BETTER DATES - What's important to collectors?

Pedzola

I remember a conversation with a local dealer early on after I decided to switch from bullion to "rare" coins. I was working on a 20th century type set including gold.

I don't remember what coin we were talking about but he was telling me which coins in his inventory were better dates for the series. And I probably looked at him like he had 3 heads, why is it better? It's a lower grade for 3x the price! Sounds like a worse date to me!

I assigned absolutely zero value to relative rarity, I just wanted a nice type example of each coin - the best looking (highest graded) for the lowest price.

Over time I've come to appreciate "better dates." In fact, I find myself excluding the most common coins from my searches. I think it was PerryHall on another thread I just read who commented that the 1932 $10 is a historically interesting coin - the only gold coin from the 30's that is attainable for average collectors, etc. But you know what? I have become conditioned to not even look at them. Just like 1904 $20 libs, and others.

But what makes 1904 less interesting than 1903? I'm sure plenty of historic events happened. The $20 lib design was identical. I think I'd rather pay less for an equal or better coin.

There are some dates that genuinely look different of course and might be worth a premium for other reasons. But as I've gotten more and more engaged in collecting I've gotten more and more attracted to rarity. (Though I have generally still stuck to common dates). I think my collection might benefit if I go back to focusing more on eye appeal and start including 1932 $10's and 1904 $20's back into my search results.

What do you think? All other things equal, same price, would your box of 20 have the highest graded common dates, or a group of super rare clunkers?

lilolme

@Pedzola said:

What do you think? All other things equal, same price, would your box of 20 have the highest graded common dates, or a group of super rare clunkers?

Your last statement / question really takes it to an extreme. If I were doing a box of 20 I think it would probably be something in between these two. Example: The OP was about better dates and not super rare. Also if common it would not have to be the highest graded but nice otherwise with a look one likes.

ricko

My philosophy is to collect what appeals to me. That could be a combination of several features, or just one specific quality. My collection, my choices. Collectors should collect what they like. It may or may not be what others feel is important. This is a hobby for most of us, enjoy it. Cheers, RickO

Catbert

Well presented and thoughtful post.

I think there are certain coins in series where a common date is not desirable to me. For example, 1938-D Buff or a 1909-D half eagle. Yet a corresponding lower mintage coin I would consider as a bonus, but not a target for me for type purchase. The coin’s visual appeal is primary.

Walkerguy21D

** What do you think? All other things equal, same price, would your box of 20 have the highest graded common dates, or a group of super rare clunkers?**

Agree with @lilolme; somewhere in between.

If choosing one walker, an uber common late date in 67, a 21D in VF, or a 16P or D in 63 would all be in the same ballpark price.
Go for the 1916. They come well struck, with satiny luster, and are scarce and desirable enough that almost every dealer at a show would be interested in it.
I’m thinking if you studied most series, you could find similar examples.

Pedzola

1909-D $5 is another one I tend to filter out. I had a super nice 64+ that I sort of regret letting go.

BillJones

Rarity is only one aspect of collecting. If you are working on a set, be it a date and mint set, a variety set or a type set, you are looking for all of the coins. If you want completeness, the common pieces are as important as the rarities.

If you have infinite funds, you could fill a type set, for example, with rare coins. Since a type set is usually built with the highest grade coins you can afford within reason, that would involve some very expensive items. While you are doing that, you also need to bear in mind that there are some type coins which are represented by nothing but rare coins, which are expensive. For example you need a 1796-7 half dollar which will cost you $30,000 + in Good condition (Grey Sheet numbers). The better grade coins will be much higher. If you blow your budget on key date coins to represent the common types, you won’t have the money for the “keys” in the type set.

When I was dealer, I saw a lot of emphasis on “key dates.” The common coins were mostly ignored. That has its dangers too because when the market over emphasizes the value of these coins, they will become overrated. I remember that the 1937-D three legged Buffalo Nickel was a hot item. I watched the price go to over $1,000 for a low end Unc. Yet, the coin is not that rare. Yes, it’s continued to increase in price, but it is really worth it compared to other items that are off collectors’ radar because “they are common?”

Someone mentioned the 1932 eagle. I have always liked that coin because it’s the only U.S. gold coin from the 1930s that most collectors can aspire to own dated in that decade. Everything is unaffordable for most collectors. Yet people look down on it because it’s common. To me it’s neat because it was made at a time when people might have viewed $10 as “a fortune.” The country and the world were in big trouble, and here is an attractive survivor of that unfortunate era. For that reason, it’s in my collection.

WAYNEAS

Me being a modern Kennedy collector, I go with the "best grade" that I can afford for my sets.
I will wait for a higher, graded coin than to just fill a slot.
I enjoy the hunt especially when seeking the Kennedy varieties.
Wayne

PerryHall

I like slightly better date US gold coins that trade at common date prices.

BillJones

Rarity is only one aspect of collecting. If you are working on a set, be it a date and mint set, a variety set or a type set, you are looking for all of the coins. If you want completeness, the common pieces are as important as the rarities.

If you have infinite funds, you could fill a type set, for example, with rare coins. Since a type set is usually built with the highest grade coins you can afford within reason, that would involve some very expensive items. While you are doing that, you also need to bear in mind that there are some type coins which are represented by nothing but rare coins, which are expensive. For example you need a 1796-7 half dollar which will cost you $30,000 + in Good condition (Grey Sheet numbers). The better grade coins will be much higher. If you blow your budget on key date coins to represent the common types, you won’t have the money for the “keys” in the type set.

When I was dealer, I saw a lot of emphasis on “key dates.” The common coins were mostly ignored. That has its dangers too because when the market over emphasizes the value of these coins, they will become overrated. I remember that the 1937-D three legged Buffalo Nickel was a hot item. I watched the price go to over $1,000 for a low end Unc. Yet, the coin is not that rare. Yes, it’s continued to increase in price, but it is really worth it compared to other items that are off collectors’ radar because “they are common?”

Someone mentioned the 1932 eagle. I have always liked that coin because it’s the only U.S. gold coin from the 1930s that most collectors can aspire to own dated in that decade. Everything is unaffordable for most collectors. Yet people look down on it because it’s common. To me it’s neat because it was made at a time when people might have viewed $10 as “a fortune.” The country and the world were in big trouble, and here is an attractive survivor of that unfortunate era. For that reason, it’s in my collection.

pcgscacgold

If a less common is close in price to a common I go for that one. For the $2.50 Liberty I selected a 1901 66CAC because there are only 5 CAC higher for the date and the price is very similar to other years with 25-35 CAC higher. With the Saint I selected a 1928 66+CAC. There are only 300 CAC at 66 where as other dates are over 700.

In the end I buy the best looking coin I can find. I will say I hold common date coins to a higher standard. I have looked at many 1904 65/65+CAC $20 Liberty's and passed on all of them. Same with the 1932 $10. Maybe some don't agree with that but that's ok. Every coin needs a home.

Fraz

I see “better date”, and admit that it seems subjective to me; does the term refer to rarity?
Does it refer to rarity, exclusively?

Catbert

I think it does.

jmlanzaf

There are as many ways to collect as there are collectors. That said...a type set of lower grade, better date coins undermines one of the real advantages of type set collecting: you don't have to shell out for the keys. Personally, I would buy the nicest looking example of the type that I could afford.

pursuitofliberty

Except for your closing statement, I liked your premise and thoughts. Like others mentioned the question at the end is a little extreme.

Better date is also a difficult premise to value (and therefore afford) compared to common. How much better? Common date Type 1 SLQ, or 1916?

Also, how much better (or lower) grade?

Using a series I am familiar with so I know the prices are similar in the real world ... would I rather have a most common (r.1) 1835 Capped Bust Half in MS63 ... or a more difficult (r.3) 1817 in AU55? Well, of course that depends on the coin, but generally I'll take the better date n that case.

If that would make my box either a box of Choice/Gem most common dates, or a box of Choice AU/Unc noticeably more difficult dates, I'd take the later, in almost all cases.

But make that the difference between box of scraggly VF30's and pristine AU55's, or not quite original EF45's and mostly or wholly original MS63's and the question become more difficult.

PerryHall

@Fraz said:
I see “better date”, and admit that it seems subjective to me; does the term refer to rarity?
Does it refer to rarity, exclusively?

Normally, it refers to a rarer date but it can refer to a rarer design type.

Nysoto

Better dates are more of a challenge. In some cases, they can increase in value more than common dates if the series gets increasing interest. In the 25+ years I have collected early half dollars, I have seen 1803 and 1805 become more valuable than 1806 and 1807.

I have a few early mint sets in work, the 1801 is complete with a couple of expected upgrades. All of the 1801 denominations are better dates or semi-keys (except the $10!), and it was very satisfying to complete the 1801 mint set. The 1801 half dime is PCGS VF30 pop 2/28 for the date, very tough. I am working on an 1803 mint set with gold, which is also very challenging because of the the better dates.

FranklinHalfAddict

My main reason reason for collecting coins is the aesthetics of them.
Therefore I’ll take the more affordable and eye appealing coin almost every single time.

Vetter

My collecting style is better/key dates only. It makes it easier for me to focus and not get distracted by the more common better grade coins. I’m not saying this is right, it’s just my way of collecting. Everyone is different. As an example - Lincoln Cents. I have the 09 s vdb, 22 no d, 55 ddo and the 72 ddo. That’s it I’m done. It’s the same with other series to me. I have upgraded a few but no commons for me.

lkenefic

I think it depends on your approach to your Box of 20... it's as individual as each collector.

For my 7070, I'm buying the best coin I can afford, within reason, and still finish the set with a cohesive "look". I'm shooting for grades mainly in the XF to AU range with a few MS pieces for the more contemporary issues.

Im halfway through a Box of 20. My collecting goals for this "set" is just "Interesting" coins as an extension of my basic type set... so I have a few 18th Century pieces, I'm doing gold by denomination but I'm also including California fractionals, and I have a couple of Hard Times Tokens as well... an eclectic bunch.

asheland

Eye appeal first and foremost to me, but I also can appreciate rarity.
Regardless they have to have a nice, original look.

I tend to stay away from the super common stuff, unless they look like this:

Or this, another “common date”

But recently I picked up a key date that appealed to me:

I usually however go for looks:

For me, to sum it up, I just buy what I like. The collecting has been a LOT of fun lately and I’m nowhere near done with it!

jmlanzaf

@PerryHall said:

@Fraz said:
I see “better date”, and admit that it seems subjective to me; does the term refer to rarity?
Does it refer to rarity, exclusively?

Normally, it refers to a rarer date but it can refer to a rarer design type.

It can't really refer to a rarer design type for a type set, can it? Or are you referring to die varieties?

jkrk

When I started buying DE's, I only wanted pre 33 gold proxies. I mainly bought 1904 MS62's for $100-200 over spot (2012)

As the years went by, The market weakened, and I decided to pick up slightly less common DE's at the same $100-$200 above spot. However, a close proximity to gold was the key.

Now, I'm 10 years in and while maintaining most of my discipline, I 've gone a bit to the dark side. I have bought 15-20) rarer dates or high grade coins (larger premium to gold... not super large).

My only hope, this isn't a sickness and this insanity will end before it costs real money.

ElmerFusterpuck

If I'm going for type, I do tend go for the "better" dates if they happen to be available. Long ago when gold was cheap, I managed to get this AU-53 1880 $20 gold for around $500 in an NGC fatty. That was about the same price for the common dates at the time, in low MS or higher AU. The 1880 hardly ever shows up for sale due to the fairly low mintage.

asheland

@ElmerFusterpuck said:
If I'm going for type, I do tend go for the "better" dates if they happen to be available. Long ago when gold was cheap, I managed to get this AU-53 1880 $20 gold for around $500 in an NGC fatty. That was about the same price for the common dates at the time, in low MS or higher AU. The 1880 hardly ever shows up for sale due to the fairly low mintage.

Nice pick up!

Walkerfan

I buy all the keys, in the highest grades that I can afford, for all the series I am interested in.

PerryHall

@jmlanzaf said:

@PerryHall said:

@Fraz said:
I see “better date”, and admit that it seems subjective to me; does the term refer to rarity?
Does it refer to rarity, exclusively?

Normally, it refers to a rarer date but it can refer to a rarer design type.

It can't really refer to a rarer design type for a type set, can it? Or are you referring to die varieties?

As an example, if you are putting together a 12 piece US gold type set, I would consider the Type 2 G$1 and the G$3 to be the key type coins. If you are putting together the 50 piece classic silver commemorative type set, the 1928 Hawaiian half dollar would be the key type coin.

Elcontador

A distinction should be made between a better date and a truly rare coin. Ie., the 1916 SLQ only has a mintage of 52,000, but there are very easy to find in virtually all grades.

lermish

@Elcontador said:
A distinction should be made between a better date and a truly rare coin. Ie., the 1916 SLQ only has a mintage of 52,000, but there are very easy to find in virtually all grades.

Totally agreed. My vote (obvious as a predominantly type collector) is to buy the best quality (or most appealing in some cases, depending on personal preference).

The vast majority of coins, even in key dates, are very easy to find almost immediately. They may be more expensive but not hard to find. So to try to differentiate between the most common date and a slightly better date or a key date doesn't make any sense to me unless trying to match a theme in the set or personal taste/significance.

MasonG

Buy what you like. Or, if your collection is intended to be an investment, buy what other people like.

breakdown

I like to put sets together and that means either by date or when I did Walkers and Buffalos, full sets. So I had to find a 26-S Buffalo that could fit in my set and I had to find a 19-D Walker that fit in my set.
For type sets, I would not use a uber common example like the 38-D Buffalo, but that's just me. Plenty of people do and I think it's perfectly fine. There are a ton of very attractive 38-D Buffalos.

Barberian

My type set is not a priority set for me. I use my 7070 as a fancy dumping place for all sorts of coins - coins my grandfather found in his garden, a seated dime I found in a lake in shallow water, my best coins found hunting through rolls, memorable junk box picks, my best error coin (large cud on Lincoln cent), and other coins of series I picked up years ago just to have an example. I don't worry about the quality of personally significant coins. Dug coins have environmental damage. The coins I do purchase for the set are nice VF-XF

That said, I like the nice, mid-grade 'better date' coin idea rather than bothering with high grade common coins. I think that would hold another collector's interest better than higher grade common coins.

semikeycollector

@Vetter said:
My collecting style is better/key dates only. It makes it easier for me to focus and not get distracted by the more common better grade coins. I’m not saying this is right, it’s just my way of collecting. Everyone is different. As an example - Lincoln Cents. I have the 09 s vdb, 22 no d, 55 ddo and the 72 ddo. That’s it I’m done. It’s the same with other series to me. I have upgraded a few but no commons for me.

vetter,
Love your 16/16 Buffalo. My collection theme now matches yours. I'm getting into Liberty $5 gold. I can't afford the rarest dates, but only collect the rarest dates, that I can afford. If the collection is only 8 coins, I'm fine with it. I seems to be focusing on Civil war and the Reconstruction dates. There are several dates with only 50 or 60 known and I have a few of those, with only about 8-12 finer graded at PCGS. For gold I like AU-50 to 55 as AU-58 and MS-60 or better get extremely expensive.

semikeycollector

@ElmerFusterpuck said:
If I'm going for type, I do tend go for the "better" dates if they happen to be available. Long ago when gold was cheap, I managed to get this AU-53 1880 $20 gold for around $500 in an NGC fatty. That was about the same price for the common dates at the time, in low MS or higher AU. The 1880 hardly ever shows up for sale due to the fairly low mintage.

A very good date and attractive $20! Quite rare in BU.

winesteven

I think we all agree there’s no right or wrong, it’s purely a subjective decision.

With that said, for a Type Set, my decision was to go for the most eye appealing coin I could afford, which typically means I get one of the common dates in a higher grade than a tougher date in a lower grade.

Steve

DisneyFan

Commemoratives provide an interesting better date vs. better grade challenge. There are 16 Boones to choose from for the 50 coin type set. The 1937 has the highest population and the PCGS price guide puts a MS67 with a population of 134+26 at $675. The "key" to the group is the 1934/5-S with a MS66 population of 135+3 for $900. The sleeper to this group is a MS66 1935-D with a population of 126+6 at $360. The respective CAC populations are 56, 41, & 28. Most type collectors would go for the MS67 1937.

daltex

@Pedzola said:

What do you think? All other things equal, same price, would your box of 20 have the highest graded common dates, or a group of super rare clunkers?

Unless the coin is really super rare, like R7 and up, I'm not interested in "clunkers". I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but I'd rather have an attractive Good than an ugly VF. I'm interested in coins that are "all there" for the grade but not "just made it" coins.

Zoins

@Pedzola said:
What do you think? All other things equal, same price, would your box of 20 have the highest graded common dates, or a group of super rare clunkers?

Eye appeal is very important.

Pedzola

People seem to have a lot of objections on my thought experiment at the end of my post. It was meant to be "extreme" - I'm not asking if people would take the rarer coin in the same grade. But perhaps I could have been more descriptive than "clunker."

For example, if I need a $5 indian for my type set, and I am going to get a nice-for-the-grade CAC coin, the CAC price guide is....

1909-D in 64 for $3060
1916-S in 62 for $3460
1909-O in 30 for $7500 (the lowest cac example closest in price)

And of course there are other dates and price variations, but to explain my "clunker" remark.... An MS64 coin is clearly a nicer type example than a VF30 of the same design, cac or not. The same holds for a 62 vs a 64, though they obviously should be much closer.

So do you value rarity or preservation? I am not saying that a VF30 coin can't be nice for the grade or eye appealing. But it's certainly a trade-off.

So to clarify, when I said "clunkers" I just meant much lower graded coins of increased rarity for ostensibly the same or higher cost than higher graded more common coins.

Would you take the "better date" 16-S, the "key" 09-O, or stick with the readily available 09-D?

winesteven

@DisneyFan said:
Commemoratives provide an interesting better date vs. better grade challenge. There are 16 Boones to choose from for the 50 coin type set. The 1937 has the highest population and the PCGS price guide puts a MS67 with a population of 134+26 at $675. The "key" to the group is the 1934/5-S with a MS66 population of 135+3 for $900. The sleeper to this group is a MS66 1935-D with a population of 126+6 at $360. The respective CAC populations are 56, 41, & 28. Most type collectors would go for the MS67 1937.

I like your analysis! While my comment above indicates I typically go for the most eye appealing coin I could afford, which typically means I get one of the common dates in a higher grade than a tougher date in a lower grade, for my 50 coin Silver Commem Type Set, here’s how it worked out for my Boone coin:

I came across the below 1936-S, which had the eye appeal that I really like in 20th Century silver (as does @ricko). In 67, you can see the PCGS pricing and Pop numbers are tougher than the most common coin, the 1937: $900, 89+11, CAC Pop 33. So even though I could have waited for a lower priced 67 (such as the 1937), I chose to grab the below coin because it was available in the grade I wanted, and was affordable! Here’s a quirk - the CAC retail Price Report has the “easier” 1937 with higher PCGS and CAC pops at $1,230, and the 1936 with lower PCGS and CAC pops at only $1,150!

Steve

pcgscacgold

I don't think I would go after a 30 for my type set. I will say I could see paying $20,000 for a $5 1909-O in AU before I would pay $15,000 for a 62/63 1911-D $2.50 Indian. There are over a thousand of 11-D's out there.

Walkerguy21D

** Would you take the "better date" 16-S, the "key" 09-O, or stick with the readily available 09-D?**

Using my walker analogy posted previously, the 16S is the choice I’d make.
Given the busy incuse design on this particular coin, I don’t think there’s that much difference in the eye appeal of the average 62 vs 64. A choice 62 may be every bit as appealing as a marginal 64. But I don’t know the series that well.

Catbert

I own type in most grade levels and don’t value that coins must be somewhat consistent between grade levels. They are in individual slabs not in an album. There are some great eye appealing coins at all levels. So with that in mind, I try to identify coins that stir something in me and not what someone else dictates as to boundaries.

breakdown

To oversimplify, there are type collectors and there are series collectors. A pure type collector is likely focused on eye appeal and looking for the nicest example for each type and not focused on individual dates within a series. A pure series collector is likely focused on key dates/better dates.

I have a type set but it is a lower priority because I am a series collector. My OCD means I want to fill every gap, just like I did as a kid when I had Whitmans of Lincoln cents, Buffalo nickels, etc.

JBN

I am a series collector. For my hypothetical box of 20, I would have a mix, but likely more of the clunkers (as you define them). For me as a series collector, it is about taking advantage of the opportunity to acquire a coin.

lkenefic

@MasonG said:
Buy what you like. Or, if your collection is intended to be an investment, buy what other people like.

That's about the best way of putting it I've ever seen...

jesbroken

I think the history of the coin comes into play. Several coins have a truly interesting history as to their creation methods and/or why they were made that would determine to me as to be an addition to the box, then also the rarity and expense factor might/would determine the grade level of the coin. So, no definitive answer for me.
Jim

ShaunBC5

I prefer better dates/types/varieties.
I’ve bought a few VFs and Gs for money that would have provided some very pretty common coins. That’s not to say so don’t have some really pretty common coins, but I have sought out some better dates and sacrificed “quality” to have examples that aren’t as common.
If presented with a higher grade common and a lower grade “rare” coin (with at least some level of eye appeal for its grade) at similar, market-appropriate prices I would most likely take the lower grade coin.

DisneyFan

@winesteven said:

I came across the below 1936-S, which had the eye appeal that I really like in 20th Century silver (as does @ricko). In 67, you can see the PCGS pricing and Pop numbers are tougher than the most common coin, the 1937: $900, 89+11, CAC Pop 33. So even though I could have waited for a lower priced 67 (such as the 1937), I chose to grab the below coin because it was available in the grade I wanted, and was affordable! Here’s a quirk - the CAC retail Price Report has the “easier” 1937 with higher PCGS and CAC pops at $1,230, and the 1936-S with lower PCGS and CAC pops at only $1,150!

Steve

Nice pick with the 1936-S. There are pricing irregularities among the commemoratives.

If you are up for a new challenge after your Eagle Eye CAC set, begin to upgrade your 50 coin set with the lowest population PCGS/CAC coin for each type coin. It's not always the most expensive one as you saw with the 1935-D Boone.

winesteven

Ugh! Thanks for the suggestion, but I’m tired after the thrill of putting this unique IHC set together. In the meantime, I’m using my energy to put together an Educational Exhibit based around my IHC Registry set for Winter FUN 2023 in January. After that, we’ll see.

Steve

HoledandCreative

I prefer rare clunkers with nice details if possible.