@wondercoin said:
‘’This seller is offering a 1997-D nickel roll for $174. It bids at $8 (Greysheet) and is hardly a scarce coin.’’
And, if you showed that to this particular seller (I have no idea who he is) and offered him 8 1/2x sheet, would he accept $70 (60% “discount”) for his roll? If so, what does that tell you? If he counters, hypothetically at $100, what does that tell you?
I could break up my 121 freshly purchased 1968 mint sets (that I recently bought at 1 CENT NET PER SET) and offer a roll of 1971-D quarters at $250 (or 10x sheet). If so, what does that tell you? And, what does it tell you if I offer a roll of 1971-D quarters at $500? Or even $750? What does any of this really tell you?
Answer: Absolutely nothing -right?
I certainly agree that offers are not determinative of value but I'm suggesting these are legitimate sellers who want to maintain satisfied customers. Retailers might offer things at double market to try to maximize profits but few legitimate sellers are going to offer anything at many multiples of bid price unless they know something.
Look at the '82 quarters routinely selling at many multiples of Greysheet!
@Coinscratch said:
I read a few pages back that people still aren’t collecting moderns.
Over the past 90 to 110 days I have sold almost everything (90% modern) on the bay. 150 separate lots averaged roughly 100 a piece. Plenty of bidding now but how many were actually collecting versus crack out artists I couldn’t tell you.
99 cent auctions coupled with shoe boxes full of mint sets created a feeding frenzy.
Fingergems
Now, that's interesting!
Which part
I personally liked the shoeboxes of mint sets. Instead of showing a pic of every single one or even selling them separately I would image the lot and then the front and back of a couple. It's like spitting on your bait now get out there and catch me something.
@Jacques_Loungecoque said:
I have been finding so much of what yall are saying to be very true. True super gemmy clad is NOT easy to locate. I’m wrapping up my 7070 modern page and various clad issues via crackouts and it’s not exactly easy. Clad up to and including MS65 is flat out fugly - especially under magnification. Usually banged up all to hell. 66 isn’t much better. 67 starts to get decent and it really takes to 68 for me to be satisfied.
It’s so odd to me how even AU58 silver can look better than 66 clad. And lemme tell you, a lot of pieces even in 68 don’t look awesome. For the 68’s that have a truly clean surface and the solid strike you’d expect, the premiums can be striking. Fortunately for me I have zero issues using the 06-10 satin finish coins to fill holes. They offer great examples, at very high grades, for a much lower cost. That’s been a huge help in my endeavors.
I hate to agree with you but I've been seeing some real dogs in high grade holders recently. I don't know when they were graded but things I don't even consider "gemmy" are in MS-66 holders. I define Gemmy as just nice very chBU with light marking and well made from good dies all the way up to solid MS-65. This includes some MS-63, many MS-64, and most MS-65 coins. Now I'm seeing nice flashy mint set coins with numerous nicks in MS-66 holders. Of course there are also a lot of nice clean but poorly made coins in holders as well.
A lot of moderns are just ugly. If collectors are going to demand attractive coins then mint sets are virtually the only source and they are nearly all gone.
@Coinscratch said:
I read a few pages back that people still aren’t collecting moderns.
Over the past 90 to 110 days I have sold almost everything (90% modern) on the bay. 150 separate lots averaged roughly 100 a piece. Plenty of bidding now but how many were actually collecting versus crack out artists I couldn’t tell you.
99 cent auctions coupled with shoe boxes full of mint sets created a feeding frenzy.
Fingergems
Now, that's interesting!
Which part
I personally liked the shoeboxes of mint sets. Instead of showing a pic of every single one or even selling them separately I would image the lot and then the front and back of a couple. It's like spitting on your bait now get out there and catch me something.
All of it!!!!
I'm reminded of the Pittsburg ANA in 1989. Most people remember what happened to the market but I remember a single seller with a table full of mint sets; hundreds of them. He had customers two deep all around the table frantically scrambling to buy sets. At the time the '69 set had shot up to $20 for no known reason and they were selling like hotcakes as well.
There was also a dealer with lots and lots of modern India. He wasn't especially busy and was selling lots of modern mint and proof sets at five or ten times Krause prices.
Curiously almost every one of the Indian sets would have been a steal because prices are many multiples higher now. The US mint sets on average are only about 50% higher now.
30 years ago it was less than $200. The Ike sets have gone up a lot and the Numis News sets are highly sought after now days. I surprising number of Gem quarters can be snagged from these.
‘’I certainly agree that offers are not determinative of value but I'm suggesting these are legitimate sellers who want to maintain satisfied customers. Retailers might offer things at double market to try to maximize profits but few legitimate sellers are going to offer anything at many multiples of bid price unless they know something.’’
So, this seller at 21+ x Sheet on 1997-D 5C knows significantly more than I know about 1997 coinage? I think I must call Bulls—t on that one CK! 😆
There is a seller right now on eBay selling examples still in original mint cello at 22% less (with quantity). So, you might want to grab those ASAP?
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@WCC said:
There weren't and aren't hundreds of thousands to millions buying 50's and 60's US silver rolls for collecting. It's predominantly or entirely due to the metal content which you disregard because you don't think a metal preference should exist.
Sure there were and are. The '50-D nickel that you consider distressingly common and has more than a million examples extant sells for $300 per roll just because it's minted before 1965. Many of the post-'64 nickels are scarcer in Unc and sell at prices starting at $3 a roll. This simply cuts across the board.
No, not rolls bought by collectors in the numbers you claim as collectibles. If this were true, it should be evident elsewhere in collecting. There should be registry sets, rolls in TPG holders, coin roll "albums", coin books and articles about roll collecting,.....anything to indicate it. It's limited where there isn't hardly any of that.
The above and the market price is why I'm telling you it's predominantly (not exclusively) hoarding and speculation.
No, I didn't forget the mintages. It's one my primary arguments against your claims. Obviously, there is a high correlation between current supply and mintage. You are claiming otherwise due to your unrepresentative personal experience and erroneous assumptions. Now, you're implying that the **survival rates **for US moderns are lower than the profile I described which is nonsensical.
This correlation broke down in 1965. The correlation between scarcity and price doesn't apply to most coins made after 1964 either.
You're thinking in the context of "mass market" collecting. What you state is true comparing US moderns to 1931-S cents, or 1950-D nickels, or supposedly low mintage 50's quarters and halves. It might also be true of 1880's quarters and halves.
It's not even close to true for the examples I used and no one who understands the context of my examples will ever make your claim. There was no organized collecting at the time and for centuries or millennia afterwards in those locations. In much of the world, there still isn't now. So, who exactly was supposed to be collecting it as you think? Am I supposed to believe there were more collectors centuries ago than there are now in those locations?
Whenever we discuss scarcity, your context is almost entirely US moderns vs. 1933-1964 US classics and the world coinage you call “modern” (post-WWII) vs. “old” world coinage, roughly 1900-1945. That's irrelevant to what I told you because the circumstances which account for the current supply of this coinage are entirely different.
>
I could compare availability of moderns against old US coins as well. I don't usually for two good reasons; I know more about how many '31-S dimes there are than 1854 cents. Also my estimates of the populations of older coins is considered too high by most collectors. It's harder to support my estimates of the numbers of older coins.
Why would you think the survival rate, especially in the quality we are discussing, is so much higher than the consensus for pre-1933 US coinage while simultaneously implying a hugely exaggerated scarcity for US moderns?
There was no "mass market" collecting prior to the mid to late 30's. There weren't more collectors collecting pre-1933 US coinage then vs. collectors of US moderns since 1965. The quality differences considered so important now were financially irrelevant too. It's evident from the TPG data and availability of US coinage that almost none of it is hard to buy, but that's primarily due to the market value and something else entirely from what you are implying.
The survival of the coins I listed is effectively a random event. Outside of maybe MS-67s and the few MS-68, this doesn't apply to US moderns because your assumptions are wrong. The coins fitting my profile didn’t survive in current quality as a result of so many collectors at the time, it’s not due to preservation for centuries because it was so valuable, and it doesn’t survive in current quality because it’s gold or silver either. Practically all of these coins were worth nominal amounts or premiums to the metal content up until at least the beginning of 1930’s US mass market collecting (regardless of potential TPG grade) with limited if any organized collecting locally.
Have you ever read B Max Mehl's catalogs? Try the 1927 edition if you can find it. These coins had little value and being in pristine condition wasn't valued as highly as it is today. They survived because collectors cared for them despite their limited value.
Nonsense. The US market even then wasn't equivalent to what I told you.
Let me give you an example. I own two of the four 1864 Bolivia centavos graded AU-58 or higher. The recorded mintage is 10,000. Assuming no others survive (unlikely), that's 1/2500.
Am I supposed to believe the survival rate on 82-P quarters (or any other date) in TPG MS-64 (or near it) is less than 1864 Bolivia centavos? This is the context of this discussion, not your "gems" which is an arbitrary standard anyway. It's no different for the examples I gave you before.
Using even 1/2500, that hundreds of thousands for practically every clad quarter date and the survival rate is almost certainly higher. There is no supply shortage because there isn't ever going to be a "mass market" for actual roll collecting, as the only reason you are writing in this context is to exaggerate the scarcity.
The entire basis of your claim is your inaccurate premise and your unrepresentative experience, even when I give you evidence you can verify for yourself which obviously contradicts you.
@Coinscratch said:
I read a few pages back that people still aren’t collecting moderns.
Over the past 90 to 110 days I have sold almost everything (90% modern) on the bay. 150 separate lots averaged roughly 100 a piece. Plenty of bidding now but how many were actually collecting versus crack out artists I couldn’t tell you.
99 cent auctions coupled with shoe boxes full of mint sets created a feeding frenzy.
Fingergems
US moderns are and have been collected - in volume - since "day 1". The price is something else entirely.
There is plenty of demand for US moderns and has been from the beginning. That's how the US Mint sold millions of mint and proof sets each year for decades after 1965 and still sells hundreds of thousands of sets for both now. Whether anyone sees this coinage as often as they think they should does not change it, especially if they aren't even looking in the right place.
There is nothing unusual in US collecting now or since 1965. It's easy enough to compare collecting in both periods to confirm it, in the context of how collectors generally actually view collecting.
Most collectors always have cared about quality even before this modern penchant to seek only the best for any coin.
Literally hardly any US collector cared about the quality differences considered so important in US collecting today, not where they would pay "meaningful" premiums for it, until US collecting became financialized starting in the 70's and TPG driven marketing changed it. This is evident with a two-minute review of any older Red Book.
What I have written is evident in the perception difference between US collecting now vs. US collecting previously and most of the world now and previously too. It's only where US practices have been adopted in other countries that perception changed.
Even today, there is a huge difference between how the overwhelming majority of collectors perceive this subject and your inference. Collectors will pay the market price under two primary conditions. First, if they treat the purchase as an alternate consumption expense and not an "investment". Second, if they believe they can recover most of their cost at resale. It's not primarily buyers paying current price spreads for one-point (or a few points) equivalent TPG increments because they find the higher quality coin so much more interesting as a collectible. US collecting didn't miraculously experience an epiphany starting in 1986.
30 years ago it was less than $200. The Ike sets have gone up a lot and the Numis News sets are highly sought after now days. I surprising number of Gem quarters can be snagged from these.
Just better than half at $243 or 6.07 per set on 40 sets for this particular lot. But again, I was having fire sale not selling individually cause I still have a day job plus my sons baseball 3 to 4 days/nights a week.
And I'm sure (based on some of the buyers names) a lot of this stuff went to fill shelves for the folks who do do this fulltime.
Anyway, the most interesting part for me was this first time turnover, after 6 years of buying mistakes and learning to grade and then flushing it all away ) except for the best Kennedys) I'm still a newbie but the ability to make good on most of it and the possibilities going forward are much more than I ever imagined.
Literally hardly any US collector cared about the quality differences considered so important in US collecting today, not where they would pay "meaningful" premiums for it, until US collecting became financialized starting in the 70's and TPG driven marketing changed it. This is evident with a two-minute review of any older Red Book.
I wonder how many times I've said this to you...
Almost any two barber quarters off the press would be a nice coin. There were a few clunkers and collectors would tend to pass them over. There were a few nice Gems and collectors would tend to snatch them first. There was no need to grade barbers to a fine degree.
Most of the clad quarters that came off the press were ugly. Then all of the clad quarters were subjected to rough handling.
The typical 1966 quarter was made by badly aligned worn tired dies and was then covered in scratches. These coins were so bad that they passed right from Unc to AG because the lettering was worn right into the rim. A coin that is no longer Unc with its lettering indistinguishable from the rim is defined as an AG. I refer to such coins as MS-3.
There is plenty of demand for US moderns and has been from the beginning. That's how the US Mint sold millions of mint and proof sets each year for decades after 1965 and still sells hundreds of thousands of sets for both now. Whether anyone sees this coinage as often as they think they should does not change it, especially if they aren't even looking in the right place.
If there were so much demand then why didn't the market notice that almost all the early sets are gone now? Lower supply is supposed to mean higher price. Is it your contention that demand is actually decreasing!!!?
If there is so much demand then why does Greysheet list only a single price for 1975 mint sets when 25% of the few surviving sets are pristine and the rest are all tarnished? Is the price applicable to only pristine sets or only the tarnished sets? Am I to believe the demand for good and bad sets is equal?
These sets are still being ignored, neglected, and abused just like every day since the day they were made. They are being consumed.
"Using even 1/2500, that hundreds of thousands for practically every clad quarter date and the survival rate is almost certainly higher. There is no supply shortage because there isn't ever going to be a "mass market" for actual roll collecting, as the only reason you are writing in this context is to exaggerate the scarcity."
Even though only a quarter of some mint sets survive that's still half a million coins. But you're forgetting that A mass market could chew up so little supply in a very short period and that these sets are very widely distributed and most aren't even available and might be lost before they ever become available.
Some of these dates are much tougher though and most of them are far tougher in nice attractive condition. There's no kind of magic that you can employ to fill the pipeline for a mass market. I'm selling due to my age but most owners of mint sets are more prone to buy more than to sell.
I keep talking about how consumption has eradicated most of the supply but concurrently there are a few buyers who are either collecting these or searching them. I just don't see higher prices having much effect on available supply because so much of the supply is held by younger collectors who are often outside the hobby. I don't see them selling their 1976 quarter currently worth about 40c just because the price doubles to 80c. It's far more likely they'd find an upgrade and spend the one they have. Most of them wouldn't even know if their quarter went up ten fold until they tried to upgrade or buy the Philly version too.
The availability of most moderns is so low that a mass market would be impossible yet every year there are more collectors because every year the coins in circulation get more and more interesting.
So, this seller at 21+ x Sheet on 1997-D 5C knows significantly more than I know about 1997 coinage? I think I must call Bulls—t on that one CK! 😆
There is a seller right now on eBay selling examples still in original mint cello at 22% less (with quantity). So, you might want to grab those ASAP?
Obviously he doesn't know more than you but he is in a different niche than either of us. Of course this BU roll market is still brand new. If this market continues to develop he might teach us both a thing or two.
@wondercoin said:
‘’Whether anyone sees this coinage as often as they think they should does not change it, especially if they aren't even looking in the right place.’’
😂
I've seen it just about everywhere. I can virtually smell mint sets from miles away. Many times I just drove into an unfamiliar city and ended up in front of a coin shop or six. I didn't even know of their existence until 1975 but have been chasing them ever since. I used to advertise to pay bid. Didn't get a lot because it was in the'90's and so many were already gone by then. I know a great deal about where they are, where they've been, and even those that have been destroyed. It's all been visible all along but only a handful of us are even watching.
Almost every time you see a roll of modern quarters you have located another 40 of them. When you see a well worn 1974 quarter in circulation with mint set crimping damage you've found another 100,000 of them.
Unlike people who ignore them and take them for granted I can see them everywhere.
@Cougar1978 said:
Good luck - would not want to be buried in modern BU Rolls.
They sell pretty well but at absurdly low prices. I've had to take numerous coins to the bank because they weren't worth the cost of shipping. Ironically a few of these have later shown up at very high offer prices.
As bad as these prices are the market is far stronger now than it was a few years ago and there are more buyers.
But these are all losers especially considering the wasted time and effort and more especially the opportunity costs and inflation costs.
@Coinscratch said:
I love the way they smell and I’ve been focusing on unopened boxes of five.
If they’re truly unopened you have a slightly better chance for gems.
Unopened packages of '69's are my favorite. It wasn't even an acquired taste.
Of course even the unopened packages now days have tarnished coins.
I like 'em all but all else being equal my favorite are the '86 and '88. The '86 coins are harder to find and the rotated reverses on the '88's come around like clock work.
Though the 88s are quickly becoming one of my favs. For some reason the packaging can sometimes be compromised allowing the elements in and the color to happen.
Back in 1995 I built a partition wall in my house, and before the wallboard went up, set in a fresh bank roll of 1995 P quarters. I don’t know when that wall will come down, but Somebody will get a surprise. If I had built the wall in 1983, I’d be ripping it down myself!
$10 was a lot of money to most people in 1965. They did not use it for trivial things like "investing" in clad coins. More accurately a lot of people did set aside rolls the first couple three years of clads but then they found there was no market at all and these coins were dumped. Very soon the means of acquiring such coins from banks became difficult as banks got out of the habit of providing new coins for collectors. People simply quit doing it so a few retail sellers sprang up and offered them in the back pages of the coin periodicals. Sales of all of these coins was just pathetic. Of course they could sell some pennies and nickels and an occasional half dollar roll but dimes and quarters were more a public service than a profit center. People didn't want these coins in part because quality was poor but most because they didn't want clads.
I'd wager aggregate sales from all of these suppliers for something like a 1969 quarter was less than three bags ( 12,000 coins). Many of these will no longer survive for myriad reasons; did I mention poor quality). Indeed in 1980 I asked the largest of these suppliers if he could assemble a roll set and he said he'd have to call almost every one on his customer list and he might. This was 44 years ago he said he "might".
Most of the rolls of most moderns (especially dimes and quarters) are assembled from mint sets. It's just as well because quality of most early dates was abysmal. Right up until 1999 when the mint started attracting customers who actually cared about quality most coins had serious issues. Before 1999 the only customer was the FED and they only cared the coins were countable and worked in vending machines: High standards indeed.
@ambro51 said:
Back in 1995 I built a partition wall in my house, and before the wallboard went up, set in a fresh bank roll of 1995 P quarters. I don’t know when that wall will come down, but Somebody will get a surprise. If I had built the wall in 1983, I’d be ripping it down myself!
Here’s an incredibly cool example selling totally unreserved today in the GC auction from the famous Justhavingfun collection. I thought you might want to check it out… I have never been able to personally find an error 1982 quarter in 40+ years of hunting for them!
LOT # 1560193: Mint Error 1982-P Washington Quarter Struck on 5c Planchet PCGS MS-66
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Comments
I certainly agree that offers are not determinative of value but I'm suggesting these are legitimate sellers who want to maintain satisfied customers. Retailers might offer things at double market to try to maximize profits but few legitimate sellers are going to offer anything at many multiples of bid price unless they know something.
Look at the '82 quarters routinely selling at many multiples of Greysheet!
Which part
I personally liked the shoeboxes of mint sets. Instead of showing a pic of every single one or even selling them separately I would image the lot and then the front and back of a couple. It's like spitting on your bait now get out there and catch me something.
I hate to agree with you but I've been seeing some real dogs in high grade holders recently. I don't know when they were graded but things I don't even consider "gemmy" are in MS-66 holders. I define Gemmy as just nice very chBU with light marking and well made from good dies all the way up to solid MS-65. This includes some MS-63, many MS-64, and most MS-65 coins. Now I'm seeing nice flashy mint set coins with numerous nicks in MS-66 holders. Of course there are also a lot of nice clean but poorly made coins in holders as well.
A lot of moderns are just ugly. If collectors are going to demand attractive coins then mint sets are virtually the only source and they are nearly all gone.
All of it!!!!
I'm reminded of the Pittsburg ANA in 1989. Most people remember what happened to the market but I remember a single seller with a table full of mint sets; hundreds of them. He had customers two deep all around the table frantically scrambling to buy sets. At the time the '69 set had shot up to $20 for no known reason and they were selling like hotcakes as well.
There was also a dealer with lots and lots of modern India. He wasn't especially busy and was selling lots of modern mint and proof sets at five or ten times Krause prices.
Curiously almost every one of the Indian sets would have been a steal because prices are many multiples higher now. The US mint sets on average are only about 50% higher now.
Maybe India is just 35 years ahead of us.
I suppose this is close to $500 now days.
30 years ago it was less than $200. The Ike sets have gone up a lot and the Numis News sets are highly sought after now days. I surprising number of Gem quarters can be snagged from these.
‘’I certainly agree that offers are not determinative of value but I'm suggesting these are legitimate sellers who want to maintain satisfied customers. Retailers might offer things at double market to try to maximize profits but few legitimate sellers are going to offer anything at many multiples of bid price unless they know something.’’
So, this seller at 21+ x Sheet on 1997-D 5C knows significantly more than I know about 1997 coinage? I think I must call Bulls—t on that one CK! 😆
There is a seller right now on eBay selling examples still in original mint cello at 22% less (with quantity). So, you might want to grab those ASAP?
Wondercoin.
No, not rolls bought by collectors in the numbers you claim as collectibles. If this were true, it should be evident elsewhere in collecting. There should be registry sets, rolls in TPG holders, coin roll "albums", coin books and articles about roll collecting,.....anything to indicate it. It's limited where there isn't hardly any of that.
The above and the market price is why I'm telling you it's predominantly (not exclusively) hoarding and speculation.
You're thinking in the context of "mass market" collecting. What you state is true comparing US moderns to 1931-S cents, or 1950-D nickels, or supposedly low mintage 50's quarters and halves. It might also be true of 1880's quarters and halves.
It's not even close to true for the examples I used and no one who understands the context of my examples will ever make your claim. There was no organized collecting at the time and for centuries or millennia afterwards in those locations. In much of the world, there still isn't now. So, who exactly was supposed to be collecting it as you think? Am I supposed to believe there were more collectors centuries ago than there are now in those locations?
Why would you think the survival rate, especially in the quality we are discussing, is so much higher than the consensus for pre-1933 US coinage while simultaneously implying a hugely exaggerated scarcity for US moderns?
There was no "mass market" collecting prior to the mid to late 30's. There weren't more collectors collecting pre-1933 US coinage then vs. collectors of US moderns since 1965. The quality differences considered so important now were financially irrelevant too. It's evident from the TPG data and availability of US coinage that almost none of it is hard to buy, but that's primarily due to the market value and something else entirely from what you are implying.
Nonsense. The US market even then wasn't equivalent to what I told you.
Let me give you an example. I own two of the four 1864 Bolivia centavos graded AU-58 or higher. The recorded mintage is 10,000. Assuming no others survive (unlikely), that's 1/2500.
Am I supposed to believe the survival rate on 82-P quarters (or any other date) in TPG MS-64 (or near it) is less than 1864 Bolivia centavos? This is the context of this discussion, not your "gems" which is an arbitrary standard anyway. It's no different for the examples I gave you before.
Using even 1/2500, that hundreds of thousands for practically every clad quarter date and the survival rate is almost certainly higher. There is no supply shortage because there isn't ever going to be a "mass market" for actual roll collecting, as the only reason you are writing in this context is to exaggerate the scarcity.
The entire basis of your claim is your inaccurate premise and your unrepresentative experience, even when I give you evidence you can verify for yourself which obviously contradicts you.
US moderns are and have been collected - in volume - since "day 1". The price is something else entirely.
There is plenty of demand for US moderns and has been from the beginning. That's how the US Mint sold millions of mint and proof sets each year for decades after 1965 and still sells hundreds of thousands of sets for both now. Whether anyone sees this coinage as often as they think they should does not change it, especially if they aren't even looking in the right place.
There is nothing unusual in US collecting now or since 1965. It's easy enough to compare collecting in both periods to confirm it, in the context of how collectors generally actually view collecting.
‘’Whether anyone sees this coinage as often as they think they should does not change it, especially if they aren't even looking in the right place.’’
😂
Wondercoin
Literally hardly any US collector cared about the quality differences considered so important in US collecting today, not where they would pay "meaningful" premiums for it, until US collecting became financialized starting in the 70's and TPG driven marketing changed it. This is evident with a two-minute review of any older Red Book.
What I have written is evident in the perception difference between US collecting now vs. US collecting previously and most of the world now and previously too. It's only where US practices have been adopted in other countries that perception changed.
Even today, there is a huge difference between how the overwhelming majority of collectors perceive this subject and your inference. Collectors will pay the market price under two primary conditions. First, if they treat the purchase as an alternate consumption expense and not an "investment". Second, if they believe they can recover most of their cost at resale. It's not primarily buyers paying current price spreads for one-point (or a few points) equivalent TPG increments because they find the higher quality coin so much more interesting as a collectible. US collecting didn't miraculously experience an epiphany starting in 1986.
Just better than half at $243 or 6.07 per set on 40 sets for this particular lot. But again, I was having fire sale not selling individually cause I still have a day job plus my sons baseball 3 to 4 days/nights a week.
And I'm sure (based on some of the buyers names) a lot of this stuff went to fill shelves for the folks who do do this fulltime.
Anyway, the most interesting part for me was this first time turnover, after 6 years of buying mistakes and learning to grade and then flushing it all away ) except for the best Kennedys) I'm still a newbie but the ability to make good on most of it and the possibilities going forward are much more than I ever imagined.
NEXT!
I wonder how many times I've said this to you...
Almost any two barber quarters off the press would be a nice coin. There were a few clunkers and collectors would tend to pass them over. There were a few nice Gems and collectors would tend to snatch them first. There was no need to grade barbers to a fine degree.
Most of the clad quarters that came off the press were ugly. Then all of the clad quarters were subjected to rough handling.
The typical 1966 quarter was made by badly aligned worn tired dies and was then covered in scratches. These coins were so bad that they passed right from Unc to AG because the lettering was worn right into the rim. A coin that is no longer Unc with its lettering indistinguishable from the rim is defined as an AG. I refer to such coins as MS-3.
If there were so much demand then why didn't the market notice that almost all the early sets are gone now? Lower supply is supposed to mean higher price. Is it your contention that demand is actually decreasing!!!?
If there is so much demand then why does Greysheet list only a single price for 1975 mint sets when 25% of the few surviving sets are pristine and the rest are all tarnished? Is the price applicable to only pristine sets or only the tarnished sets? Am I to believe the demand for good and bad sets is equal?
These sets are still being ignored, neglected, and abused just like every day since the day they were made. They are being consumed.
"Using even 1/2500, that hundreds of thousands for practically every clad quarter date and the survival rate is almost certainly higher. There is no supply shortage because there isn't ever going to be a "mass market" for actual roll collecting, as the only reason you are writing in this context is to exaggerate the scarcity."
Even though only a quarter of some mint sets survive that's still half a million coins. But you're forgetting that A mass market could chew up so little supply in a very short period and that these sets are very widely distributed and most aren't even available and might be lost before they ever become available.
Some of these dates are much tougher though and most of them are far tougher in nice attractive condition. There's no kind of magic that you can employ to fill the pipeline for a mass market. I'm selling due to my age but most owners of mint sets are more prone to buy more than to sell.
I keep talking about how consumption has eradicated most of the supply but concurrently there are a few buyers who are either collecting these or searching them. I just don't see higher prices having much effect on available supply because so much of the supply is held by younger collectors who are often outside the hobby. I don't see them selling their 1976 quarter currently worth about 40c just because the price doubles to 80c. It's far more likely they'd find an upgrade and spend the one they have. Most of them wouldn't even know if their quarter went up ten fold until they tried to upgrade or buy the Philly version too.
The availability of most moderns is so low that a mass market would be impossible yet every year there are more collectors because every year the coins in circulation get more and more interesting.
Good luck - would not want to be buried in modern BU Rolls.
Obviously he doesn't know more than you but he is in a different niche than either of us. Of course this BU roll market is still brand new. If this market continues to develop he might teach us both a thing or two.
I've seen it just about everywhere. I can virtually smell mint sets from miles away. Many times I just drove into an unfamiliar city and ended up in front of a coin shop or six. I didn't even know of their existence until 1975 but have been chasing them ever since. I used to advertise to pay bid. Didn't get a lot because it was in the'90's and so many were already gone by then. I know a great deal about where they are, where they've been, and even those that have been destroyed. It's all been visible all along but only a handful of us are even watching.
Almost every time you see a roll of modern quarters you have located another 40 of them. When you see a well worn 1974 quarter in circulation with mint set crimping damage you've found another 100,000 of them.
Unlike people who ignore them and take them for granted I can see them everywhere.
I love the way they smell and I’ve been focusing on unopened boxes of five.
If they’re truly unopened you have a slightly better chance for gems.
CK: I got in these 390 “fresh” mint sets last week.
1971 91
1972 75
1981 94
1990 130
But, I was offered the following additional sets. Any of these dates among your favorite clad dates?
1979 161
1980 48
1984 68
1985 132
1986 186
1987 135
1988 209
1989 72
1990 10
1991 79
1992 86
1993 80
1994 113
1995 59
1998 52
Wondercoin
I have about 50 2008-D lincoln $25 boxes I want to sell. I also have some nickel and dime 2009-D boxes.
They sell pretty well but at absurdly low prices. I've had to take numerous coins to the bank because they weren't worth the cost of shipping. Ironically a few of these have later shown up at very high offer prices.
As bad as these prices are the market is far stronger now than it was a few years ago and there are more buyers.
But these are all losers especially considering the wasted time and effort and more especially the opportunity costs and inflation costs.
Unopened packages of '69's are my favorite. It wasn't even an acquired taste.
Of course even the unopened packages now days have tarnished coins.
I like 'em all but all else being equal my favorite are the '86 and '88. The '86 coins are harder to find and the rotated reverses on the '88's come around like clock work.
Tough to find 68 and 69 w/o tarnish...
Though the 88s are quickly becoming one of my favs. For some reason the packaging can sometimes be compromised allowing the elements in and the color to happen.
A few moments later.
Back in 1995 I built a partition wall in my house, and before the wallboard went up, set in a fresh bank roll of 1995 P quarters. I don’t know when that wall will come down, but Somebody will get a surprise. If I had built the wall in 1983, I’d be ripping it down myself!
$10 was a lot of money to most people in 1965. They did not use it for trivial things like "investing" in clad coins. More accurately a lot of people did set aside rolls the first couple three years of clads but then they found there was no market at all and these coins were dumped. Very soon the means of acquiring such coins from banks became difficult as banks got out of the habit of providing new coins for collectors. People simply quit doing it so a few retail sellers sprang up and offered them in the back pages of the coin periodicals. Sales of all of these coins was just pathetic. Of course they could sell some pennies and nickels and an occasional half dollar roll but dimes and quarters were more a public service than a profit center. People didn't want these coins in part because quality was poor but most because they didn't want clads.
I'd wager aggregate sales from all of these suppliers for something like a 1969 quarter was less than three bags ( 12,000 coins). Many of these will no longer survive for myriad reasons; did I mention poor quality). Indeed in 1980 I asked the largest of these suppliers if he could assemble a roll set and he said he'd have to call almost every one on his customer list and he might. This was 44 years ago he said he "might".
Most of the rolls of most moderns (especially dimes and quarters) are assembled from mint sets. It's just as well because quality of most early dates was abysmal. Right up until 1999 when the mint started attracting customers who actually cared about quality most coins had serious issues. Before 1999 the only customer was the FED and they only cared the coins were countable and worked in vending machines: High standards indeed.
Good date!
Hey CK. I know you love your 1982 quarters!
Here’s an incredibly cool example selling totally unreserved today in the GC auction from the famous Justhavingfun collection. I thought you might want to check it out… I have never been able to personally find an error 1982 quarter in 40+ years of hunting for them!
LOT # 1560193: Mint Error 1982-P Washington Quarter Struck on 5c Planchet PCGS MS-66
Wondercoin