Roosevelt's reputation will have faded when you are 3 generations or more removed from WW II. And Washington is already becoming somewhat controversial. The icons of the future might barely have reached adulthood in 2021. And demographics will make the country increasingly LatinX and their nostalgia might well lead them to non-U.S. coins not memorial coins to dead Presidents who are controversial. I think there is far more working against an increase in collectors for these series than in favor of them.
>
>
>
This is an interesting point in regards to digital currency. What were to happen if the transition took place quite sooner, perhaps in a few years, and assuming many of the circulating clads were also reclaimed/exchanged for digital currency, wouldn't the circulating coinage be more rare than the BU? Also considering that many collectors would had saved, and preserved those uncirculated gems. In the future, could there be more demand for one of those crummy coins that saw great use in commerce before the transition took place? Would there be more interest into the nostalgia of what our moderns looked like from actual use/wear? Maybe we should be saving that worn out crap.
Hard to say what the transition would look like. Presumably there would be some redemption period. I would also guess that there would be a lot of hoarding by people speculating on future value so it wouldn't all be redeemed.
@wondercoin said:
“In 1965 nobody hated clads more than I did. They replaced and drove from circulation all the coins I loved and they were all the same. I had been punished for the perception that collectors had caused a coin shortage in addition to having cheap, debased, and ugly coins thrust upon me”
Now we are getting somewhere! Any shrinks in the house? 😂
There's a much finer line between hate and love than most realize.
Of course there's also a finer liner between sane and bonkers than even psychiatrists think.
This is an interesting point in regards to digital currency. What were to happen if the transition took place quite sooner, perhaps in a few years, and assuming many of the circulating clads were also reclaimed/exchanged for digital currency, wouldn't the circulating coinage be more rare than the BU?
No. When coins with such little face value are recalled (six quarters for a loaf of bread) they rarely get more than about 90% even in poor countries. In the US they might not get 75%.
Also considering that many collectors would had saved, and preserved those uncirculated gems. In the future, could there be more demand for one of those crummy coins that saw great use in commerce before the transition took place? Would there be more interest into the nostalgia of what our moderns looked like from actual use/wear? Maybe we should be saving that worn out crap.
A few collectors prefer circulated coins for just these reasons. Most collectors generally seek less wear and higher quality.
Some coins could be much tougher after a recall but this usually is caused by unissued coin being destroyed.
Those sets apparently undergo attrition at greater than 1% per year due to fire and flood.
The simplest answer is that we definitely have enough because the price doesn't go up. I believe the argument is that the mad rush to start collecting these will make almost any current supply insufficient for this wave of demand. It could happen, but I'm not betting on it. People have had 50+ years to decide to collect these and we likely have fewer people collecting them now than in the 1960s.
Since I only have 25 or 30 years left to live - if I'm lucky - I really can't bring myself to worry about whether two generations from now these are $100 coins.
This appears to be a commercially built set probably from the mid-'90's. Over the years perhaps as many as 100,000 of these have been made but their survival rate is poor. Most were sold in cheaper albums or even folders. Some in tubes.
Like almost all such sets the key dates are not nice and as is typical the '82 and '83 issues appear to be sliders.
These are the sets that I said earlier in the thread constitute much of the apparent supply but are not available to the wholesale market and won't be for many years. Most are in the hands of the general public or very casual collectors. A few are seen at shows and there are surprisingly few coins that can be characterized as "chBU". In the early day when there were still a few rolls these were often used to build them and these coins are atrocious. Sets vary in quality from poor to fair but are never good or excellent. The sets sometimes bring strong retail prices in a nice album and with the proofs.
@cladking said:
This appears to be a commercially built set probably from the mid-'90's.
It's not. I purchased the coins from the mint, mint sets and SMS.
@cladking said:
and there are surprisingly few coins that can be characterized as "chBU"
And surprisingly (not to me, but to you) enough , they are satisfactory for a lot of collectors.
BTW, I found an MS67 1982 quarter for sale. You said they're scarce- how hard do you think someone typically would have to look for a scarce coin? It took me less than a minute to find it.
@cladking said:
This appears to be a commercially built set probably from the mid-'90's.
It's not. I purchased the coins from the mint, mint sets and SMS.
@cladking said:
and there are surprisingly few coins that can be characterized as "chBU"
And surprisingly (not to me, but to you) enough , they are satisfactory for a lot of collectors.
BTW, I found an MS67 1982 quarter for sale. You said they're scarce- how hard do you think someone typically would have to look for a scarce coin? It took me less than a minute to find it.
I think he's talking more about hoards of coin rolls than individual slabs.
@jmlanzaf said:
I think he's talking more about hoards of coin rolls than individual slabs.
I don't know- he talks a lot about how hard it is for collectors to find these coins. Collectors don't typically buy rolls of coins for their sets, do they? I know roll collecting was a thing in the 60s, but I thought that was over long ago.
edited to add... Besides, he asked if I could find a single example. I think I did.
I've got a customer or two who've done exactly what you did. Only he bought proof and mint sets and commenced filling albums. They were a sight to behold.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
I've got a customer or two who've done exactly what you did. Only he bought proof and mint sets and commenced filling albums. They were a sight to behold.
I opted for the "proofless" album, but other than that, it was assembled just as you said.
Or, as cladking explained, "surprisingly few coins that can be characterized as "chBU".
This is the third generation to have used clad their entire life: mine (Gen-X,) Millennials, and Gen-Z. All three prefer silver quarters and dimes over clad and to whatever extent it differs, it's insignificant to the price level. To my knowledge, the order between US series hasn't changed either my entire life, at minimum.
People who did like clads were largely weeded out of the ranks until well into the third millennia. They are told that clads are junk and they should collect New Jersey coppers or real coins like CC Morgans. This is EXACTLY why the number of collectors crashed from 1965 to 1999.
As late as 2005 the ANA was still slamming moderns in their promotional literature for new collectors. How many kids have gone into coin shops to get a states quarter and told they are junk? This is still going on but is not so ubiquitous as it was several years ago.
Even today many new and younger collectors are hanging out anywhere but the message boards. They have their own hangouts on the net.
Is it really any wonder it's taken so long for moderns?
Many of the collectors who didn't get far starting in 1999 will return to the hobby some day and a lot more of them will be collecting clads than the boomers did.
Everything you just said could be true, yet it still doesn't lead to your claims. It still depends upon the future price level you expect.
@cladking said:
It is a simple fact that coins like attractive chBU '82 quarters are scarce. If you disagree then why don't you try acquiring a roll or even a single example. Prove me wrong!
There's a PCGS MS67 on eBay right now. It took about 30 seconds to find.
Or is that not attractive enough for you?
That's because contrary to his claim, this coin and every other US modern is not scarce, except in the narrow context of condition census coins and specialization.
Checking the PCGS Pop report this past week, it lists 20 in MS-67 and around 266 in MS-66. Given the price level, it's easily a Judd R-1 in MS-66 with 1250+.
Using the availability of a roll in this quality at one time is an absurd standard. No actually scarce coin is available by the roll.
In the future, could there be more demand for one of those crummy coins that saw great use in commerce before the transition took place? Would there be more interest into the nostalgia of what our moderns looked like from actual use/wear? Maybe we should be saving that worn out crap.
Like P-01 coins? I infer the driving factor behind it is creating an artificial challenge since most of this collecting is of very common coins. Unless you are thinking centuries in the future, none of this coinage will be close to scarce in lower grades.
@cladking said:
It is a simple fact that coins like attractive chBU '82 quarters are scarce. If you disagree then why don't you try acquiring a roll or even a single example. Prove me wrong!
There's a PCGS MS67 on eBay right now. It took about 30 seconds to find.
Or is that not attractive enough for you?
That's because contrary to his claim, this coin and every other US modern is not scarce, except in the narrow context of condition census coins and specialization.
Checking the PCGS Pop report this past week, it lists 20 in MS-67 and around 266 in MS-66. Given the price level, it's easily a Judd R-1 in MS-66 with 1250+.
Using the availability of a roll in this quality at one time is an absurd standard. No actually scarce coin is available by the roll.
You haven't seen my roll of 1804 dollars.
The real problem in assessing this is that because of the low price it is a largely invisible market. 50 cent purchases at coin stores don't get entered into databases.
The MS67 coin on eBay has only remained there due to the seller asking away more than the past few examples have fetched. But, his right to do so.
“That's because contrary to his claim, this coin and every other US modern is not scarce, except in the narrow context of condition census coins and specialization.”
Here, with these words, you have gone over the line and display your bias and lack of knowledge on the subject. And, unfortunately, just about anything CK says from here, can be read as reasonable in comparison to your wild assertion.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@cladking said:
It is a simple fact that coins like attractive chBU '82 quarters are scarce. If you disagree then why don't you try acquiring a roll or even a single example. Prove me wrong!
There's a PCGS MS67 on eBay right now. It took about 30 seconds to find.
Or is that not attractive enough for you?
That's because contrary to his claim, this coin and every other US modern is not scarce, except in the narrow context of condition census coins and specialization.
Checking the PCGS Pop report this past week, it lists 20 in MS-67 and around 266 in MS-66. Given the price level, it's easily a Judd R-1 in MS-66 with 1250+.
Using the availability of a roll in this quality at one time is an absurd standard. No actually scarce coin is available by the roll.
You haven't seen my to of 1804 dollars.
The real problem in assessing this is that because of the low price it is a largely invisible market. 50 cent purchases at coin stores don't get entered into databases.
I agree.
I agree with him the survival rate in better quality is low and presumably lower than 1933-1964 US coinage. It still doesn't even come close to the definition of scarce.
The only thing he is doing is projecting his personal preferences onto other collectors. That's it, as what he describes isn't consistent with virtually anything evident in how collectors actually behave, now or previously.
For starters, that's why I mentioned the price of alternatives which I presume for US moderns is "low priced" US classics and world coinage.
Virtually no one collects in a vacuum where they are going to pay much higher prices for common coinage generally (US moderns or otherwise) when they can buy something else which practically every collector considers "better" . Registry set collecting enables it to a limited extent but that all and it's not specific to any coin or series.
@wondercoin said:
The MS67 coin on eBay has only remained there due to the seller asking away more than the past few examples have fetched. But, his right to do so.
“That's because contrary to his claim, this coin and every other US modern is not scarce, except in the narrow context of condition census coins and specialization.”
Here, with these words, you have gone over the line and display your bias and lack of knowledge on the subject. And, unfortunately, just about anything CK says from here, can be read as reasonable in comparison to your wild assertion.
Wondercoin
Ok, some moderns in the "under grade" where the counts are low also qualify. How many is that?
If you still disagree with me, I don't think you read my post accurately. I specifically identified condition census coins and specialization. Specialization to mean die varieties, errors, full strike designations and toned coins. I didn't specifically itemize here but have before, including in threads where you replied to my posts.
If you still disagree with me, then you just have a different definition of scarcity.
“If you still disagree with me, then you just have a different definition of scarcity.”
I could only not disagree with you if you changed your statement to include 2 words and read…
That's because contrary to his claim, this coin and every other US classic and modern is not scarce, except in the narrow context of condition census coins and specialization.
Are you good with that?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
“If you still disagree with me, then you just have a different definition of scarcity.”
I could only not disagree with you if you changed your statement to include 2 words and read…
That's because contrary to his claim, this coin and every other US classic and modern is not scarce, except in the narrow context of condition census coins and specialization.
I agree with him the survival rate in better quality is low and presumably lower than 1933-1964 US coinage. It still doesn't even come close to the definition of scarce.
Lots of the '32 to '64 coins got into circulation. Sure it was very low on something like 1950-D nickels but most 1964-D cents went into circulation. Almost all of the post-1964 clads went into circulation. Let's look at one of the most heavily saved of all clad coins; the '82-P quarter. Everyone knew that mint set production had ceased so hundreds of people went out to find this coin as singles, rolls, and bags. Despite this increased setting aside of the date less than .02% of production was saved!
The high price of the '82 shows that modern clad supply is mint sets.
You keep saying that my definition of "nice attractive specimens" and "chBU" are arbitrary and other collectors will be satisfied with an MS-60. But then you have no idea what an ugly mint set coin looks like. Most are reasonably well struck from reasonably new dies but surfaces of the coins can be a fright. Some of the cents are almost invariably uneven or carbon spotted. Some coins are just covered in chicken scratches which are planchet flaws that were not struck out. There are often scratches and gouges. 50% of some of these dates in mint sets CAN NOT be sold to wholesalers as chBU and this is "as issued". Mint sets are no longer as issued and most have tarnished. So compound 80% tarnish + 50% awful + 70% of the mint sets gone and you'll see a very "common" Ike like the '76 type I only has one coin in 4 sets that can be sold as chBU. And then there's still the fact that so few sets are left.
Try going through a 100 '75 sets and taking a good look at the 25 coins in chBU. Most of them are no great shakes. The sets have been cherry picked at least somewhat over the years but 90% of chBU's of this date never were very attractive. Sure, lots of people are satisfied with a chBU and I have no problem with this. Everyone should collect what he likes. But this is exactly what this thread is about; the supply of chBU clads. It is about the simple fact that collectors and wholesalers have been dismantling mint sets for 50 years to obtain, you guessed it, chBU moderns. Now, suddenly in the last year, there are not enough chBU half dollars and dollars for the wholesale market.
Seeing the future based on things that have already happened is pretty easy. The deficit of mint sets will cause increased price of mint sets. I don't believe that increased prices will increase the available supply sufficiently which would cause half and dollar prices to continue their ascent but it will also increase the rate at which the few surviving sets are being destroyed. Since there is still no wholesale demand for dimes and quarters many of these will be put into circulation. The increased dismantling of sets will increase the supply of dimes and quarters and tend to hold their prices down.
Of course at any time everything can change. Increased attention can increase demand much more and it can also get some of the tarnished coins cleaned up. There's no vast overhang of tarnished coins but they are out there and there are lots of intact mint sets that can be brought back.
Once all the mint sets are gone where are the smaller clad chBU's going to come from?
Somehow or other people keep getting fixated on the coins they think I like instead of the subject. Yes, I like gemmy clad and I like true Gems even more. I don't know if these will ever be popular or not but I do believe they will. I believe they will because there are no real stoppers in either series and they look so much nicer than MS-63 coins. But this is a subject for another thread. Gem moderns are very rare from circulation because so few were made and so many were not set aside by collectors. Mint sets have about 3% Gems but clads made for circulation can have fewer by orders of magnitude. Perhaps I love Gems so much simply because they are so very rare among my favorite coins; those which circulate.
If you don't like Gems you can collect gemmy, or choice, or MS-60, or VG, or even indian cents. The choice is yours. Most people like chBU and this is why there is a wholesale market for chBU.
“Most people like chBU and this is why there is a wholesale market for chBU.”
I seriously doubt that is the case. Do you really think that Grandpa or Grandma watching the coin shows are delighted because the coin show is offering chBU coins - exactly what Grandpa and Grandma have been dreaming about buying in the way of clad coins? Of, is it that complete novices are listening to the announcers tell them that the coins being offered are wonderful Choice Brilliant Uncirculated quality? What do you think?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
“Most people like chBU and this is why there is a wholesale market for chBU.”
I seriously doubt that is the case.
You're right that it isn't strictly true.
I think there's a lot of truth in it because customers who receive coins with problems or that are very unattractive are likely to send them back and most moderns are sold on a highly "value added" basis. In other words the wholesaler usually does a lot of work assembling collections and charges for it. If there's a bad coin or two there is likely to be a return that involves the refund of more money than can be easily recovered. It simply makes sense to send nice choice coins to forestall returns. Since most of the mint sets are ultimately destroyed for this purpose the sellers demand nice choice coins.
Very few mint sets are sold because they are mint sets. Rather the buyer wants a specific coin or want all the chBU coins from the set or a specific Gem. When sets trade hands there is a very high probability they'll be cut up within a year or two.
Do you really think that Grandpa or Grandma watching the coin shows are delighted because the coin show is offering chBU coins - exactly what Grandpa and Grandma have been dreaming about buying in the way of clad coins?
Their expectations are for coins that look like they just got them brand new in pocket change. They don't want coins that look like they were run over by a forklift at the mint or that are spotted, tarnished, or ugly. "chBU" has merely evolved to represent what customers don't return. This would include about 97% of '72-D dimes as issued in mint sets and 75% as they exist today. But it will mean very few '69 quarters.
O[r]f, is it that complete novices are listening to the announcers tell them that the coins being offered are wonderful Choice Brilliant Uncirculated quality? What do you think?
I would advise not listening too closely to anything the announcer says.
Most of these sets tend to look a lot alike. Sets assembled by many companies are significantly lower quality. A lot depends on the venue in which they are bought as well as the price. While paying a lot more won't assure quality, paying a lot less will assure poor quality. The best bet is to just assemble them yourself and use the best coins instead of what's available. With little effort sets can still be assembled fairly cheaply but this is coming to an end because the price of the raw material is increasing. Two years ago you could buy the sets and make a collection of everything and then spend the cast offs for a few hundred dollars. Now for the same quality it might cost a few thousand. You could do it much more cheaply if you can sell the cast offs but this is very difficult for most collectors because the demand is so weak.
In the future, could there be more demand for one of those crummy coins that saw great use in commerce before the transition took place? Would there be more interest into the nostalgia of what our moderns looked like from actual use/wear? Maybe we should be saving that worn out crap.
Like P-01 coins? I infer the driving factor behind it is creating an artificial challenge since most of this collecting is of very common coins. Unless you are thinking centuries in the future, none of this coinage will be close to scarce in lower grades.
Not sure if you read my entire post, I was referring to if there was a transition to digital cash, and moderns were reclaimed in exchange for digital currency. In such an environment, what would be the motivating factor to save coins unless you were a collector? Probably none, as the metal content is worthless, and you wouldn't be able to use the coins in commerce anyway. Ever. My point was, there probably would be many more BU coins, than circulated as they'd be saved mostly by collectors. Honestly, I'd also be wondering what to do with the $4,000-$5,000 I have in rolls, esp. knowing they'd have no value except to a collector. So, that's why I suggested, jokingly, we might be better off saving the worn stuff as those may be quite rare. Who knows? Current collecting habits, and what motivates collectors today could be quite different once those presses stop. Forever. On the bright side, there may be hope for the U.S. mints website not crashing after all! LOL!!
In the future, could there be more demand for one of those crummy coins that saw great use in commerce before the transition took place? Would there be more interest into the nostalgia of what our moderns looked like from actual use/wear? Maybe we should be saving that worn out crap.
Like P-01 coins? I infer the driving factor behind it is creating an artificial challenge since most of this collecting is of very common coins. Unless you are thinking centuries in the future, none of this coinage will be close to scarce in lower grades.
Not sure if you read my entire post, I was referring to if there was a transition to digital cash, and moderns were reclaimed in exchange for digital currency. In such an environment, what would be the motivating factor to save coins unless you were a collector? Probably none, as the metal content is worthless, and you wouldn't be able to use the coins in commerce anyway. Ever. My point was, there probably would be many more BU coins, than circulated as they'd be saved mostly by collectors. Honestly, I'd also be wondering what to do with the $4,000-$5,000 I have in rolls, esp. knowing they'd have no value except to a collector. So, that's why I suggested, jokingly, we might be better off saving the worn stuff as those may be quite rare. Who knows? Current collecting habits, and what motivates collectors today could be quite different once those presses stop. Forever. On the bright side, there may be hope for the U.S. mints website not transitioncrashing after all! LOL!!
You can look at the Euro transition. You don't need to blindly speculate. There is a lot of circulated pre-Euro coinage. Once the redemption date passes, people get stuck with little piles which are now only good as collectibles. Every blue book set pulled from circulation becomes a "collectible " because you can no longer dump them in a Coinstar. Of course the price floor is no longer face value because there is no face value.
In the future, could there be more demand for one of those crummy coins that saw great use in commerce before the transition took place? Would there be more interest into the nostalgia of what our moderns looked like from actual use/wear? Maybe we should be saving that worn out crap.
Like P-01 coins? I infer the driving factor behind it is creating an artificial challenge since most of this collecting is of very common coins. Unless you are thinking centuries in the future, none of this coinage will be close to scarce in lower grades.
Not sure if you read my entire post, I was referring to if there was a transition to digital cash, and moderns were reclaimed in exchange for digital currency. In such an environment, what would be the motivating factor to save coins unless you were a collector? Probably none, as the metal content is worthless, and you wouldn't be able to use the coins in commerce anyway. Ever. My point was, there probably would be many more BU coins, than circulated as they'd be saved mostly by collectors. Honestly, I'd also be wondering what to do with the $4,000-$5,000 I have in rolls, esp. knowing they'd have no value except to a collector. So, that's why I suggested, jokingly, we might be better off saving the worn stuff as those may be quite rare. Who knows? Current collecting habits, and what motivates collectors today could be quite different once those presses stop. Forever. On the bright side, there may be hope for the U.S. mints website not transitioncrashing after all! LOL!!
You can look at the Euro transition. You don't need to blindly speculate. There is a lot of circulated pre-Euro coinage. Once the redemption date passes, people get stuck with little piles which are now only good as collectibles. Every blue book set pulled from circulation becomes a "collectible " because you can no longer dump them in a Coinstar. Of course the price floor is no longer face value because there is no face value.
That is a good point. I wonder how much wasn't redeemed, and how circulated, or, BU coins suffered in value. I can look up the later some time, but it would be interesting to know what percentage believed saved. Probably no way of knowing?
@wondercoin said:
The MS67 coin on eBay has only remained there due to the seller asking away more than the past few examples have fetched.
The challenge was that Ch BU 82's are scarce- try to find one. If a PCGS MS67 meets ck's standards for Ch BU, then I did. ck didn't say anything about price. FWIW, the PCGS price guide value for that coin is higher than the price of the eBay example.
@wondercoin said:
“FWIW, the PCGS price guide value for that coin is higher than the price of the eBay example.”
That goes both ways- I just helped an astute collector buy a coin for around $25,000 that has a current listed Price Guide price of roughly 5%!!
Wondercoin
Well, we sure are on the edge of our seats awaiting the pictures of this magnificent specimen, and more importantly, the ink on the paper in the plastic with it!
Comments
Yes. Really.
So? Even if they did, it's irrelevant to my post. Read it again: "I've never heard anyone talking about..."
Read my post again: "Aside from this message board..."
Lots of them, I'm sure. If, in their opinion, the coins are only worth face value, what else would they do?
Scarce in your opinion. It's clear from the many posts you've made on the topic not everybody shares your thoughts on this.
Again, not relevant to my post. I wrote about my experiences, not yours. Read it again if you don't believe me.
I don't know why the Redbook does what it does. And neither do you. Either way, it's not relevant to my post.
Getting exceedingly close to beating a dead horse here, but once again, read what I wrote: "I've never heard anyone talking about...". You never told me you hated them.
Ok. So?
Did I say it was? Read what I wrote and get back to me on that.
?
Earlier, I specifically used ethnic demographic change as you did. This is a cultural difference that directly impacts collectors preferences, to a point. Unlike non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic collectors presumably have a higher propensity to prefer other coinage, Latin as opposed to US (with dead presidential portraits or otherwise) for which they have less cultural affinity.
The primary point I was making is that collector preferences aren't detached from the general culture and those which influence collecting most aren't determined by anyone's age or their generation.
This is the third generation to have used clad their entire life: mine (Gen-X,) Millennials, and Gen-Z. All three prefer silver quarters and dimes over clad and to whatever extent it differs, it's insignificant to the price level. To my knowledge, the order between US series hasn't changed either my entire life, at minimum.
There has been movement within series where some coins have gained or lost value relative to others but that's all. There have also been generic changes impacting all coins (TPG, CAC) but that's mostly specific to collecting,.
From what I know, the biggest difference with "younger" collectors is that they collect NCLT in much higher proportion (not clad) and world coinage somewhat more. Most NCLT didn't exist for my generation and world coinage was more difficult to collect before the internet.. The internet is a macro cultural factor and yes, it has and will impact what people collect.
Agree on the NCLT point, buying some brand-new, this or last year made, precious metal "items" for 15% or 50% over melt value of the metal, with a pretty girl, or dragon, or tiger, or skull on it, is much more generally appealing to the crowd than a base metal dime or quarter, worth next to nothing intrinsically, that looks just like your pocket change, and all the collectors value is in "how nice this one is!" which you can only monetize by spending $20 to certify and entomb, and then when you show it to your family and friends, they??? 😜🤯???
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I have never said gold and silver are the only or even necessarily deciding factor. I compared clad dimes and quarters to the silver because the coins are otherwise identical. I have conceded to you that collectors may or do incorrectly overestimate clad survival in better quality but this isn't relevant to most (over 99%) because they do not care about your quality criteria.
Those who collect 2C or similar coins generally cannot afford gold US coinage. This choice doesn't mean they prefer it.
Not collecting clad does not equal "hating" it. Most younger collectors overwhelmingly prefer NCLT and the reason they do is because of what I told you, the coin attributes.
There is a big difference between not "hating" clad and the collector base and price level you infer, as in light years apart.
“In 1965 nobody hated clads more than I did. They replaced and drove from circulation all the coins I loved and they were all the same. I had been punished for the perception that collectors had caused a coin shortage in addition to having cheap, debased, and ugly coins thrust upon me”
Now we are getting somewhere! Any shrinks in the house? 😂
Wondercoin
My "thoughts" on this are irrelevant. It is a simple fact that coins like attractive chBU '82 quarters are scarce. If you disagree then why don't you try acquiring a roll or even a single example. Prove me wrong!
By the same token it's also a simple fact that every coin shop once had stacks of nice fresh pristine min sets and now they don't. In the interim they sold almost no sets at all to walk in traffic. The sets were cut up or shipped to wholesalers who cut them up. Now the few surviving sets are tarnished. Just because you neglected the sets and are not familiar with what's been going on doesn't change my experience to "thoughts".
Why not present evidence I'm wrong. Even 20 years ago I used to be able to find small lots of mint sets on eBay now a search turned up almost nothing. Lots of singles but no quantities. Even the major sellers of mint sets have fewer than 20 sets in stock usually. The biggest seller recently ran out of '69 mint sets. Keep in mind that these sellers constitute most of the market and there are fewer than a dozen of them.
It is highly improbable that there are any large accumulations of BU clad quarters because there is nearly no demand. Most of these end up in circulation and you can see quarters with the very distinctive mint set crimping damage in change, sometimes with extensive wear.
There are some competent and knowledgeable people who think I overestimate the number destroyed but I have watched and been more familiar with these markets than nearly anyone else. I've seen these destroyed by the truckload. Few people even realize these wholesalers have multiple truck docks because they sometimes have multiple trucks being loaded or unloaded at a time. They fill up dumpsters with mint set packaging and have been doing it for fifty years. The destruction caused by wholesalers might pale in significance to the destruction caused by individual collectors who need a few kennedies and ikes for their albums.
The sets are nowhere to be seen. It is not reasonable to assume 60 million mint sets have been absorbed by a generation that hates clads and if they were then why don't they walk in to coin shops with the rest of their collections. I believe the only reasonable conclusion is that about 1% have been destroyed annually by misfortune and another 4% have been destroyed intentionally to get desirable coins from them. This has been what I see. The heirs of the original buyers sell them on the market and the market ships them to be destroyed for singles.
This happens on every site.
20 years ago I considered being a wiki contributor but every time I research something with which I am familiar they are wrong. Wiki is always wrong and it's impossible to fix it because contributors can only propagate the status quo. This makes them a valuable resource but when the common wisdom is all wrong so is wiki. And the common wisdom is always wrong at least in part. They proudly stated that clad coins are uncollectible. The common wisdom was, and still is, that moderns are junk, but people are far less likely to say so any longer and fewer people still believe it.
Things have changed quite a bit in the last ten years but there's still the occasional article comparing moderns to chucky cheese tokens or plugs from electrical boxes. There is still a very tiny demand but it is exploding.
People who did like clads were largely weeded out of the ranks until well into the third millennia. They are told that clads are junk and they should collect New Jersey coppers or real coins like CC Morgans. This is EXACTLY why the number of collectors crashed from 1965 to 1999.
As late as 2005 the ANA was still slamming moderns in their promotional literature for new collectors. How many kids have gone into coin shops to get a states quarter and told they are junk? This is still going on but is not so ubiquitous as it was several years ago.
Even today many new and younger collectors are hanging out anywhere but the message boards. They have their own hangouts on the net.
Is it really any wonder it's taken so long for moderns?
Many of the collectors who didn't get far starting in 1999 will return to the hobby some day and a lot more of them will be collecting clads than the boomers did.
If there were, they would be busy 24/7 on this forum!
There's a PCGS MS67 on eBay right now. It took about 30 seconds to find.
Or is that not attractive enough for you?
All I know is I'm ready to make the big bucks on these babies!
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
>
>
>
This is an interesting point in regards to digital currency. What were to happen if the transition took place quite sooner, perhaps in a few years, and assuming many of the circulating clads were also reclaimed/exchanged for digital currency, wouldn't the circulating coinage be more rare than the BU? Also considering that many collectors would had saved, and preserved those uncirculated gems. In the future, could there be more demand for one of those crummy coins that saw great use in commerce before the transition took place? Would there be more interest into the nostalgia of what our moderns looked like from actual use/wear? Maybe we should be saving that worn out crap.
Hard to say what the transition would look like. Presumably there would be some redemption period. I would also guess that there would be a lot of hoarding by people speculating on future value so it wouldn't all be redeemed.
How many sets like this exist?
There's a much finer line between hate and love than most realize.
Of course there's also a finer liner between sane and bonkers than even psychiatrists think.
Tens of thousands
No. When coins with such little face value are recalled (six quarters for a loaf of bread) they rarely get more than about 90% even in poor countries. In the US they might not get 75%.
Also considering that many collectors would had saved, and preserved those uncirculated gems. In the future, could there be more demand for one of those crummy coins that saw great use in commerce before the transition took place? Would there be more interest into the nostalgia of what our moderns looked like from actual use/wear? Maybe we should be saving that worn out crap.
A few collectors prefer circulated coins for just these reasons. Most collectors generally seek less wear and higher quality.
Some coins could be much tougher after a recall but this usually is caused by unissued coin being destroyed.
Is that enough? You know- for all the people who are not currently collecting these coins, but will want to?
edited to add...
The pictured set is not handpicked, it's how they came from the mint. How many more handpicked sets do you suppose there are?
Those sets apparently undergo attrition at greater than 1% per year due to fire and flood.
The simplest answer is that we definitely have enough because the price doesn't go up. I believe the argument is that the mad rush to start collecting these will make almost any current supply insufficient for this wave of demand. It could happen, but I'm not betting on it. People have had 50+ years to decide to collect these and we likely have fewer people collecting them now than in the 1960s.
Since I only have 25 or 30 years left to live - if I'm lucky - I really can't bring myself to worry about whether two generations from now these are $100 coins.
1 out of 100 coin collections are destroyed by fire/floods every year? That's a little difficult to believe.
This appears to be a commercially built set probably from the mid-'90's. Over the years perhaps as many as 100,000 of these have been made but their survival rate is poor. Most were sold in cheaper albums or even folders. Some in tubes.
Like almost all such sets the key dates are not nice and as is typical the '82 and '83 issues appear to be sliders.
These are the sets that I said earlier in the thread constitute much of the apparent supply but are not available to the wholesale market and won't be for many years. Most are in the hands of the general public or very casual collectors. A few are seen at shows and there are surprisingly few coins that can be characterized as "chBU". In the early day when there were still a few rolls these were often used to build them and these coins are atrocious. Sets vary in quality from poor to fair but are never good or excellent. The sets sometimes bring strong retail prices in a nice album and with the proofs.
It's not. I purchased the coins from the mint, mint sets and SMS.
And surprisingly (not to me, but to you) enough , they are satisfactory for a lot of collectors.
BTW, I found an MS67 1982 quarter for sale. You said they're scarce- how hard do you think someone typically would have to look for a scarce coin? It took me less than a minute to find it.
I was told that's what happens to Ikes. Gotta be just as bad for quarters.
I think he's talking more about hoards of coin rolls than individual slabs.
I don't know- he talks a lot about how hard it is for collectors to find these coins. Collectors don't typically buy rolls of coins for their sets, do they? I know roll collecting was a thing in the 60s, but I thought that was over long ago.
edited to add... Besides, he asked if I could find a single example. I think I did.
I've got a customer or two who've done exactly what you did. Only he bought proof and mint sets and commenced filling albums. They were a sight to behold.
Glad people assemble them raw, still.
I opted for the "proofless" album, but other than that, it was assembled just as you said.
Or, as cladking explained, "surprisingly few coins that can be characterized as "chBU".
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
Everything you just said could be true, yet it still doesn't lead to your claims. It still depends upon the future price level you expect.
That's because contrary to his claim, this coin and every other US modern is not scarce, except in the narrow context of condition census coins and specialization.
Checking the PCGS Pop report this past week, it lists 20 in MS-67 and around 266 in MS-66. Given the price level, it's easily a Judd R-1 in MS-66 with 1250+.
Using the availability of a roll in this quality at one time is an absurd standard. No actually scarce coin is available by the roll.
In the future, could there be more demand for one of those crummy coins that saw great use in commerce before the transition took place? Would there be more interest into the nostalgia of what our moderns looked like from actual use/wear? Maybe we should be saving that worn out crap.
Like P-01 coins? I infer the driving factor behind it is creating an artificial challenge since most of this collecting is of very common coins. Unless you are thinking centuries in the future, none of this coinage will be close to scarce in lower grades.
You haven't seen my roll of 1804 dollars.
The real problem in assessing this is that because of the low price it is a largely invisible market. 50 cent purchases at coin stores don't get entered into databases.
The MS67 coin on eBay has only remained there due to the seller asking away more than the past few examples have fetched. But, his right to do so.
“That's because contrary to his claim, this coin and every other US modern is not scarce, except in the narrow context of condition census coins and specialization.”
Here, with these words, you have gone over the line and display your bias and lack of knowledge on the subject. And, unfortunately, just about anything CK says from here, can be read as reasonable in comparison to your wild assertion.
Wondercoin
I agree.
I agree with him the survival rate in better quality is low and presumably lower than 1933-1964 US coinage. It still doesn't even come close to the definition of scarce.
The only thing he is doing is projecting his personal preferences onto other collectors. That's it, as what he describes isn't consistent with virtually anything evident in how collectors actually behave, now or previously.
For starters, that's why I mentioned the price of alternatives which I presume for US moderns is "low priced" US classics and world coinage.
Virtually no one collects in a vacuum where they are going to pay much higher prices for common coinage generally (US moderns or otherwise) when they can buy something else which practically every collector considers "better" . Registry set collecting enables it to a limited extent but that all and it's not specific to any coin or series.
Ok, some moderns in the "under grade" where the counts are low also qualify. How many is that?
If you still disagree with me, I don't think you read my post accurately. I specifically identified condition census coins and specialization. Specialization to mean die varieties, errors, full strike designations and toned coins. I didn't specifically itemize here but have before, including in threads where you replied to my posts.
If you still disagree with me, then you just have a different definition of scarcity.
“If you still disagree with me, then you just have a different definition of scarcity.”
I could only not disagree with you if you changed your statement to include 2 words and read…
That's because contrary to his claim, this coin and every other US classic and modern is not scarce, except in the narrow context of condition census coins and specialization.
Are you good with that?
Wondercoin
Yes
, for the US classics most collect.
Yes … for the US classics and moderns most collect. 😊. Good?
Wondercoin
Yes,
Fair enough…
Now, let’s get back to the regularly scheduled programming of attacking CK and his profound predictions, projections and prophecies! 😛
Wondercoin
Lots of the '32 to '64 coins got into circulation. Sure it was very low on something like 1950-D nickels but most 1964-D cents went into circulation. Almost all of the post-1964 clads went into circulation. Let's look at one of the most heavily saved of all clad coins; the '82-P quarter. Everyone knew that mint set production had ceased so hundreds of people went out to find this coin as singles, rolls, and bags. Despite this increased setting aside of the date less than .02% of production was saved!
The high price of the '82 shows that modern clad supply is mint sets.
You keep saying that my definition of "nice attractive specimens" and "chBU" are arbitrary and other collectors will be satisfied with an MS-60. But then you have no idea what an ugly mint set coin looks like. Most are reasonably well struck from reasonably new dies but surfaces of the coins can be a fright. Some of the cents are almost invariably uneven or carbon spotted. Some coins are just covered in chicken scratches which are planchet flaws that were not struck out. There are often scratches and gouges. 50% of some of these dates in mint sets CAN NOT be sold to wholesalers as chBU and this is "as issued". Mint sets are no longer as issued and most have tarnished. So compound 80% tarnish + 50% awful + 70% of the mint sets gone and you'll see a very "common" Ike like the '76 type I only has one coin in 4 sets that can be sold as chBU. And then there's still the fact that so few sets are left.
Try going through a 100 '75 sets and taking a good look at the 25 coins in chBU. Most of them are no great shakes. The sets have been cherry picked at least somewhat over the years but 90% of chBU's of this date never were very attractive. Sure, lots of people are satisfied with a chBU and I have no problem with this. Everyone should collect what he likes. But this is exactly what this thread is about; the supply of chBU clads. It is about the simple fact that collectors and wholesalers have been dismantling mint sets for 50 years to obtain, you guessed it, chBU moderns. Now, suddenly in the last year, there are not enough chBU half dollars and dollars for the wholesale market.
Seeing the future based on things that have already happened is pretty easy. The deficit of mint sets will cause increased price of mint sets. I don't believe that increased prices will increase the available supply sufficiently which would cause half and dollar prices to continue their ascent but it will also increase the rate at which the few surviving sets are being destroyed. Since there is still no wholesale demand for dimes and quarters many of these will be put into circulation. The increased dismantling of sets will increase the supply of dimes and quarters and tend to hold their prices down.
Of course at any time everything can change. Increased attention can increase demand much more and it can also get some of the tarnished coins cleaned up. There's no vast overhang of tarnished coins but they are out there and there are lots of intact mint sets that can be brought back.
Once all the mint sets are gone where are the smaller clad chBU's going to come from?
Somehow or other people keep getting fixated on the coins they think I like instead of the subject. Yes, I like gemmy clad and I like true Gems even more. I don't know if these will ever be popular or not but I do believe they will. I believe they will because there are no real stoppers in either series and they look so much nicer than MS-63 coins. But this is a subject for another thread. Gem moderns are very rare from circulation because so few were made and so many were not set aside by collectors. Mint sets have about 3% Gems but clads made for circulation can have fewer by orders of magnitude. Perhaps I love Gems so much simply because they are so very rare among my favorite coins; those which circulate.
If you don't like Gems you can collect gemmy, or choice, or MS-60, or VG, or even indian cents. The choice is yours. Most people like chBU and this is why there is a wholesale market for chBU.
“Most people like chBU and this is why there is a wholesale market for chBU.”
I seriously doubt that is the case. Do you really think that Grandpa or Grandma watching the coin shows are delighted because the coin show is offering chBU coins - exactly what Grandpa and Grandma have been dreaming about buying in the way of clad coins? Of, is it that complete novices are listening to the announcers tell them that the coins being offered are wonderful Choice Brilliant Uncirculated quality? What do you think?
Wondercoin
So many words, so few pictures.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
You're right that it isn't strictly true.
I think there's a lot of truth in it because customers who receive coins with problems or that are very unattractive are likely to send them back and most moderns are sold on a highly "value added" basis. In other words the wholesaler usually does a lot of work assembling collections and charges for it. If there's a bad coin or two there is likely to be a return that involves the refund of more money than can be easily recovered. It simply makes sense to send nice choice coins to forestall returns. Since most of the mint sets are ultimately destroyed for this purpose the sellers demand nice choice coins.
Very few mint sets are sold because they are mint sets. Rather the buyer wants a specific coin or want all the chBU coins from the set or a specific Gem. When sets trade hands there is a very high probability they'll be cut up within a year or two.
Their expectations are for coins that look like they just got them brand new in pocket change. They don't want coins that look like they were run over by a forklift at the mint or that are spotted, tarnished, or ugly. "chBU" has merely evolved to represent what customers don't return. This would include about 97% of '72-D dimes as issued in mint sets and 75% as they exist today. But it will mean very few '69 quarters.
I would advise not listening too closely to anything the announcer says.
Most of these sets tend to look a lot alike. Sets assembled by many companies are significantly lower quality. A lot depends on the venue in which they are bought as well as the price. While paying a lot more won't assure quality, paying a lot less will assure poor quality. The best bet is to just assemble them yourself and use the best coins instead of what's available. With little effort sets can still be assembled fairly cheaply but this is coming to an end because the price of the raw material is increasing. Two years ago you could buy the sets and make a collection of everything and then spend the cast offs for a few hundred dollars. Now for the same quality it might cost a few thousand. You could do it much more cheaply if you can sell the cast offs but this is very difficult for most collectors because the demand is so weak.
Not sure if you read my entire post, I was referring to if there was a transition to digital cash, and moderns were reclaimed in exchange for digital currency. In such an environment, what would be the motivating factor to save coins unless you were a collector? Probably none, as the metal content is worthless, and you wouldn't be able to use the coins in commerce anyway. Ever. My point was, there probably would be many more BU coins, than circulated as they'd be saved mostly by collectors. Honestly, I'd also be wondering what to do with the $4,000-$5,000 I have in rolls, esp. knowing they'd have no value except to a collector. So, that's why I suggested, jokingly, we might be better off saving the worn stuff as those may be quite rare. Who knows? Current collecting habits, and what motivates collectors today could be quite different once those presses stop. Forever. On the bright side, there may be hope for the U.S. mints website not crashing after all! LOL!!
You can look at the Euro transition. You don't need to blindly speculate. There is a lot of circulated pre-Euro coinage. Once the redemption date passes, people get stuck with little piles which are now only good as collectibles. Every blue book set pulled from circulation becomes a "collectible " because you can no longer dump them in a Coinstar. Of course the price floor is no longer face value because there is no face value.
That is a good point. I wonder how much wasn't redeemed, and how circulated, or, BU coins suffered in value. I can look up the later some time, but it would be interesting to know what percentage believed saved. Probably no way of knowing?
The challenge was that Ch BU 82's are scarce- try to find one. If a PCGS MS67 meets ck's standards for Ch BU, then I did. ck didn't say anything about price. FWIW, the PCGS price guide value for that coin is higher than the price of the eBay example.
“FWIW, the PCGS price guide value for that coin is higher than the price of the eBay example.”
That goes both ways- I just helped an astute collector buy a coin for around $25,000 that has a current listed Price Guide price of roughly 5%!!
Wondercoin
Yes, price guides aren't terribly useful for thinly traded items.
Well, we sure are on the edge of our seats awaiting the pictures of this magnificent specimen, and more importantly, the ink on the paper in the plastic with it!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
A PCGS MS67 sold on eBay by auction in February for $465.
Just sayin'.