Time to change your mind on modern Morgan and Peace classification?
Jacques_Loungecoque
Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭✭
Now that the mint has continued making Morgan and Peace dollars available this year, showing that the series has continued, and will likely be here for awhile, is it time to view them as new “types” and not “commemoratives” or “modern issues?” To me the Morgans are a Type 3 and the Peace are type 3.
Let me make my case, so many of our 20th century plus coins were originally issued to commemorate something: a death, a reverence, etc… in this case it’s an anniversary.
By and large the new issues are exceptionally similar. Yes, there’s been some tweaks, but we’ve seen that time and time again on other coin series.
Now I know, many will say, but they aren’t issued for circulation! I get that. But, folks do you really expect a silver coin to be released for circulation ever again? Of course not. This release method from the mint is the only way it’s going to happen. The traditionalists will say the break was too long, they’re too perfect, made with different methods. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you LOVE Morgans and Peace dollars you should be overjoyed to expand your collection and see them live on.
Unless you have a time machine how could you ever expect to hold one of these beauties so immaculately crafted. Even then you’re not likely getting perfection. And don’t get me started on the chances of owning a perfect deep cam proof. I’m not a multimillionaire. Well, maybe after tonight’s Powerball….
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
Comments
They are collectible bullion. They are not commemoratives, nor coins. They have no relation to the old series outside their design similarities. I would also beware in buying modern "perfection", as the "perfect" coin can develop milk spots and other unsightly features over time.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
Modern commems. They were started by commemorating the old series and they're going to keep doing that until the well runs dry.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I’m with neophyte, imo anything that comes in either MS69 or 70 can’t ever really be considered a “coin”. They share more similarities with ASEs than they do with their classic predecessors.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
At $76+ ea I would hardly call them "Bullion".
If you want to consider them part of the series, you may. If you don't want to even consider them US coins, you also may. Every collector can decide what belongs in their collection. It is similar to the 1895 Morgan.
It doesn’t really matter to me what anyone calls them. I am really enjoying them, particularly the proofs. Coin, or not, bullion or not, overpriced or not, I like them.
I am not saying that it's collectible bullion in a negative way. The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin. It is .999 fine - it's bullion. Pretty design? Yes. Collectible? For sure! Call it what you want, but it's bullion by every measure.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
For me, no, it's not a part of the classic series. It is its own series and should be its own series. Sure, a registry set could be put together to include them. No problem there as far as I'm concerned. But it's still, to me, not part of the classic sets even if many of the old Morgan and Peace dollars weren't made to circulate and were just government sponsored bullion stores to make special interests happy.
Overpriced bullion would be more accurate.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
I see them as a continuation of the series.
Ones have purchased have moved quickly for me - shows /online. Like them, super Investment buys. Don’t care what other players may call them.
Would like see them do something like that with Early 20th Century gold. More people would be able afford them / nice.
They don't come in 1000 coin bags, therefore they are not true Morgan and Peace Dollars. They are a modern commemorative series, similar to the classic half dollar series of 1892-1954 that had designs issued for multiple years, from multiple mints, and in multiple finishes.
If the Mint does continue making them long enough, they will be deserving of a dedicated book or album.
Custom album maker and numismatic photographer.
Need a personalized album made? Design it on the website below and I'll build it for you.
https://www.donahuenumismatics.com/.
What are the First Lady coins in gold, and the 2016 Dime, Quarter and Half?
I personally would not mind seeing an NCLT section in the back of the Redbook.
Technically, they are not commemoratives, they are
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6192 )
BUT, they are legal tender US Coins, just like your ASE.
And its a little more than "design similarities", again quoting the legislation
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Just junk.
Collectible bullion.
I like them, so I buy them. They're not expensive (compared, say to an 1893-CC "real" Morgan dollar), and they're pretty.
But don't consider them part of the original series (both of which I also collect).
JMO
Agreed. The vitriol just seems wholly unnecessary. There are coins, medals, and medallions, both old and new, that I don’t really enjoy, and don’t see myself ever collecting. But it would be extremely hypocritical to judge those pieces, or those who collect them, so I don’t. I enjoy old coins, I enjoy new coins, I enjoy coin shaped pieces of metal that may not even be coins. Who cares? Coming to these threads just to say something someone else likes, or collects, is junk is detrimental to the hobby.
While one could argue that the original Morgans were essentially bullion and Peace dollars commemoratives, they still had $1 purchasing power in the market. These clearly do not fit into the idea that a coin is designed for commerce. So they are what we know deep down they are - modern commemoratives, which differ from classics not just in date but in release value.
They're worth about twenty five bucks , to me.
Just don’t not see them as mod Commems. Continuation of the series more accurate classification for them.
They are a super investment buy. Sell well for me at shows. More investors can afford them. As the series continues who knows we may have some more key dates…
No, it's not time for me to change my mind.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Regardless of how they are classified, I like them. 👍
They’re just fun.
My YouTube Channel
The fact that they aren’t the same weight and silver content puts them in the collectible bullion category.
To me they are a commemorative and will never be anything more.
They should have stopped at 2021 and called it a commemorative.
Type collector, mainly into Seated. -formerly Ownerofawheatiehorde. Good BST transactions with: mirabela, OKCC, MICHAELDIXON, Gerard
Does anyone ever....?
Wouldn't be the first time a US coin changed either weight or silver content... do you want arrows at the date?
How about minting them on Sacagawea planchets so that they are actually in a circulating format?
And that’s what it’s all about!
All silver commems have been .999 fineness for a few years because of the cost and convenience of sourcing planchets and they're still commems.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Proof Morgan Dollars made from 1878-1904 didn't come in 1000 coin bags either.
Commemorative bullion coinage
They couldn't by law - the two commemorative programs for 2021 had already been scheduled.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
All these responses are valuable, but the actual answer is this…are they made for circulation? So these coins being now a\were never or thought to be for actual spending in economy, therefore, hard for some to take them seriously. Love that many collectors enjoy these items (so do I). The collectable CCCs (contemporary circulating counterfeits) are the key to this. @burfle23 I do think this is the answer. If made for circulation/spending then they are true counterfeits. If a coin was made to fool a collector or only had collector value, then not a CCC. A Jefferson large cent otherwise would be the same as a Chinese modern counterfeit. We need to identify these “terms”
I am so confused by this post, and I have read it twice. Can you explain what you mean by, "If made for circulation/spending then they are true counterfeits." Are you saying that if the US Mint made these Morgan/Peace Dollars for circulation, they are counterfeit? Thanks for the clarification, because I must be mixed up here.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
Not sure why I was tagged into this odd post
...
I am certainly not changing my mind on these things as a result; I'll let you know when I spot a Chinese knock-off of one though.
Would you say the same about a proof large cent?
Kinda like the Oregon Trail Commem?
And Texas, Boone, BTW, WC, Arkansas.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Definitely (without a doubt) a continuation of the series.
The modern dates a super Investment buy (strongly recommend). These are beautiful affordable coins. Sell well from my table at shows. As the series goes on who knows what keys will surface. Neat.
The Classic New Orleans issues super buy too. Recommend the 1904-O Morgan $ in grades MS64-65. Super Investment buy New Orleans issue. The 1884 CC in MS64 a super Investment buy too. One popular seller for me - The Bayou City Investors Set. A Classic piece from each mint (MS64) plus the mods. A hit with new investors. It gives the series continuous market appeal.
Peace dollars are my favorite issue, easily.
To me, the series ended in 1935 (or perhaps 1964). These modern "coins" are kind of cute, but their composition isn't consistent with circulation, and they clearly weren't intended as instruments of commerce.
Others probably see it differently. The majority of stuff "made for collectors" doesn't interest me that much. I make an exception for most of the classic commemoratives, but that's about it.
It is a coin. It was issued by the U.S. government. It has a face value. It is legal to spend for that face value. Whether it is a commemorative is irrelevant. Whether it was intended for circulation is irrelevant. Many commemoratives (such as Columbian half dollars) that were not intended for circulation were legally spent and remained in circulation for a considerable time. The metallic composition is irrelevant. Many 40% silver Eisenhower dollars were legally spent, even though none were intended for circulation. If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
By your definition, all US bullion pieces are coins? I guess this is debatable. What is not debatable, is the aspect of this not being a commemorative (we can prove this beyond all doubt). While you say this is irrelevant, I would like to remind you that the question at hand is, "Time to change your mind on modern Morgan and Peace classification?" In order to do this, one must first understand their classification today (and what they are not).
I honestly don't care enough to continue the debate.
Question: Time to change your mind on modern Morgan and Peace classification?
My official answer: NO.
Goodnight.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
It's not really debatable. That's the reason they give them a face value. They are NCLT but they are still "coins".
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44623
No opinion on my part. However, see page 24 and 25 of the version 20 of the report by the Congressional Research Services: Commemorative Coins: Background, Legislative Process, and Issues for Congress (R44623), as food for thought.
Put a paragraph break - they are two separate thoughts:
NEW THOUGHT, related in that Contemporary Circulating Counterfeits are also a collectable item with some question as to how they fit into collecting
SUMMARY
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Congress is very good at calling things something other than which they are. "They are solely minted to mark the 100th
anniversary of the coins," is a way of avoiding the C-word to get around the limit on issuing fund-raising coins. They are de facto commemoratives. Moreover, they're not recognized by the author, owner, or current editor of the VAM book as being part of either series.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I don't care what they are, but I like them.
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
Well, the Peace dollars do have rays on the reverse . . .
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
I read it a couple of times as well...
The reference is to Contemporary Counterfeits (parallel conversation to a point) and how to define/ characterize them. If the non "official"/ sanctioned mint coin was made to circulate with other coins in commerce, @NewEnglandRarities is stating that would be a true Contemporary (Circulating) Counterfeit; if made specifically to fool collectors it is not a CCC...
Wow, I am just checking back into the forum after a couple days. I thought I had edited that post as my iPad was autocorrecting a lot of my words making it a little unreadable, but I must not have posted my edits and corrections. Jack got my point correctly above, was kind of making a semi-parallel point as many have been discussing the correct terms to be used for the many different items out in the market now. Is the item a fantasy, counterfeit, replica, etc?
In the OP, some comments were made about if these should be “types” and not “commemoratives” etc.
As this topic has been front and center recently in many groups relating to counterfeits (both Chinese replicas and contemporary circulating counterfeits). Numismatic terms sometimes stick because of what certain items have been historically called. I was intending to say, that these “new” Morgan’s and Peace Dollars, not being produced for commerce/circulation but instead produced for the numismatic collecting world, I think that has to factor in to their actual “term/name”. Chinese replicas/copies also were not made for circulation/spending unlike say Henning nickels. As such, I’m of the belief that many items need to be “rebranded” to a consensus agreement on the definition of terms such as, fantasy, replicas, copies, counterfeits, etc.
A good point is brought up with coins like a proof Large Cent, which were not produced for circulation. I don’t have a great answer for that, which I think is why the terms used for specific coins needs to be looked at again in todays coin collecting world, so we can have a bit more clarity as all the items are collectable in their own way.
Sorry for my basically unreadable confusing post above!