There is no pendulum. 1950-D nickel has no relevance to this thread. It was speculation due to a communication limitation where speculators presumably thought the coin was scarce when it wasn't. That's never going to happen with any US circulating coin again as a date/MM. I remember it with the Wisconsin SQ too but that didn't last either.
You don't believe in cycles?!!!
How else can a coin with a mintage over 2 1/2 million be "rare" in 1964 and fewer than "10" known D/D's flood the market in 2022?
Sure there was a huge market for '50-D nickels and little market for the D/ D dime but then everything in reality is cyclical just like a pendulum. There is nothing new under the sun only cycles and the annual journey around the sun.
Not in the context you do for coin collecting, as there is no evidence of it anywhere. Since I have been collecting starting in 1975, I'm not aware of single US series which has been overtaken by another one. If it happened, it's not between two that compete directly.
I explained this to you many times. It's due to collectors then and now preferring the same attributes essentially identically: design, size, metal content, and relative scarcity. With most 20th century US coinage, the difference in scarcity between post-1933 classics and moderns isn't relevant to most collectors because none of these coins are actually scarce. The scarcity described in this thread is irrelevant to over 99% of the collector base, except collecting it at or near FV.
Sure there was a huge market for '50-D nickels and little market for the D/ D dime but then everything in reality is cyclical just like a pendulum. There is nothing new under the sun only cycles and the annual journey around the sun.
>
Once again, the 50-D nickel was a bubble. The closest recurrence with any US modern to my recollection has been with errors such as the Wisconsin Leaf SQ. Look at its price now versus the peak.
The real question is, what's going to make anyone want this 71-D dime that badly? I gave you the only reason that makes any sense, inclusion in registry sets, price guides like the Red Book, and maybe coin folders.
I explained this to you many times. It's due to collectors then and now preferring the same attributes essentially identically: design, size, metal content, and relative scarcity. With most 20th century US coinage, the difference in scarcity between post-1933 classics and moderns isn't relevant to most collectors because none of these coins are actually scarce. The scarcity described in this thread is irrelevant to over 99% of the collector base, except collecting it at or near FV.
As I've pointed out many times things have been very static since 1975. This is caused by demographics and macroeconomic events. The coin crash of 1964 wiped out the modern coin market which was beginning to become the largest segment of the hobby. All those BU rolls of 1955 dimes suddenly weren't worth as much any longer and some coins crashed to face value where they still are today. Try selling a typical roll of 1964-D pennies if you don't believe it.
When this market crashed many of the participants were lost forever as coin collectors. Some came back in the '90's.
Collectors were a very homogenous group in manty ways. The oldest are long gone but their bust half collections are still highly prized albeit split up.
There were changes between '65 and '75. Be this as it may there certainly have been changes since 1975 that you might not have noticed due to inexperience. For instance bust coins were the epitome of collecting in 1975. Collectors were not at all condition conscious and few collectors would pay a premium for a Gem '16-D dime over a nice ch BU specimen. Certainly nicer coins and those that were nice and attractive often sold for a little more.
Many advanced collectors focused mostly on ancient coins.
In 1976 Morgans began taking over everything and are still # 1. Morgans routinely sold for 25% premiums in Gem and spectacular specimens might get even more. Then in the '80's later coins in high grade like standers, walkers, and mercs soared in value to approach even the Morgans. Gem walkers increase many fold. In the '90's classic coins crashed so hard it seemed the market might never come back but they were rescued by new interest in moderns in mid-decade. During this time even trophy coins were starting to suffer a bit.
The introduction of the states coins revitalized the hobby and collectors with many returning from 1965 and many many young people coming aboard.
Life is change. Collecting is change. What collectors seek changes. This will become much more apparent over the next several years as baby boomers sell off their lifetime accumulations. Among these coins they sell will be millions of bust coins and a mere handful of D/ D dimes. This is the nature of reality; rare coins are rare by definition.
Today ancients are virtually ignored by the hobby.
The real question is, what's going to make anyone want this 71-D dime that badly? I gave you the only reason that makes any sense, inclusion in registry sets, price guides like the Red Book, and maybe coin folders.
Everybody does not listen to what others tell them to collect. Even more people listen and then do as they please. There are individuals who will make a place in their sets even if the coin is ignored otherwise. I wager there are enough of them to create competition for a handful of scarcities.
There were changes between '65 and '75. Be this as it may there certainly have been changes since 1975 that you might not have noticed due to inexperience. For instance bust coins were the epitome of collecting in 1975. Collectors were not at all condition conscious and few collectors would pay a premium for a Gem '16-D dime over a nice ch BU specimen. Certainly nicer coins and those that were nice and attractive often sold for a little more.
The primary focus of your reply, the change to "condition conscious" is a generic change in US collecting due to TPG. It's one of multiple generic changes I provided to you in post exchanges back in 2013. It has nothing to do with 71-D dime die varieties, US moderns, or any specific coin or series.
Bust coins have essentially the same collector preference in 1975 as now, at minimum. It's certainly not lower. Same for Morgan dollars. That's the point.
The aging of the collector base and collector age - your usage of demographics - is irrelevant to collector preferences. There is no evidence that collectors have a pre-disposition to prefer any coin or series due to their age. There is no evidence that collectors have any pre-disposition to prefer their circulating change which is an implied claim you have been making since we first discussed this subject. Outside of key dates, they didn't prefer their circulating change in the 1960's either, as is evident by relative prices, as mass collecting at or near FV doesn't demonstrate an actual preference. It's a financial limitation..
@cladking said:
There are individuals who will make a place in their sets even if the coin is ignored otherwise. I wager there are enough of them to create competition for a handful of scarcities.
I' presume someone is doing that now and never said otherwise. As for competition which drives prices, the reason I gave you is the most likely one for it.
The primary focus of your reply, the change to "condition conscious" is a generic change in US collecting due to TPG.
No, it isn't. The importance of condition increased all through the 70's but didn't affect any coins other than mercs, standers, walkers, and Morgans until the '90's. There were no premiums for most Gems in the '80's. Sure you could get a few bucks for FS nickels and nice coins often brought a small premium but collectors had free reign across the markets to acquire Gems almost up to 2000.
It's one of multiple generic changes I provided to you in post exchanges back in 2013. It has nothing to do with 71-D dime die varieties, US moderns, or any specific coin or series.
I believe the chief cause was that the mint stopped making rarities in 1934 when someone offered to buy the entire output of 1931 S cents. Without rare coins collectors started seeking rare grades and rare varieties like the D/ D.
Bust coins have essentially the same collector preference in 1975 as now, at minimum. It's certainly not lower. Same for Morgan dollars. That's the point.
In the late '80's there were five Morgan "collectors" for every bust collector. Now it's closer to 2: 1 I believe.
The aging of the collector base and collector age - your usage of demographics - is irrelevant to collector preferences.
People are a product of their time and place. People from different times are different.
I' presume someone is doing that now and never said otherwise. As for competition which drives prices, the reason I gave you is the most likely one for it.
If more individuals seek the coin than there are coins the prices increases. Rare coins don't need as much demand as common coins to increase in price. Because they are rare the competition can become fierce.
I believe the chief cause was that the mint stopped making rarities in 1934 when someone offered to buy the entire output of 1931 S cents. Without rare coins collectors started seeking rare grades and rare varieties like the D/ D.
I agree with you that collectors look for die varieties and other similar coins for the reason you give, but that's predominantly the same type of collecting as in the 60's. Nothing wrong with it but hardly any of them are going to pay more than FV, just as they wouldn't back then.
In the late '80's there were five Morgan "collectors" for every bust collector. Now it's closer to 2: 1 I believe.
The relative preference between these two series, measured by how collectors spend their money, is a lot bigger than 2:1. That's what the Heritage archives show.
People are a product of their time and place. People from different times are different.
Look at how people spend their money. That's how I come to my conclusions. The data proves that your belief is not correct because if it was, collectors would spend their money differently than they actually do. It's not like collectors can't buy most US coins because over 95% are available most of the time, usually right now.
The Heritage archives cover close to 30 years now. I can't segment this data within the archive history without a lot of manual work but it's presumably reasonably representative of how US collectors spend their money and therefore, relative preferences.
I agree with you that collectors look for die varieties and other similar coins for the reason you give, but that's predominantly the same type of collecting as in the 60's. Nothing wrong with it but hardly any of them are going to pay more than FV, just as they wouldn't back then.
They are paying for Gems and varieties. Wholesalers are increasingly having trouble keeping nice chBU retail friendly clads of all dates in stock. Right now this applies mostly to half dollars and dollars as well as '65- '67 and '82 - '83 issues. At any given time most retailers are out of most of these coins. Ikes are wholesaling at $4 in chBU.
The very common '68 DDO dime that shows up in 2% of mint sets are being sold between 40 and $130. The far more common '70-S cent wholesales at $40.
There are no '71-D/ D dimes listed but this is because they are so scarce. Not being for sale right now does not make a coin to be worth only face value.
The Heritage archives cover close to 30 years now. I can't segment this data within the archive history without a lot of manual work but it's presumably reasonably representative of how US collectors spend their money and therefore, relative preferences.
I am well aware of collectors preferences and how they evolve. In the 1890's most civil war tokens were worth more than almost any large cent in Unc. In 1975 I couldn't get 10c for a 1970 nickel I sold at auction a couple years for more than $2500.
I believe you are still living in the 1970's which in coin collecting is a subset of the 1960's just as the '80's and '90's are a subset of the '60's. Coin collecting was very static for 50 years but it is no longer.
@privatecoin said:
Damn.... no luck on the 71 d/d....
It's a tyranny of numbers with scarce coins. Your odds were pretty poor.
But if there had been one your odds of there being another one or two were very very high. These sets left the mint in batches of "five" and orders were filled by zip code. The Gems and varieties bunch up because the odds of consecutive strikes from the same die are much higher in a group of five and even in sets from the same zip code.
In other words even though the first set you opened was, perhaps, a one in a thousand chance if it were the D/ D then each subsequent set (Shrodingers' mint box?) probably had a better than 1 in 50 shot.
Chasing down moderns is a lot of fun whether you are looking for raw coins or are willing to spend $2500 for them.
Generally speaking if you have a grouping of "30" random 1965 to 1985 mint set there will be one winner. This winner may or may not have a substantial current value and it requires a little experience to spot it most of the time.
Unfortunately, pop tops are much scarcer than this. Frequently the "winner" will be one or two grades off.
You never know when they will appear and when you'll run into sets that were cherried from larger groupings.
I am well aware of collectors preferences and how they evolve. In the 1890's most civil war tokens were worth more than almost any large cent in Unc. In 1975 I couldn't get 10c for a 1970 nickel I sold at auction a couple years for more than $2500.
No, you aren't, because if you were, you'd never write what you have in response to my posts, now or previously.
Your example of the 1970 nickel has no relevance with your claims in this thread. It's entirely the result of a generic preference created by TPG.
Tokens vs. large cents? That's somewhat different but it's obvious that coin collecting has left token collecting in the dust. Will this reverse? Impossible to prove, but whether it does or not is also irrelevant to your claims, as this 71-D dime has no similarity
I believe you are still living in the 1970's which in coin collecting is a subset of the 1960's just as the '80's and '90's are a subset of the '60's. Coin collecting was very static for 50 years but it is no longer.
Yes, you've told me something similar in the past and it's really amusing. You tell me this, yet you're expecting a return to 1960's mass set collecting at a much bigger scale at much higher prices, despite all evidence contradicting this belief.
Your example of the 1970 nickel has no relevance with your claims in this thread. It's entirely the result of a generic preference created by TPG.
Much of what you say is essentially true but simply is a poor perspective for seeing the reality of the coin market and the changes that accumulate over years or transpire relatively suddenly. Since it is a poor perspective it is highly misleading.
Collectors were starting to chase high grade moderns and the like around 1975. At that time it was mostly just FS nickels as this specific 1970 coin was. By 1980 demand was starting to show up for other rarities such as 1976 Type I Ikes in very high grade. There were offers for as much as $10,000 for one of these in MS-67. I believe such a coin has still never been graded and would bring more today.
You believe the services created the demand but if memory serves PCGS wasn't founded until 1986 and they refused to grade moderns until 1996. If anything the services have probably stifled demand because their existence so greatly complicates pricing of moderns and it is largely that lack of realistic pricing that reduces demand. Their existence also has led most established collectors to believe that all modern are common in high grade and that higher prices will simply bring out more supply. It is obscured the fact that no modern is truly common in nice attractive Gem condition of the sort most Barber coins began their existence. People don't realize there aren't rolls and bags of these coins that opportunists are searching to find specimens to fleece the newbies after being graded. They don't realize that if there were rolls and bags to check virtually all of them would be banged up coins made by worn tired dies that were never set properly from the beginning.
This is all as true as anything you've posted and, I believe, is a better perspective because it suggests that even if much demand never materializes then rarities like the D/ D are likely to sport far higher price tags anyway.
Collectors collect. It's what we do and if anyone wants to collect a D/ D it's going to require some effort and this effort constitutes what is called "demand".
How can $2500 for a modern nickel not be relevant or is this a case of your belief that moderns don't have "meaningful value"?
Tokens vs. large cents? That's somewhat different but it's obvious that coin collecting has left token collecting in the dust. Will this reverse? Impossible to prove, but whether it does or not is also irrelevant to your claims, as this 71-D dime has no similarity
Of course countless millions of large cents were made but you take their current value as a given and can't imagine that this price is dependent of a great deal of demand. Large cents were underpriced in the 1890's, especially relative to civil war tokens, and they are most assuredly overpriced today compared to some coin, token, or medal. Perhaps one of the coins they are overpriced in comparison with is the '71- D/ D. We're talking about a mintage under a hundred in comparison to a series produced in the tens of millions that is too expensive for most collectors even in VF condition.
I think you do math funny.
Yes, you've told me something similar in the past and it's really amusing. You tell me this, yet you're expecting a return to 1960's mass set collecting at a much bigger scale at much higher prices, despite all evidence contradicting this belief.
Again, this is true. But the difference is that I am fully aware that collectors might not ever collect this way again whereas you seem to discount the possibility that rare moderns will ever have any demand at all. You seem to forget that collectors collect and rare coins are hard to find. This is why we call them "rare".
You might be interested to see just how many folders and albums for moderns are sold each year. I assure you it is far higher than the number of '71-D/ D's or the number of Gem '70 nickels w/ FS.
@Coinscratch said:
Interesting feed. I’m just going with the old adage, history repeats itself.
And once that happens I hope to be sitting flush in high grade moderns.
I have 16 1971 sets but no d/d. Also realized that I have over 275 sets and need to unload.
There's nothing new under the sun so history has no choice but to repeat over and over again.
Catching up on a few threads here on the Coin Forum …
Question 1…. CK: how did you conclude these 71 D/D dimes were from 1971 mint sets and not from BU 1971-D dime rolls?
Oh.
I made the rolls myself in most all instances.
You can tell the difference between original rolls and mint set rolls anyway. Mint set coins are struck by new dies under higher pressure. There is a no chance of a roll having all well struck coins. Even if such a roll were possible there were almost no rolls at all saved. They are very scarce.
Then there is the fact that dimes made for circulation were struck by dies that produced upward of 400,000 coins. This is a naked eye variety so it would have been discovered almost immediately in 1971 if it appeared in circulation. The odds are vastly against just a few coins appearing in mint sets AND just a few in circulation. While mint set dies were often repurposed to make circulation issues they would not have made only a few.
This variety was most probably spotted very early and the coins destroyed but not before a few got away (in mint sets).
I'm sure I'm pretty lucky to have found so choice a specimen. I will get back to this thread eventually with an estimate of the incidence but I have too small a sample size to contradict James Wiles who says it is "rare".
I've gone through many bags and rolls of clads over the years but generally didn't save many coins. I tried to save the nicest coin from each die pair but only saved rolls when they were very choice. This simply has been unusual.
Again, this is true. But the difference is that I am fully aware that collectors might not ever collect this way again whereas you seem to discount the possibility that rare moderns will ever have any demand at all. You seem to forget that collectors collect and rare coins are hard to find. This is why we call them "rare".
I never claimed this coinage won't be collected. I told you in this thread (multiple times) that if demand increases, it will most likely be due to registry sets, inclusion in price guides, and inclusion in folders.
Collectors were starting to chase high grade moderns and the like around 1975. At that time it was mostly just FS nickels as this specific 1970 coin was. By 1980 demand was starting to show up for other rarities such as 1976 Type I Ikes in very high grade. There were offers for as much as $10,000 for one of these in MS-67. I believe such a coin has still never been graded and would bring more today.
Most (not all) of the price increase is still tied to the perceived quality. Are you telling me that US moderns were the only coins where this happened during this period? It didn't happen with any other US coinage?
You believe the services created the demand but if memory serves PCGS wasn't founded until 1986 and they refused to grade moderns until 1996. If anything the services have probably stifled demand because their existence so greatly complicates pricing of moderns and it is largely that lack of realistic pricing that reduces demand. Their existence also has led most established collectors to believe that all modern are common in high grade and that higher prices will simply bring out more supply. It is obscured the fact that no modern is truly common in nice attractive Gem condition of the sort most Barber coins began their existence. People don't realize there aren't rolls and bags of these coins that opportunists are searching to find specimens to fleece the newbies after being graded. They don't realize that if there were rolls and bags to check virtually all of them would be banged up coins made by worn tired dies that were never set properly from the beginning.
For US moderns generally, I absolutely believe TPG created demand for all high-grade coinage because that's exactly what the evidence shows. It did the same thing for US coins generally.
The reason collectors haven't paid the prices for this coinage you think it should be worth isn't due to any reason you give. It's because they would rather buy something else with their coin budget. Most of these prices are financially immaterial, equivalent or less than a nominal recreational expense. Especially since the late 90's with the internet, no one is limited to such limited choices where anyone should believe more than a very low proportion should act as you infer.
The reason collectors generally didn't and don't believe this coinage is scarce or rare is because it isn't. Grade (equivalent) rarity or rarity measured by specialization isn't a real rarity to most collectors. Enough of this coinage (and post 1933 classics) is interchangeable to them where they do not care about this minutia. This is the real reason for current and prior prices. The prices between US moderns and most post 1933 US classics isn't material either, except to you.
Going back to this 71-D dime since we have both gone totally off topic, this rarity isn't interesting enough to hardly anyone, except at nominal prices. As you can see from the comments in this thread, it's interesting to the general US collector population to find or buy at or near FV.
I'm not disputing this but that's how this type of coin is perceived by all but an immaterial number of collectors. There is no reason to expect anything else.
‘’Oh.
I made the rolls myself in most all instances.’’
I didn’t understand that from your original posting here. You are saying you created this thread to showcase a Roosie dime variety you personally found decades ago, held onto (did you find 1 or 2 or 3?) and now has turned into a rarity by virtue of how few have been found since the time of your finding- yes? If I am understanding this correctly now, it sounds like you should send your coins into PCGS, get an official coin number for the variety and then over the next few years see how many more are submitted to PCGS under the new variety number- yes?
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I didn’t understand that from your original posting here. You are saying you created this thread to showcase a Roosie dime variety you personally found decades ago, held onto (did you find 1 or 2 or 3?) and now has turned into a rarity by virtue of how few have been found since the time of your finding- yes? If I am understanding this correctly now, it sounds like you should send your coins into PCGS, get an official coin number for the variety and then over the next few years see how many more are submitted to PCGS under the new variety number- yes?
No, I don't remember seeing this one back in the day and have no idea when I got my first one. I've been selling everything for a few years now and finding some interesting stuff. Most of this stuff is just being put back into safety deposit boxes chiefly because markets have too little demand at this time and grading is so tight on moderns. The one I just found is a nice Gem (MS-65 or 66) but, of course grading on very scarce coins isn't as important.
I've found three of them now but two were found together so probably came from the same source and should be counted as one. The rolls and sets came from all over but a lot are from the Chicago area which could have been where most of these coins ended up. Mint sets don't bunch up as much as circulation issues but because many were distributed by zip code there is some of this phenomenon.
I did finish checking the rolls and in the ~800 coins there were no more. One of the rolls was apparently cherried from BU rolls so doesn't count.
It's very difficult to make an estimate of incidence from such little information. Based on my experience in light of James Wile's statements all I can commit to is that this variety represents fewer than .07% of '71-D dimes. I have to believe it's far more common than .0004% which accounts for every "known" specimen. It will never be common. It might be noted that mint set '71-D's are going into circulation in massive numbers right now and have been for decades. These simply have had no value so they get spent by collectors and dealers alike when mint sets are destroyed. In the last ten or fifteen years most of this date clads have tarnished and tarnished coins still have no value so are often spent. Most can restored but the value is too to bother for most people so the coins still go into circulation even as wholesalers are bidding for them. Every year the tarnish gets worse and the coins less able to be restored so there will continue to be a high attrition until prices come up.
Every time a couple more thousand '71 mint sets are destroyed another D/ D will go into circulation where it is unlikely to ever be recovered.
Curiously even after more than half a century there is probably still a higher attrition on '71-D dimes than there is demand. Of course for most of the decades since 1971 there wasn't really any demand at all. There certainly is now.
Most (not all) of the price increase is still tied to the perceived quality. Are you telling me that US moderns were the only coins where this happened during this period? It didn't happen with any other US coinage?
Percentage gains in low end moderns is actually higher than the gains in top end moderns the last three years. "Low end" in moderns usually translates to chBU. buyers and collectors are seeking fully lustrous coins that aren't very ugly. This mostly mean MS-63 or better but a few lower grades look good enough to make the cut.
What I can't sell is MS-60's. Nobody wants them and most that I have sold went as AU's. '65 to '67 and '82/ '83 issues can be sold in MS-60 but at a discounted price.
Back in 1980 there was extremely little market for things like Gem indian cents or most US and world coins. There were lots of people seeking them out or collecting them but there was no established market.
There were a few very dedicated collectors seeking high end Ikes and half dollars but no real market. These collectors knew they had to offer enormous premiums in order to acquire rarities. because the coins were distressingly rare. Indian cent collectors would simply walk away from premiums over 25 or 100%. There were Gem indians in the next roll or at the next coin shop. It doesn't work this way with Ikes; there might not be another Gem in the next thousand rolls. No body stocked the coins.
For US moderns generally, I absolutely believe TPG created demand for all high-grade coinage because that's exactly what the evidence shows. It did the same thing for US coins generally.
The services adversely affected the markets by introducing new demand. The markets were in their infancy even in 1996 when modern grading began largely as a result of inclusion in registry sets. Of course this was like giving the market growth hormones so prices were certainly higher initially. But the damage was in making these markets appear to be far more advanced than they actually were and this has hurt the demand for years. I was one of the biggest proponents of creation of the modern registry sets but I was wrong. What's done is done and in the long run the only effect will be a certainty that 50 or 100 of the finest moderns are still original condition inside of slabs. Some of these coins would have been lost to circulation or tarnish otherwise but in the medium term (now) the markets are less advanced than they otherwise would have been in all probability.
Gems of classic coins were already in wide demand and beginning to have defined markets when PCGS started.
The reason collectors haven't paid the prices for this coinage you think it should be worth isn't due to any reason you give. It's because they would rather buy something else with their coin budget. Most of these prices are financially immaterial, equivalent or less than a nominal recreational expense. Especially since the late 90's with the internet, no one is limited to such limited choices where anyone should believe more than a very low proportion should act as you infer.
[sigh]
I know it makes perfect sense to you that there is far more demand for older coins than for comparably scarce moderns that sell for a tiny fraction of the price. This simply has never occurred before in the short history of popular coin collecting or US coin collecting. People collected recent dated coins in the 1880's when they were much less expensive than comparable old coins. They did the same in the 1940's. In the '50's early '60's they actually preferred moderns. They even set aside large numbers of them for the future.
The reason collectors generally didn't and don't believe this coinage is scarce or rare is because it isn't.
Not all old coins are scarce and not all new coins are common.
Take a glance at the title of this very thread.
Going back to this 71-D dime since we have both gone totally off topic, this rarity isn't interesting enough to hardly anyone, except at nominal prices. As you can see from the comments in this thread, it's interesting to the general US collector population to find or buy at or near FV.
I tend to agree but then "hardly" anyone could greatly outnumber available supply.
It looks like a very nice coin though it has a mark on the observe. It's a great example of this coin and implies there are more out there. It's $42 buy it now.
Percentage gains in low end moderns is actually higher than the gains in top end moderns the last three years. "Low end" in moderns usually translates to chBU.
Yes, the price increases are higher proportionately because it's from a very low base.
What I can't sell is MS-60's. Nobody wants them and most that I have sold went as AU's. '65 to '67 and '82/ '83 issues can be sold in MS-60 but at a discounted price.
Yes, because collectors mostly do not like these coins and the price variances with noticeably better coins are immaterial.
Back in 1980 there was extremely little market for things like Gem indian cents or most US and world coins. There were lots of people seeking them out or collecting them but there was no established market.
There were a few very dedicated collectors seeking high end Ikes and half dollars but no real market. These collectors knew they had to offer enormous premiums in order to acquire rarities. because the coins were distressingly rare. Indian cent collectors would simply walk away from premiums over 25 or 100%. There were Gem indians in the next roll or at the next coin shop. It doesn't work this way with Ikes; there might not be another Gem in the next thousand rolls. No body stocked the coins.
Yes, because TPG was the driving factor behind the increased demand for both.
The services adversely affected the markets by introducing new demand. The markets were in their infancy even in 1996 when modern grading began largely as a result of inclusion in registry sets. Of course this was like giving the market growth hormones so prices were certainly higher initially. But the damage was in making these markets appear to be far more advanced than they actually were and this has hurt the demand for years. I was one of the biggest proponents of creation of the modern registry sets but I was wrong.
You see the sentence I highlighted in bold? It's a contradiction. New demand means higher prices, always. It never means lower prices. The only correct claim in this extract is you admitting being wrong.
I know it makes perfect sense to you that there is far more demand for older coins than for comparably scarce moderns that sell for a tiny fraction of the price. This simply has never occurred before in the short history of popular coin collecting or US coin collecting. People collected recent dated coins in the 1880's when they were much less expensive than comparable old coins. They did the same in the 1940's. In the '50's early '60's they actually preferred moderns. They even set aside large numbers of them for the future.
The only reason you find this outcome confusing is because you still do not understand collector motivation and the factors which drive preferences. You assume premises which contradict aggregate collector behavior and since the result isn't what you think it should be, you claim it's an aberration or unusual.
First, collectors don't prefer older coins just because the coin no longer circulates. This reason is way down the list.
Second, some collector preferences are brought into collecting from the broader culture and others are internal to collecting. You completely ignore it. Aside from the price differences between earlier and later Jefferson nickels, this is the actual explanation, not anything you claim.
Third, your claim that collectors haven't collected this coinage since inception is flat out wrong. The market price is just a lot less than you insist it should be worth. Look at US MInt sales history and the TPG populations. The coins have been set aside in "large number", just lower (up to 1998) than post 1933 classics but certainly in far higher number and proportion than pre-1933.
Fourth, material price differences between post-1933 classics and US moderns exist primarily on (near) condition census coins but are otherwise financially immaterial. All of these coins are common, except due to grade or specialization which most collectors don't consider an actual scarcity.
Fifth, collectors didn't prefer more recent classics in the 50's and 60's over prior coinage. as predominantly collecting at FV isn't an actual preference. It's a financial limitation or casual collecting like CRH or "cherry pickers" today. The only exception was with actual key dates and I have already provided my explanation for it.
Lastly, current quality preferences and emphasis on specialization didn't exist at the time. Almost no one would have paid any meaningful price for the rarity you describe. To the extent it occurred with die varieties, it was presumably mostly because of inclusion in price guides. I've seen the same pattern in non-US price guides.
The services adversely affected the markets by introducing new demand. The markets were in their infancy even in 1996 when modern grading began largely as a result of inclusion in registry sets. Of course this was like giving the market growth hormones so prices were certainly higher initially. But the damage was in making these markets appear to be far more advanced than they actually were and this has hurt the demand for years. I was one of the biggest proponents of creation of the modern registry sets but I was wrong.
You see the sentence I highlighted in bold? It's a contradiction. New demand means higher prices, always. It never means lower prices. The only correct claim in this extract is you admitting being wrong.
WCC: You pointed out where CK admits to being wrong and then you, likewise, admit to being wrong. 😆
First, let me clear something up. Modern grading never began heating up in 1996 due to registry sets, as registry sets did not really get started until around 1998. PCGS published its first registry awards in the paperback edition in 1999. PCGS lacked the funding at that time to create the 500 soft cover copies necessary to pass out at the show advising everyone on who exactly won each registry competition. So, a few of us volunteered to give Rick M. the money to print those 500 copies of paperback awards #1 in 1999. Rick was able to eventually get the funding out of PCGS, but greatly appreciated the donations offered to him.
While I was the first to introduce the bulk grading of MS Roosie dimes to PCGS in or about 1998, there was some bulk grading of American Eagle coins already going on by another dealer. But, that grading having little to do with registry related actions (whereas my bulk grading of Roosie dimes had everything to do with Registry). Some time shortly after the PCGS registry awards book got published and distributed, I was invited to NJ (and attended) as I recall to present to the NGC team what it would take to launch their very own registry (as they were way behind PCGS on the concept of Registry set collecting back then). In fact, at the time I met with the NGC team, my #1 suggestion at that time was that NGC begin grading coins in the 70 grade (which they had not done before my presentation to their team). I felt it was a key for their planned registry to be successful (was I right!!?)
The history is even more interesting than this, but I need to stop here for now.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Holy cow @wondercoin !
Now every time I see an NGC 70 i’m going to think of you but every time I find a new gem in a mint set i’m going to snicker and say “He missed this one”
The services adversely affected the markets by introducing new demand. The markets were in their infancy even in 1996 when modern grading began largely as a result of inclusion in registry sets. Of course this was like giving the market growth hormones so prices were certainly higher initially. But the damage was in making these markets appear to be far more advanced than they actually were and this has hurt the demand for years. I was one of the biggest proponents of creation of the modern registry sets but I was wrong.
You see the sentence I highlighted in bold? It's a contradiction. New demand means higher prices, always. It never means lower prices. The only correct claim in this extract is you admitting being wrong.
Perhaps I should have elaborated to make the sentence more easily parsed as I intended it to be. The new demand was highly limited and applied only to a few of the coins at the high end. Demand had been growing for many years and Gems (MS-65 and 66) is where is was concentrated. It wasn't very visible because in those days the supply still dwarfed the demand. Now that the coins are gone and the rest tarnished it would be highly visible in the form of much higher prices except it is still concentrated at the high end instead. Many people who were buying Gems for less than a dollar would be sitting on profits moreso than those finding ultrahigh grades.
Again though this isn't "bad" so much as just the way things have worked out. In the long run Gems will be even higher because of this.
First, collectors don't prefer older coins just because the coin no longer circulates. This reason is way down the list.
This is a new phenomenon and it has been changing or 20 years.
Second, some collector preferences are brought into collecting from the broader culture and others are internal to collecting. You completely ignore it. Aside from the price differences between earlier and later Jefferson nickels, this is the actual explanation, not anything you claim.
I'm surprised you recognize this.
Third, your claim that collectors haven't collected this coinage since inception is flat out wrong.
I've told you before that I never met another collector until the 1980's. Dealers were offended when I told them I was collecting clads.
Of course people weren't collecting clads in meaningful numbers until 1999 when the states coins were issued.
Fourth, material price differences between post-1933 classics and US moderns exist primarily on (near) condition census coins but are otherwise financially immaterial. All of these coins are common, except due to grade or specialization which most collectors don't consider an actual scarcity.
Post-1933 coinage is a meaningless term because moderns are wholly distinct in every way from the older coins.
Fifth, collectors didn't prefer more recent classics in the 50's and 60's over prior coinage. as predominantly collecting at FV isn't an actual preference. It's a financial limitation or casual collecting like CRH or "cherry pickers" today. The only exception was with actual key dates and I have already provided my explanation for it.
People focused collecting in moderns to an unnatural extent in the '50's and early '60's. Any other way to say it is semantics.
Lastly, current quality preferences and emphasis on specialization didn't exist at the time. Almost no one would have paid any meaningful price for the rarity you describe. To the extent it occurred with die varieties, it was presumably mostly because of inclusion in price guides. I've seen the same pattern in non-US price guides.
Coins like the '42 overdates brought large premiums even before they were included. Most albums and folders still omit the '37-D three legged buffalo. The '38-D/ S buff is far more common than this D / D.
First, let me clear something up. Modern grading never began heating up in 1996 due to registry sets, as registry sets did not really get started until around 1998.
Yes, thank you. I was confused.
PCGS published its first registry awards in the paperback edition in 1999. PCGS lacked the funding at that time to create the 500 soft cover copies necessary to pass out at the show advising everyone on who exactly won each registry competition. So, a few of us volunteered to give Rick M. the money to print those 500 copies of paperback awards #1 in 1999. Rick was able to eventually get the funding out of PCGS, but greatly appreciated the donations offered to him.
While I was the first to introduce the bulk grading of MS Roosie dimes to PCGS in or about 1998, there was some bulk grading of American Eagle coins already going on by another dealer. But, that grading having little to do with registry related actions (whereas my bulk grading of Roosie dimes had everything to do with Registry). Some time shortly after the PCGS registry awards book got published and distributed, I was invited to NJ (and attended) as I recall to present to the NGC team what it would take to launch their very own registry (as they were way behind PCGS on the concept of Registry set collecting back then). In fact, at the time I met with the NGC team, my #1 suggestion at that time was that NGC begin grading coins in the 70 grade (which they had not done before my presentation to their team). I felt it was a key for their planned registry to be successful (was I right!!?)
The history is even more interesting than this, but I need to stop here for now.
I saw a pop report in '95 or '96 and there were just a few clad quarters graded.
On closer look I believe the buyer got a great toned clad but not the D/ D. It looks like optical effect and strike doubling rather than the RMM. Blue is a tough color for clad so it might be a great deal anyway.
Again, interest in high grade moderns probably exceeded interest in high grade US coins other than morgans, walkers, standing, and mercs in 1980. At least this was true relative their availability. I had been buying all US and world coins in Gem for years in 1980 and never had any offers on anything but moderns. Ikes were by far the most popular as determined by price. I couldn't even get offers for superb Gem '38-D 5c or '07 1c in MS-68. Everyone knew all you had to do was look at a few rolls of classics and you could find a ch Gem and no one knew what the tough dates were so there was little interest. On the other hand every modern collector knew almost every coin that ;left the mint was terrible and this was part of the reason most modern collectors even collected moderns. Why collect common coins at all? Modern collectors sought varieties and Gems and even new collectors want at least attractive chBU. Retailers get coins back if they are ugly or spotted so keeping a supply of moderns is very difficult. Now comes the tough part; most retailers don't care too much if they run out of many dates because even with substantial premiums and high shipping costs they aren't much money. This means there is almost no wholesale market. There isn't anyone you can call up to get a roll set and even finding individual rolls can be difficult unless you want what the seller happens to have. Obviously there are no singles at wholesale.
Most moderns trade at bid or at retail. Two years ago many sold at wholesale were in the form of mint sets and the sets were destroyed. Now the sets are so expensive they have to be sold as sets. Two years ago if you had an extra $20,000 sitting around you could in theory buy enough 1971 mint sets to probably find a D/ D and then take the rest of the coins to the bank and have the D/ D for a net cost of about two or three hundred dollars. The same trick today would require about $50,000 and the net cost would be more than $25,000 for the D/ D. When you got to the bank you might hear the dreaded words "I'll have to check with the manager to see if I can take dark coins".
Everything keeps changing. I'm not so much suggesting the D/ D should be high priced or even higher priced. I am merely suggesting it has become virtually unobtainable. Sellers aren't around because the coin is so tough. Finding it in circulation isn't possible and finding enough '71 mint sets isn't either. Where these used to exist in piles, boxes, and cartons they have been destroyed and you only find them a few at a time. If you are motivated enough you might be able to cherry pick a wholesaler ( I used to try it once in a while) but many wholesalers cherry pick everything before they put it in stock. They miss a lot because of the way they do it but they won't have enough '71 sets to have a chance to miss the D/ D.
Rare coins are rare. This is why you don't see them very often. I searched for it on the net before I started the thread and didn't really expect to see one listed.
Top end Gems were rare back in the day and now that most of the sets are long gone and the rest tarnished they are even rarer. Gems aren't so tough though. Where there used to be two Gems in three sets now it's more like two Gems in four sets. But the sets are harder to find and the coins will need a bath half the time.
On closer look I believe the buyer got a great toned clad but not the D/ D. It looks like optical effect and strike doubling rather than the RMM. Blue is a tough color for clad so it might be a great deal anyway.
I knew it was not the D/D you mentioned as the D is too far east. Not the correct position and I knew that before I bought. However, I'm still pleased with my dime as it's quite nice to look at. I stopped collecting dimes at 1964 so perhaps this will urge me on to later dates, we'll see.
bob
PS: yes, it's doubled but mechanical not die.
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
On closer look I believe the buyer got a great toned clad but not the D/ D. It looks like optical effect and strike doubling rather than the RMM. Blue is a tough color for clad so it might be a great deal anyway.
I knew it was not the D/D you mentioned as the D is too far east. Not the correct position and I knew that before I bought. However, I'm still pleased with my dime as it's quite nice to look at. I stopped collecting dimes at 1964 so perhaps this will urge me on to later dates, we'll see.
bob
PS: yes, it's doubled but mechanical not die.
If you do collect later dats don't try getting them all at once or you might overpay but more likely there will be a lot of clunkers. Modern dimes are much easier in Gem than any other denomination and many can be found for a quarter or fifty cents. There are some tougher ones as well. Most date clad dimes aren't tough until, you get to MS-66.
I've been able to look through another 250 mint sets and found nothing.
yes, machine doubling as the date and motto are also affected but definitely an attractive coin
Cladking, do you think there will ever be a 'market' for ultra-rarities like this until they get included in the CPG and included in the PCGS?NGC variety registry set?
Do any TPGs designate this? I checked NGCs variety plus and they do not have it listed
Cladking, do you think there will ever be a 'market' for ultra-rarities like this until they get included in the CPG and included in the PCGS?NGC variety registry set?
Do any TPGs designate this? I checked NGCs variety plus and they do not have it listed
I think there's a market right now but it's limited by the lack of publicity.
Mint set varieties can bring some pretty good money but only a few will wholesale. There's demand for the '74-D DDO 50c and of course the sm dt '70-S cent. I think there will be a lot more interest going forward.
I doubt you could get more than a few hundred for the '71-D/D right now but in a few years there just might be some wholesale demand.
I got an eMail from a buddy who told me ANACS grades these and he has one in 65.
I think I've checked everything and found no more. I also believe that I got very lucky to find three of them in so small a sample. They were close together so might have come from the same source or same area. This is the nature of moderns because they aren't widely collected they are widely distributed. In the old days the average new coins changed hands a few times over the next 50 years but lots of moderns are still in the hands of the original purchaser or have changed hands only once or twice. A large percentage of '71-D/ D dimes went from the mint > customer > heirs > coin dealer's cash register. Most of the rest are still held by the original buyer or have traded once more.
Oh, rather than start a new thread I'll mention here that I did a census on the '71-D half dollar DDO's in the mint sets. About 5.5% were one of the two desirable DDO's with a few more of the better one. I found at least one of each reported and two of another very minor DDO that is apparently not listed.
I should have been more methodical back in the day.
@cladking said:
OK, I've got a little bit more here.
I got an eMail from a buddy who told me ANACS grades these and he has one in 65.
I think I've checked everything and found no more. I also believe that I got very lucky to find three of them in so small a sample. They were close together so might have come from the same source or same area. This is the nature of moderns because they aren't widely collected they are widely distributed. In the old days the average new coins changed hands a few times over the next 50 years but lots of moderns are still in the hands of the original purchaser or have changed hands only once or twice. A large percentage of '71-D/ D dimes went from the mint > customer > heirs > coin dealer's cash register. Most of the rest are still held by the original buyer or have traded once more.
Oh, rather than start a new thread I'll mention here that I did a census on the '71-D half dollar DDO's in the mint sets. About 5.5% were one of the two desirable DDO's with a few more of the better one. I found at least one of each reported and two of another very minor DDO that is apparently not listed.
I should have been more methodical back in the day.
After reading this thread I went through the 20 1971 Mint sets I own. I found 3 FS-101 DDO, 71-D halves. No D/D dimes. Thanks Cladking!
After reading this thread I went through the 20 1971 Mint sets I own. I found 3 FS-101 DDO, 71-D halves. No D/D dimes. Thanks Cladking!
Great! That's some very good luck.
It probably won't take too long for collectors to find most of these in the few remaining sets.
5% seems like a lot of coins but most of the '70-S sm dts have already been found and they are twice as common.
The 50c DDO's for this date are nearly as dramatic as the '74-D DDO that is quite popular. I believe in the long run the '74 DDO will be much easier to find than any of the '71's since they've been hunted so long.
5% seems like a lot of coins but most of the '70-S sm dts have already been found and they are twice as common.
That's because they were widely promoted...everyone was looking for them as they were splashed all over every numismatic publication at the time. Not so with these. Also TBH these tiny mm varieties can be hard to spot even when looking specifically for them, much less when you aren't... just saying.
@telephoto1 said: 5% seems like a lot of coins but most of the '70-S sm dts have already been found and they are twice as common.
That's because they were widely promoted...everyone was looking for them as they were splashed all over every numismatic publication at the time. Not so with these. Also TBH these tiny mm varieties can be hard to spot even when looking specifically for them, much less when you aren't... just saying.
My problem with mintmark varieties is mostly that they are so scarce. Then to add insult to injury the old ones I searched in pocket change were very difficult to identify because the nickel mint marks were often very "busy". Despite looking at thousands of nickels I never found one.
Modern mintmark varieties are easier because they are mostly in mint sets and it's like shooting fish in a barrel. They appear like clockwork dependent on their incidence and all are easily recognizable since the mint marks are almost invariably well struck.
I also found out the war nickel varieties are easily recognized. I was able to pull dozens of them from a large batch. (I didn't find any of the best ones but ther5e were several better ones.
I don't bother with the very minor varieties. If I can't spot them with just the naked eye (reading glasses) or a 10x glass then I just pass them on to someone with younger eyes.
There was a dearth of stuff to collect in 1970. The old coins were disappearing from circulation and nobody collected any of the new stuff. I think the sm dt just caught peoples' attention. In the early years it just had a very limited value. I passed a roll of mint set specimens for only $150. But it seems like every year it just keeps going up. Since it was common in mint sets and there were lots of mint sets it stayed cheap until the mid-'90's when the sets were picked over and there weren't many left. Now there are probably only about 150.000 around and it's this "scarcity" that is enticing, and of course many folders and albums have a spot for them. It seemed like they tried to promote them and failed but then the coin got popular anyway. I never cared for this coin very much except in gem. I guess because like most '70-S cents most of these are chewed up pretty badly so Gems catch your eye.
Comments
You don't believe in cycles?!!!
How else can a coin with a mintage over 2 1/2 million be "rare" in 1964 and fewer than "10" known D/D's flood the market in 2022?
Sure there was a huge market for '50-D nickels and little market for the D/ D dime but then everything in reality is cyclical just like a pendulum. There is nothing new under the sun only cycles and the annual journey around the sun.
Not in the context you do for coin collecting, as there is no evidence of it anywhere. Since I have been collecting starting in 1975, I'm not aware of single US series which has been overtaken by another one. If it happened, it's not between two that compete directly.
I explained this to you many times. It's due to collectors then and now preferring the same attributes essentially identically: design, size, metal content, and relative scarcity. With most 20th century US coinage, the difference in scarcity between post-1933 classics and moderns isn't relevant to most collectors because none of these coins are actually scarce. The scarcity described in this thread is irrelevant to over 99% of the collector base, except collecting it at or near FV.
>
Once again, the 50-D nickel was a bubble. The closest recurrence with any US modern to my recollection has been with errors such as the Wisconsin Leaf SQ. Look at its price now versus the peak.
The real question is, what's going to make anyone want this 71-D dime that badly? I gave you the only reason that makes any sense, inclusion in registry sets, price guides like the Red Book, and maybe coin folders.
As I've pointed out many times things have been very static since 1975. This is caused by demographics and macroeconomic events. The coin crash of 1964 wiped out the modern coin market which was beginning to become the largest segment of the hobby. All those BU rolls of 1955 dimes suddenly weren't worth as much any longer and some coins crashed to face value where they still are today. Try selling a typical roll of 1964-D pennies if you don't believe it.
When this market crashed many of the participants were lost forever as coin collectors. Some came back in the '90's.
Collectors were a very homogenous group in manty ways. The oldest are long gone but their bust half collections are still highly prized albeit split up.
There were changes between '65 and '75. Be this as it may there certainly have been changes since 1975 that you might not have noticed due to inexperience. For instance bust coins were the epitome of collecting in 1975. Collectors were not at all condition conscious and few collectors would pay a premium for a Gem '16-D dime over a nice ch BU specimen. Certainly nicer coins and those that were nice and attractive often sold for a little more.
Many advanced collectors focused mostly on ancient coins.
In 1976 Morgans began taking over everything and are still # 1. Morgans routinely sold for 25% premiums in Gem and spectacular specimens might get even more. Then in the '80's later coins in high grade like standers, walkers, and mercs soared in value to approach even the Morgans. Gem walkers increase many fold. In the '90's classic coins crashed so hard it seemed the market might never come back but they were rescued by new interest in moderns in mid-decade. During this time even trophy coins were starting to suffer a bit.
The introduction of the states coins revitalized the hobby and collectors with many returning from 1965 and many many young people coming aboard.
Life is change. Collecting is change. What collectors seek changes. This will become much more apparent over the next several years as baby boomers sell off their lifetime accumulations. Among these coins they sell will be millions of bust coins and a mere handful of D/ D dimes. This is the nature of reality; rare coins are rare by definition.
Today ancients are virtually ignored by the hobby.
Everybody does not listen to what others tell them to collect. Even more people listen and then do as they please. There are individuals who will make a place in their sets even if the coin is ignored otherwise. I wager there are enough of them to create competition for a handful of scarcities.
The primary focus of your reply, the change to "condition conscious" is a generic change in US collecting due to TPG. It's one of multiple generic changes I provided to you in post exchanges back in 2013. It has nothing to do with 71-D dime die varieties, US moderns, or any specific coin or series.
Bust coins have essentially the same collector preference in 1975 as now, at minimum. It's certainly not lower. Same for Morgan dollars. That's the point.
The aging of the collector base and collector age - your usage of demographics - is irrelevant to collector preferences. There is no evidence that collectors have a pre-disposition to prefer any coin or series due to their age. There is no evidence that collectors have any pre-disposition to prefer their circulating change which is an implied claim you have been making since we first discussed this subject. Outside of key dates, they didn't prefer their circulating change in the 1960's either, as is evident by relative prices, as mass collecting at or near FV doesn't demonstrate an actual preference. It's a financial limitation..
I' presume someone is doing that now and never said otherwise. As for competition which drives prices, the reason I gave you is the most likely one for it.
Damn.... no luck on the 71 d/d....
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
No, it isn't. The importance of condition increased all through the 70's but didn't affect any coins other than mercs, standers, walkers, and Morgans until the '90's. There were no premiums for most Gems in the '80's. Sure you could get a few bucks for FS nickels and nice coins often brought a small premium but collectors had free reign across the markets to acquire Gems almost up to 2000.
I believe the chief cause was that the mint stopped making rarities in 1934 when someone offered to buy the entire output of 1931 S cents. Without rare coins collectors started seeking rare grades and rare varieties like the D/ D.
In the late '80's there were five Morgan "collectors" for every bust collector. Now it's closer to 2: 1 I believe.
People are a product of their time and place. People from different times are different.
If more individuals seek the coin than there are coins the prices increases. Rare coins don't need as much demand as common coins to increase in price. Because they are rare the competition can become fierce.
I agree with you that collectors look for die varieties and other similar coins for the reason you give, but that's predominantly the same type of collecting as in the 60's. Nothing wrong with it but hardly any of them are going to pay more than FV, just as they wouldn't back then.
The relative preference between these two series, measured by how collectors spend their money, is a lot bigger than 2:1. That's what the Heritage archives show.
Look at how people spend their money. That's how I come to my conclusions. The data proves that your belief is not correct because if it was, collectors would spend their money differently than they actually do. It's not like collectors can't buy most US coins because over 95% are available most of the time, usually right now.
The Heritage archives cover close to 30 years now. I can't segment this data within the archive history without a lot of manual work but it's presumably reasonably representative of how US collectors spend their money and therefore, relative preferences.
They are paying for Gems and varieties. Wholesalers are increasingly having trouble keeping nice chBU retail friendly clads of all dates in stock. Right now this applies mostly to half dollars and dollars as well as '65- '67 and '82 - '83 issues. At any given time most retailers are out of most of these coins. Ikes are wholesaling at $4 in chBU.
The very common '68 DDO dime that shows up in 2% of mint sets are being sold between 40 and $130. The far more common '70-S cent wholesales at $40.
There are no '71-D/ D dimes listed but this is because they are so scarce. Not being for sale right now does not make a coin to be worth only face value.
I am well aware of collectors preferences and how they evolve. In the 1890's most civil war tokens were worth more than almost any large cent in Unc. In 1975 I couldn't get 10c for a 1970 nickel I sold at auction a couple years for more than $2500.
I believe you are still living in the 1970's which in coin collecting is a subset of the 1960's just as the '80's and '90's are a subset of the '60's. Coin collecting was very static for 50 years but it is no longer.
It's a tyranny of numbers with scarce coins. Your odds were pretty poor.
But if there had been one your odds of there being another one or two were very very high. These sets left the mint in batches of "five" and orders were filled by zip code. The Gems and varieties bunch up because the odds of consecutive strikes from the same die are much higher in a group of five and even in sets from the same zip code.
In other words even though the first set you opened was, perhaps, a one in a thousand chance if it were the D/ D then each subsequent set (Shrodingers' mint box?) probably had a better than 1 in 50 shot.
Chasing down moderns is a lot of fun whether you are looking for raw coins or are willing to spend $2500 for them.
Generally speaking if you have a grouping of "30" random 1965 to 1985 mint set there will be one winner. This winner may or may not have a substantial current value and it requires a little experience to spot it most of the time.
Unfortunately, pop tops are much scarcer than this. Frequently the "winner" will be one or two grades off.
You never know when they will appear and when you'll run into sets that were cherried from larger groupings.
No, you aren't, because if you were, you'd never write what you have in response to my posts, now or previously.
Your example of the 1970 nickel has no relevance with your claims in this thread. It's entirely the result of a generic preference created by TPG.
Tokens vs. large cents? That's somewhat different but it's obvious that coin collecting has left token collecting in the dust. Will this reverse? Impossible to prove, but whether it does or not is also irrelevant to your claims, as this 71-D dime has no similarity
Yes, you've told me something similar in the past and it's really amusing. You tell me this, yet you're expecting a return to 1960's mass set collecting at a much bigger scale at much higher prices, despite all evidence contradicting this belief.
Much of what you say is essentially true but simply is a poor perspective for seeing the reality of the coin market and the changes that accumulate over years or transpire relatively suddenly. Since it is a poor perspective it is highly misleading.
Collectors were starting to chase high grade moderns and the like around 1975. At that time it was mostly just FS nickels as this specific 1970 coin was. By 1980 demand was starting to show up for other rarities such as 1976 Type I Ikes in very high grade. There were offers for as much as $10,000 for one of these in MS-67. I believe such a coin has still never been graded and would bring more today.
You believe the services created the demand but if memory serves PCGS wasn't founded until 1986 and they refused to grade moderns until 1996. If anything the services have probably stifled demand because their existence so greatly complicates pricing of moderns and it is largely that lack of realistic pricing that reduces demand. Their existence also has led most established collectors to believe that all modern are common in high grade and that higher prices will simply bring out more supply. It is obscured the fact that no modern is truly common in nice attractive Gem condition of the sort most Barber coins began their existence. People don't realize there aren't rolls and bags of these coins that opportunists are searching to find specimens to fleece the newbies after being graded. They don't realize that if there were rolls and bags to check virtually all of them would be banged up coins made by worn tired dies that were never set properly from the beginning.
This is all as true as anything you've posted and, I believe, is a better perspective because it suggests that even if much demand never materializes then rarities like the D/ D are likely to sport far higher price tags anyway.
Collectors collect. It's what we do and if anyone wants to collect a D/ D it's going to require some effort and this effort constitutes what is called "demand".
How can $2500 for a modern nickel not be relevant or is this a case of your belief that moderns don't have "meaningful value"?
Of course countless millions of large cents were made but you take their current value as a given and can't imagine that this price is dependent of a great deal of demand. Large cents were underpriced in the 1890's, especially relative to civil war tokens, and they are most assuredly overpriced today compared to some coin, token, or medal. Perhaps one of the coins they are overpriced in comparison with is the '71- D/ D. We're talking about a mintage under a hundred in comparison to a series produced in the tens of millions that is too expensive for most collectors even in VF condition.
I think you do math funny.
Again, this is true. But the difference is that I am fully aware that collectors might not ever collect this way again whereas you seem to discount the possibility that rare moderns will ever have any demand at all. You seem to forget that collectors collect and rare coins are hard to find. This is why we call them "rare".
You might be interested to see just how many folders and albums for moderns are sold each year. I assure you it is far higher than the number of '71-D/ D's or the number of Gem '70 nickels w/ FS.
Interesting feed. I’m just going with the old adage, history repeats itself.
And once that happens I hope to be sitting flush in high grade moderns.
I have 16 1971 sets but no d/d. Also realized that I have over 275 sets and need to unload.
There's nothing new under the sun so history has no choice but to repeat over and over again.
'71-D/ D Dime in Mint Sets.
Catching up on a few threads here on the Coin Forum …
Question 1…. CK: how did you conclude these 71 D/D dimes were from 1971 mint sets and not from BU 1971-D dime rolls?
Wondercoin
Oh.
I made the rolls myself in most all instances.
You can tell the difference between original rolls and mint set rolls anyway. Mint set coins are struck by new dies under higher pressure. There is a no chance of a roll having all well struck coins. Even if such a roll were possible there were almost no rolls at all saved. They are very scarce.
Then there is the fact that dimes made for circulation were struck by dies that produced upward of 400,000 coins. This is a naked eye variety so it would have been discovered almost immediately in 1971 if it appeared in circulation. The odds are vastly against just a few coins appearing in mint sets AND just a few in circulation. While mint set dies were often repurposed to make circulation issues they would not have made only a few.
This variety was most probably spotted very early and the coins destroyed but not before a few got away (in mint sets).
I'm sure I'm pretty lucky to have found so choice a specimen. I will get back to this thread eventually with an estimate of the incidence but I have too small a sample size to contradict James Wiles who says it is "rare".
I've gone through many bags and rolls of clads over the years but generally didn't save many coins. I tried to save the nicest coin from each die pair but only saved rolls when they were very choice. This simply has been unusual.
I never claimed this coinage won't be collected. I told you in this thread (multiple times) that if demand increases, it will most likely be due to registry sets, inclusion in price guides, and inclusion in folders.
Most (not all) of the price increase is still tied to the perceived quality. Are you telling me that US moderns were the only coins where this happened during this period? It didn't happen with any other US coinage?
For US moderns generally, I absolutely believe TPG created demand for all high-grade coinage because that's exactly what the evidence shows. It did the same thing for US coins generally.
The reason collectors haven't paid the prices for this coinage you think it should be worth isn't due to any reason you give. It's because they would rather buy something else with their coin budget. Most of these prices are financially immaterial, equivalent or less than a nominal recreational expense. Especially since the late 90's with the internet, no one is limited to such limited choices where anyone should believe more than a very low proportion should act as you infer.
The reason collectors generally didn't and don't believe this coinage is scarce or rare is because it isn't. Grade (equivalent) rarity or rarity measured by specialization isn't a real rarity to most collectors. Enough of this coinage (and post 1933 classics) is interchangeable to them where they do not care about this minutia. This is the real reason for current and prior prices. The prices between US moderns and most post 1933 US classics isn't material either, except to you.
Going back to this 71-D dime since we have both gone totally off topic, this rarity isn't interesting enough to hardly anyone, except at nominal prices. As you can see from the comments in this thread, it's interesting to the general US collector population to find or buy at or near FV.
I'm not disputing this but that's how this type of coin is perceived by all but an immaterial number of collectors. There is no reason to expect anything else.
‘’Oh.
I made the rolls myself in most all instances.’’
I didn’t understand that from your original posting here. You are saying you created this thread to showcase a Roosie dime variety you personally found decades ago, held onto (did you find 1 or 2 or 3?) and now has turned into a rarity by virtue of how few have been found since the time of your finding- yes? If I am understanding this correctly now, it sounds like you should send your coins into PCGS, get an official coin number for the variety and then over the next few years see how many more are submitted to PCGS under the new variety number- yes?
Wondercoin.
No, I don't remember seeing this one back in the day and have no idea when I got my first one. I've been selling everything for a few years now and finding some interesting stuff. Most of this stuff is just being put back into safety deposit boxes chiefly because markets have too little demand at this time and grading is so tight on moderns. The one I just found is a nice Gem (MS-65 or 66) but, of course grading on very scarce coins isn't as important.
I've found three of them now but two were found together so probably came from the same source and should be counted as one. The rolls and sets came from all over but a lot are from the Chicago area which could have been where most of these coins ended up. Mint sets don't bunch up as much as circulation issues but because many were distributed by zip code there is some of this phenomenon.
I did finish checking the rolls and in the ~800 coins there were no more. One of the rolls was apparently cherried from BU rolls so doesn't count.
It's very difficult to make an estimate of incidence from such little information. Based on my experience in light of James Wile's statements all I can commit to is that this variety represents fewer than .07% of '71-D dimes. I have to believe it's far more common than .0004% which accounts for every "known" specimen. It will never be common. It might be noted that mint set '71-D's are going into circulation in massive numbers right now and have been for decades. These simply have had no value so they get spent by collectors and dealers alike when mint sets are destroyed. In the last ten or fifteen years most of this date clads have tarnished and tarnished coins still have no value so are often spent. Most can restored but the value is too to bother for most people so the coins still go into circulation even as wholesalers are bidding for them. Every year the tarnish gets worse and the coins less able to be restored so there will continue to be a high attrition until prices come up.
Every time a couple more thousand '71 mint sets are destroyed another D/ D will go into circulation where it is unlikely to ever be recovered.
Curiously even after more than half a century there is probably still a higher attrition on '71-D dimes than there is demand. Of course for most of the decades since 1971 there wasn't really any demand at all. There certainly is now.
Percentage gains in low end moderns is actually higher than the gains in top end moderns the last three years. "Low end" in moderns usually translates to chBU. buyers and collectors are seeking fully lustrous coins that aren't very ugly. This mostly mean MS-63 or better but a few lower grades look good enough to make the cut.
What I can't sell is MS-60's. Nobody wants them and most that I have sold went as AU's. '65 to '67 and '82/ '83 issues can be sold in MS-60 but at a discounted price.
Back in 1980 there was extremely little market for things like Gem indian cents or most US and world coins. There were lots of people seeking them out or collecting them but there was no established market.
There were a few very dedicated collectors seeking high end Ikes and half dollars but no real market. These collectors knew they had to offer enormous premiums in order to acquire rarities. because the coins were distressingly rare. Indian cent collectors would simply walk away from premiums over 25 or 100%. There were Gem indians in the next roll or at the next coin shop. It doesn't work this way with Ikes; there might not be another Gem in the next thousand rolls. No body stocked the coins.
The services adversely affected the markets by introducing new demand. The markets were in their infancy even in 1996 when modern grading began largely as a result of inclusion in registry sets. Of course this was like giving the market growth hormones so prices were certainly higher initially. But the damage was in making these markets appear to be far more advanced than they actually were and this has hurt the demand for years. I was one of the biggest proponents of creation of the modern registry sets but I was wrong. What's done is done and in the long run the only effect will be a certainty that 50 or 100 of the finest moderns are still original condition inside of slabs. Some of these coins would have been lost to circulation or tarnish otherwise but in the medium term (now) the markets are less advanced than they otherwise would have been in all probability.
Gems of classic coins were already in wide demand and beginning to have defined markets when PCGS started.
[sigh]
I know it makes perfect sense to you that there is far more demand for older coins than for comparably scarce moderns that sell for a tiny fraction of the price. This simply has never occurred before in the short history of popular coin collecting or US coin collecting. People collected recent dated coins in the 1880's when they were much less expensive than comparable old coins. They did the same in the 1940's. In the '50's early '60's they actually preferred moderns. They even set aside large numbers of them for the future.
Not all old coins are scarce and not all new coins are common.
Take a glance at the title of this very thread.
I tend to agree but then "hardly" anyone could greatly outnumber available supply.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/255834726461
A kind soul just sent me this link.
It looks like a very nice coin though it has a mark on the observe. It's a great example of this coin and implies there are more out there. It's $42 buy it now.
I might also mention that even though I had thought this date distressingly common with FB's it's actually about 2%.
This implies high grades with FB might be a little underpriced relative other dates.
Yes, the price increases are higher proportionately because it's from a very low base.
Yes, because collectors mostly do not like these coins and the price variances with noticeably better coins are immaterial.
>
Yes, because TPG was the driving factor behind the increased demand for both.
You see the sentence I highlighted in bold? It's a contradiction. New demand means higher prices, always. It never means lower prices. The only correct claim in this extract is you admitting being wrong.
The only reason you find this outcome confusing is because you still do not understand collector motivation and the factors which drive preferences. You assume premises which contradict aggregate collector behavior and since the result isn't what you think it should be, you claim it's an aberration or unusual.
First, collectors don't prefer older coins just because the coin no longer circulates. This reason is way down the list.
Second, some collector preferences are brought into collecting from the broader culture and others are internal to collecting. You completely ignore it. Aside from the price differences between earlier and later Jefferson nickels, this is the actual explanation, not anything you claim.
Third, your claim that collectors haven't collected this coinage since inception is flat out wrong. The market price is just a lot less than you insist it should be worth. Look at US MInt sales history and the TPG populations. The coins have been set aside in "large number", just lower (up to 1998) than post 1933 classics but certainly in far higher number and proportion than pre-1933.
Fourth, material price differences between post-1933 classics and US moderns exist primarily on (near) condition census coins but are otherwise financially immaterial. All of these coins are common, except due to grade or specialization which most collectors don't consider an actual scarcity.
Fifth, collectors didn't prefer more recent classics in the 50's and 60's over prior coinage. as predominantly collecting at FV isn't an actual preference. It's a financial limitation or casual collecting like CRH or "cherry pickers" today. The only exception was with actual key dates and I have already provided my explanation for it.
Lastly, current quality preferences and emphasis on specialization didn't exist at the time. Almost no one would have paid any meaningful price for the rarity you describe. To the extent it occurred with die varieties, it was presumably mostly because of inclusion in price guides. I've seen the same pattern in non-US price guides.
@cladking said:
The services adversely affected the markets by introducing new demand. The markets were in their infancy even in 1996 when modern grading began largely as a result of inclusion in registry sets. Of course this was like giving the market growth hormones so prices were certainly higher initially. But the damage was in making these markets appear to be far more advanced than they actually were and this has hurt the demand for years. I was one of the biggest proponents of creation of the modern registry sets but I was wrong.
You see the sentence I highlighted in bold? It's a contradiction. New demand means higher prices, always. It never means lower prices. The only correct claim in this extract is you admitting being wrong.
WCC: You pointed out where CK admits to being wrong and then you, likewise, admit to being wrong. 😆
First, let me clear something up. Modern grading never began heating up in 1996 due to registry sets, as registry sets did not really get started until around 1998. PCGS published its first registry awards in the paperback edition in 1999. PCGS lacked the funding at that time to create the 500 soft cover copies necessary to pass out at the show advising everyone on who exactly won each registry competition. So, a few of us volunteered to give Rick M. the money to print those 500 copies of paperback awards #1 in 1999. Rick was able to eventually get the funding out of PCGS, but greatly appreciated the donations offered to him.
While I was the first to introduce the bulk grading of MS Roosie dimes to PCGS in or about 1998, there was some bulk grading of American Eagle coins already going on by another dealer. But, that grading having little to do with registry related actions (whereas my bulk grading of Roosie dimes had everything to do with Registry). Some time shortly after the PCGS registry awards book got published and distributed, I was invited to NJ (and attended) as I recall to present to the NGC team what it would take to launch their very own registry (as they were way behind PCGS on the concept of Registry set collecting back then). In fact, at the time I met with the NGC team, my #1 suggestion at that time was that NGC begin grading coins in the 70 grade (which they had not done before my presentation to their team). I felt it was a key for their planned registry to be successful (was I right!!?)
The history is even more interesting than this, but I need to stop here for now.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Holy cow @wondercoin !
Now every time I see an NGC 70 i’m going to think of you but every time I find a new gem in a mint set i’m going to snicker and say “He missed this one”
So who bought the dime?
$42 is a nice price.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Perhaps I should have elaborated to make the sentence more easily parsed as I intended it to be. The new demand was highly limited and applied only to a few of the coins at the high end. Demand had been growing for many years and Gems (MS-65 and 66) is where is was concentrated. It wasn't very visible because in those days the supply still dwarfed the demand. Now that the coins are gone and the rest tarnished it would be highly visible in the form of much higher prices except it is still concentrated at the high end instead. Many people who were buying Gems for less than a dollar would be sitting on profits moreso than those finding ultrahigh grades.
Again though this isn't "bad" so much as just the way things have worked out. In the long run Gems will be even higher because of this.
This is a new phenomenon and it has been changing or 20 years.
I'm surprised you recognize this.
I've told you before that I never met another collector until the 1980's. Dealers were offended when I told them I was collecting clads.
Of course people weren't collecting clads in meaningful numbers until 1999 when the states coins were issued.
Post-1933 coinage is a meaningless term because moderns are wholly distinct in every way from the older coins.
People focused collecting in moderns to an unnatural extent in the '50's and early '60's. Any other way to say it is semantics.
Coins like the '42 overdates brought large premiums even before they were included. Most albums and folders still omit the '37-D three legged buffalo. The '38-D/ S buff is far more common than this D / D.
@wondercoin said:
Yes, thank you. I was confused.
I saw a pop report in '95 or '96 and there were just a few clad quarters graded.
On closer look I believe the buyer got a great toned clad but not the D/ D. It looks like optical effect and strike doubling rather than the RMM. Blue is a tough color for clad so it might be a great deal anyway.
Again, interest in high grade moderns probably exceeded interest in high grade US coins other than morgans, walkers, standing, and mercs in 1980. At least this was true relative their availability. I had been buying all US and world coins in Gem for years in 1980 and never had any offers on anything but moderns. Ikes were by far the most popular as determined by price. I couldn't even get offers for superb Gem '38-D 5c or '07 1c in MS-68. Everyone knew all you had to do was look at a few rolls of classics and you could find a ch Gem and no one knew what the tough dates were so there was little interest. On the other hand every modern collector knew almost every coin that ;left the mint was terrible and this was part of the reason most modern collectors even collected moderns. Why collect common coins at all? Modern collectors sought varieties and Gems and even new collectors want at least attractive chBU. Retailers get coins back if they are ugly or spotted so keeping a supply of moderns is very difficult. Now comes the tough part; most retailers don't care too much if they run out of many dates because even with substantial premiums and high shipping costs they aren't much money. This means there is almost no wholesale market. There isn't anyone you can call up to get a roll set and even finding individual rolls can be difficult unless you want what the seller happens to have. Obviously there are no singles at wholesale.
Most moderns trade at bid or at retail. Two years ago many sold at wholesale were in the form of mint sets and the sets were destroyed. Now the sets are so expensive they have to be sold as sets. Two years ago if you had an extra $20,000 sitting around you could in theory buy enough 1971 mint sets to probably find a D/ D and then take the rest of the coins to the bank and have the D/ D for a net cost of about two or three hundred dollars. The same trick today would require about $50,000 and the net cost would be more than $25,000 for the D/ D. When you got to the bank you might hear the dreaded words "I'll have to check with the manager to see if I can take dark coins".
Everything keeps changing. I'm not so much suggesting the D/ D should be high priced or even higher priced. I am merely suggesting it has become virtually unobtainable. Sellers aren't around because the coin is so tough. Finding it in circulation isn't possible and finding enough '71 mint sets isn't either. Where these used to exist in piles, boxes, and cartons they have been destroyed and you only find them a few at a time. If you are motivated enough you might be able to cherry pick a wholesaler ( I used to try it once in a while) but many wholesalers cherry pick everything before they put it in stock. They miss a lot because of the way they do it but they won't have enough '71 sets to have a chance to miss the D/ D.
Rare coins are rare. This is why you don't see them very often. I searched for it on the net before I started the thread and didn't really expect to see one listed.
Top end Gems were rare back in the day and now that most of the sets are long gone and the rest tarnished they are even rarer. Gems aren't so tough though. Where there used to be two Gems in three sets now it's more like two Gems in four sets. But the sets are harder to find and the coins will need a bath half the time.
I did and it got delivered today.
bob
I knew it was not the D/D you mentioned as the D is too far east. Not the correct position and I knew that before I bought. However, I'm still pleased with my dime as it's quite nice to look at. I stopped collecting dimes at 1964 so perhaps this will urge me on to later dates, we'll see.
bob
PS: yes, it's doubled but mechanical not die.
If you do collect later dats don't try getting them all at once or you might overpay but more likely there will be a lot of clunkers. Modern dimes are much easier in Gem than any other denomination and many can be found for a quarter or fifty cents. There are some tougher ones as well. Most date clad dimes aren't tough until, you get to MS-66.
I've been able to look through another 250 mint sets and found nothing.
@cladking This is the dime I received.......blown up image from PCGS truview
@AUandAG said:
Hmmm. Comparing the Variety vista image with this one, the MM looks different imo
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Edit to add: this is the VV image for comparison. Not sure why this sentence didn't post the first time.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
They do look different to me.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
yes, machine doubling as the date and motto are also affected but definitely an attractive coin
Cladking, do you think there will ever be a 'market' for ultra-rarities like this until they get included in the CPG and included in the PCGS?NGC variety registry set?
Do any TPGs designate this? I checked NGCs variety plus and they do not have it listed
https://ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/dimes/roosevelt-dimes-1946-date/?page=1
I think there's a market right now but it's limited by the lack of publicity.
Mint set varieties can bring some pretty good money but only a few will wholesale. There's demand for the '74-D DDO 50c and of course the sm dt '70-S cent. I think there will be a lot more interest going forward.
I doubt you could get more than a few hundred for the '71-D/D right now but in a few years there just might be some wholesale demand.
OK, I've got a little bit more here.
I got an eMail from a buddy who told me ANACS grades these and he has one in 65.
I think I've checked everything and found no more. I also believe that I got very lucky to find three of them in so small a sample. They were close together so might have come from the same source or same area. This is the nature of moderns because they aren't widely collected they are widely distributed. In the old days the average new coins changed hands a few times over the next 50 years but lots of moderns are still in the hands of the original purchaser or have changed hands only once or twice. A large percentage of '71-D/ D dimes went from the mint > customer > heirs > coin dealer's cash register. Most of the rest are still held by the original buyer or have traded once more.
Oh, rather than start a new thread I'll mention here that I did a census on the '71-D half dollar DDO's in the mint sets. About 5.5% were one of the two desirable DDO's with a few more of the better one. I found at least one of each reported and two of another very minor DDO that is apparently not listed.
I should have been more methodical back in the day.
After reading this thread I went through the 20 1971 Mint sets I own. I found 3 FS-101 DDO, 71-D halves. No D/D dimes. Thanks Cladking!
Great! That's some very good luck.
It probably won't take too long for collectors to find most of these in the few remaining sets.
5% seems like a lot of coins but most of the '70-S sm dts have already been found and they are twice as common.
The 50c DDO's for this date are nearly as dramatic as the '74-D DDO that is quite popular. I believe in the long run the '74 DDO will be much easier to find than any of the '71's since they've been hunted so long.
5% seems like a lot of coins but most of the '70-S sm dts have already been found and they are twice as common.
That's because they were widely promoted...everyone was looking for them as they were splashed all over every numismatic publication at the time. Not so with these. Also TBH these tiny mm varieties can be hard to spot even when looking specifically for them, much less when you aren't... just saying.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
My problem with mintmark varieties is mostly that they are so scarce. Then to add insult to injury the old ones I searched in pocket change were very difficult to identify because the nickel mint marks were often very "busy". Despite looking at thousands of nickels I never found one.
Modern mintmark varieties are easier because they are mostly in mint sets and it's like shooting fish in a barrel. They appear like clockwork dependent on their incidence and all are easily recognizable since the mint marks are almost invariably well struck.
I also found out the war nickel varieties are easily recognized. I was able to pull dozens of them from a large batch. (I didn't find any of the best ones but ther5e were several better ones.
I don't bother with the very minor varieties. If I can't spot them with just the naked eye (reading glasses) or a 10x glass then I just pass them on to someone with younger eyes.
There was a dearth of stuff to collect in 1970. The old coins were disappearing from circulation and nobody collected any of the new stuff. I think the sm dt just caught peoples' attention. In the early years it just had a very limited value. I passed a roll of mint set specimens for only $150. But it seems like every year it just keeps going up. Since it was common in mint sets and there were lots of mint sets it stayed cheap until the mid-'90's when the sets were picked over and there weren't many left. Now there are probably only about 150.000 around and it's this "scarcity" that is enticing, and of course many folders and albums have a spot for them. It seemed like they tried to promote them and failed but then the coin got popular anyway. I never cared for this coin very much except in gem. I guess because like most '70-S cents most of these are chewed up pretty badly so Gems catch your eye.