A small empirical study: Modern vs Classic Pricing

jtryka · December 28, 2002 8:11AM

The modern/classic debat will likely continue to rage, and often it degrades into almost a religious argument with a lot of unsubstantiated facts amounting to "I think you are wrong, Moderns are undervalued" and "No, you are high on crack, this modern bubble is destined to burst" as the typical exchange. So I decided to to a small empirical study of pricing, and valuations (being an analyst, that's what I do). I took the pricing data from Numismedia and compared 3 denominations, quarters, halves and dollars. Based on my understanding, the Numismedia folks and others won't include prices where there are not sufficient trade data, hence pop 1 coins are not included (someone correct me if I am wrong).

I am not trying to bash modern collectors, what you do with your own money is non of my business, but I view this as another piece of information you should consider in making you purchase decision. There are also many other factors to consider in the overall picture of this market. I adjusted all the data to percentages based on the lowest of the three grades considered, thus absolute dollar price differences are rendered comparable. The average premium represents the percentage over the price of the base grade (i.e. if the premium is 150%, that means if the lowest grade costs $1, the next one costs $2.50). I tried to use top grades for a sufficient sample size, and the modern quarters top grade exceeded the classic by one point, but the opposite was true with halves and dollars as the top grades in classic exceeded modern by one point. I did not include any proof coins in the study.

Here is what I found:

State Quarters ranging in grade from MS-66 to MS-68:
Average Premium MS-67 over MS-66: 183%
Average Premium MS-68 over MS-66: 2,515%

Full Head Standing Liberty Quarters ranging in grade from MS-65 to MS-67:
Average Premium MS-66 over MS-65: 103%
Average Premium MS-67 over MS-65: 517%

Kennedy Halves ranging in grade from MS-65 to MS-67:
Average Premium MS-66 over MS-65: 276%
Average Premium MS-67 over MS-65: 1,089%

Walking Liberty haves ranging in grade from MS-66 to MS-68:
Average Premium MS-67 over MS-66: 195%
Average Premium MS-68 over MS-66: 1,174%

Eisenhower Dollars ranging in grade from MS-65 to MS-67:
Average Premium MS-66 over MS-65: 228%
Average Premium MS-67 over MS-65: 5,468%

Morgan Dollars ranging in grade from MS-66 to MS-68:
Average Premium MS-67 over MS-66: 348%
Average Premium MS-68 over MS-66: 3,544%

If any of you are interested in the raw data and graphs I constructed, please PM me and I'd be happy to e-mail you the spreadsheet. Also, as an equity analyst, I am quite used to the disclosure rules on Wall Street, so in the effort of full disclosure, I think everyone responding to this post ought to declare plainly what interest if any they have in either market, especially since we have such problem with conflict of interest (PCGS grades the coins and provides the registry that feeds a good bit of the market activity in moderns and classics).

DISCLOSURE: I will start by saying, I am neither a dealer in moderns nor classics, I own mostly classic coins, about 20% of which are slabbed, I do own a few moderns that have been slabbed for my type set, but none are the highest graded specimens, and all were submitted from proof or mint sets. I do have a complete set of modern coins in Whitman/Dansco Albums, and at least one set of proof and uncirculated coins released by the mint from 1987 to date. I have no vested interest in the price performance of modern coins other than their overall impact on the collecting hobby in general. I do have a significant interest in the performance of classic coin prices as most of my collection is of this type, however I am not in a position to influence the market in either direction.

Now let the flaming begin!

Russ · December 28, 2002 8:15AM

So, what you have demonstrated is that there are stupid premiums in moderns for a one point change on the label on the plastic.

Duh.

Russ, NCNE

jtryka · December 28, 2002 8:19AM

Thank you for your thoughtful response russ.

DHeath · December 28, 2002 8:24AM

That's an interesting comparison. There are obviously many variables that are not considered in your equation, not the least of which is surviving population and percentage of raw pop graded. That said, I think the Ike/Morgan comparison is pretty interesting. I'd be more interested in knowing what percentage of the total graded population the highest grade represented for each series, and learning if that accounts for the relative premium assigned by the market. Is the market smart enough to price condition rarity based on the expectation of discovery of additional high grade raw coins?

Russ · December 28, 2002 8:29AM

The post got the response it deserved. Everybody already knows that the multiples are ridiculous, so what's the point of your "study"?

Hell, all I have to do is look at the coin in my signature. It cost $96. The same coin one point higher TWICE went to over $13,000 at auction recently.

Since anyone who hasn't been residing in a cave is already aware of the situation in moderns, the real intent of your post is clear to any thinking person - despite your disclaimer.

Or, to put it in your words, it's a thinly veiled slam on all the "modern morons".

Russ, NCNE

KlectorKid · December 28, 2002 8:29AM

I think there is a very civilized way of examining the data shown above. The average Modern had a larger % increase then a average classic. And yes there are more high grade moderns than classics. The way I see it is that modern collectors usually want to be the best or one of the best any collector does but there is a larger population or moderners because really who wants a lincoln penny in AU?, there is no modern rarity other then grade rarity. So if u want to be the best u have compotition because every modern collector wants one and almost any collector could afford one. The result of having a "would be inexpensive coin" (when compared to classics) and a large demand all going for the same grade range is that the people that want it the most will pay big bucks for it and thats why they are expensive and why the plastic counts for moderns, becuase one poin when your trying to be the best is a lot. I'm not saying that every modern collector wants to be The Best but in general people dont care much about a set finished with ever coin 1 point below the best.

jtryka · December 28, 2002 8:45AM

I've tried to be civil russ, and I will continue to do so. The point is that not everybody knows this, in fact I would hazard to guess the vast majority of new collectors do not. In fact, most of the premium is due to these newer collectors playing the registry game with limited knowledge and heavy reliance on the hype existing in the market. The fact of the matter is, that most of the debate surrounding this issue has been based on rumor and opinion, and I have tried to add an element of fact/data to the discussion, a point you obviously missed.

supercoin · December 28, 2002 8:50AM

Pricing data is often wildly inaccurate (in either direction) for moderns, and I haven't fully examined your analysis, but all that aside... I'm not sure what conclusion you are drawing.

From your previous posts, I understand you feel many moderns are overvalued. But from your data, it appears that high-grade Morgans are more inflated that State Quarters. So have you changed your mind?

Or are Morgans modern by your definition?

Personally, I always thought Morgans were overrated too, though not quite THAT overrated.

supercoin · December 28, 2002 8:55AM

I took the pricing data from Numismedia and compared 2 denominations, quarters, halves and dollars.

Hmm... seems like some of your figures might be subject to a 50% margin of error.

DHeath · December 28, 2002 8:56AM

Tad,

That was why I was interested in the Ike/Morgan comparison. Obviously, Morgans survived in huge numbers, and many were hoarded and never circulated. Ikes, on the other hand appear to have been unpopular enough (and lacking silver) that they were not hoarded in large numbers. Since the mintage was so much smaller for the Ike, I'd love to see how they stack up empirically against the generic Morgan in high grade. Obviously, all moderns are not the same, and neither are all classics.

snake · December 28, 2002 8:56AM

Thanks Jtryka I enjoyed your work on this project.It was thoughtful of you to take the time and put things in a way I can understand them.Keep up the GOOD work for us that need the help.Thanks,Snake

Russ · December 28, 2002 8:56AM

<< a point you obviously missed. >>

Nope, your point is obvious to all.

Russ, NCNE

greghansen · December 28, 2002 9:01AM

Well...you said 'let the flaming begin'...and it appears it did.

Hopefully all those collectors spending mega money on modern's will some take take a look at classic prices and say to themselves, "what a bargain", and drive up the prices of some of my stuff.

coinkat · December 28, 2002 9:05AM

I'm going to suggest an alternative to this debate... the primary reason is that in the matter of taste there really is no dispute. Collectors can buy modern or classic coins (even hammered coins...) or whatever coins that makes them happy. Perhaps the debate should really focus on the grading system and whether a one or two point difference in the grade plastered on a slab turns that common coin into a coin of extreme rarity. I don't think it does...

I recall seeing a 1924 $20 Saint G. graded MS68 listed at $40,000. The same coin in MS65 is probably $850 to $900. Is that difference between MS65 and MS68 worth approximately $31,100? Not to me or alot of other collectors. If I bought an MS65 1924 Saint at $900, I could then spend $31,100 on truly rare coins and search for an 1864-S $10 Lib in EF (That is if I can find one...) and probably have enough change to purchase afew other rare date $10 Libs.

Some collectors should consider rarity from a different perspective other than just looking at the grade on the plastic of a slab and then looking at population reports...

KlectorKid · December 28, 2002 9:10AM

Sorry

wingedliberty · December 28, 2002 9:11AM

Quality coins will always carry premiums regardless of whether they are classic or modern.
Whether its the superb gold olympic commem in Russ's scan or a magnificent crescent rainbow toned
Morgan dollar. If you are trying to establish that there are heavy premiums paid for modern coins then
I have absolutely no argument with you, but you are already telling us what we already know.
Whats the point, collect what you enjoy and let others collect what they enjoy, speak with your wallet
and let others do the same. (edited to correct spelling error).

Happy holidays,
Brian.

DHeath · December 28, 2002 9:13AM

Coinkat, that's a pretty good observation. Sometimes, you have to wonder whether it is more interesting to purchase 10-MS66 (insert coin here), or 1-MS67. Competetion sometimes causes irrational behavior. What is even more interesting is that the grade is subject to change if any one of the coins mentioned are resubmitted. Hmmmmm.

I will however add that the competetion that makes us all so goofy isn't limited to any one series, or any one era.

FC57Coins · December 28, 2002 9:18AM

<< I recall seeing a 1924 $20 Saint G. graded MS68 listed at $40,000. The same coin in MS65 is probably $850 to $900. Is that difference between MS65 and MS68 worth approximately $31,100? Not to me or alot of other collectors. If I bought an MS65 1924 Saint at $900, I could then spend $31,100 on truly rare coins and search for an 1864-S $10 Lib in EF (That is if I can find one...) and probably have enough change to purchase afew other rare date $10 Libs. >>

This statement sums up the issue very well. Whether or not you're willing to pay $40K for a Saint, $69K for a Franklin, or $13K for an Olympic coin is entirely up to you. There has to be a line drawn somewhere in your mind that says - hmmm - if so-and-so wants $1000 for a Kennedy half, and I know good and well that 100 million of them were made, and I know that the next grade down sells for $20, then make the decision, do you want to gamble with the $980? or not? - I don't - plain and simple. I face the same questions every time that I'm offered a killer toned Morgan - do I want to pay $1200 for a coin that's worth $90 on the grey sheet? or would I rather get something that's closer to the accepted price. For me the answer is obvious - now there are some out there who would say that I'm out of my mind for turning away from such a gem - well so beit - it's my money and I can do with it as I please. The bottom line with moderns is that no one really knows where they're headed or why. Where were all of us brain surgeons in the 60's and 70's before Morgans and Peace dollars took off? - Well - we'll see what happens in the next 20 years.

Frank

fcloud · December 28, 2002 9:18AM

Just like beanie babies, it could be a fad, moreover, if you don't like the price of moderns, and you are afraid of losing on the deals, simply don't buy them. I am building a set of Statehood PR69DC Quaters in Flag Holders, and I am buying them because I like them and don't care if I lose or never get a profit. Yes, I know I am paying about $20 per coin on average, and to me they are worth about $4 to $5 each. I simply don't care... It is a fun set to put together!

Maybe others feel the same way.

supercoin · December 28, 2002 9:18AM

For me, why arguments like this are (sometimes) interesting but ultimately kind of useless (sorry!) is that basically, who cares what coins are a supposedly cheap or supposedly overpriced?

Unless you are doing it as an investment (really bad idea, in my opinion) then it seems to me to make far more sense to collect what you LIKE, in a price range that fits well within your discretionary budget.

Capped Butt Uglies might be the best deal around in terms of price/grade or population/price-of-cheese or whatever... but if you're think they're ugly and don't enjoy collecting them, who cares.

Or maybe you think Skyhigh Uranium Beauties are stunning and a great deal, but you could only afford to buy two coins in your whole life. Again, who cares.

Put collecting happiness before money.

jtryka · December 28, 2002 9:19AM

I find it interesting that many of you either missed or ignored my admonition on disclosure of any personal interest in either market.

Of the surprising things I found, was that there was an inverse in grade availability on Walkers and Morgans, in that prices were actually listed for MS-68s while the modern counterparts only went as high as MS-67. The Morgan information is not as surprising to me given the nature of that series (both its popularity among collectors and registry participants, and even the general public), but I was more surprised by the FH SLQ data, which seems like a real bargain on relative terms, despite their beautiful design. I believe some of this has to do with what I will call the classic intimidation factor, that being a perception that some earlier series are priced beyond the average collectors ability, even though this perception is often erroneous.

Surviving population data would be interesting to see as well as any published estimates of raw vs. certified populations. If anyone cares to find such data, I would love to see it (russ, you are obviously excused from this given your difficulty with facts and data). As I said, this is only one piece of a large puzzle, and meant to spawn discussion of the debate using factual information rather than mere opinions and marketing hype. So if any of you would like to add additional data points that might serve to explain these premiums, please do so as it would benefit everyone.

supercoin · December 28, 2002 9:24AM

The dreaded double quote...

DHeath: Obviously, Morgans survived in huge numbers, and many were hoarded and never circulated.

KollectorKid: Yes more survived but being over 100 years ago they are not in as good a condition as the majority of Ikes.

Me: Actually that's completely untrue, contrary to what one might assume based on the 100 year difference. It is far easier to find gem Morgans than gem Ikes (that is, Ikes intended for circulation).

wingedliberty · December 28, 2002 9:26AM

Obviously you cannot respect other member's opinions and this is again an example of you insulting
another member by insulting Russ by saying "obviously Russ is excused because of his difficulty with
numbers and data". What has become obvious is your inability to respect other members opinions except your own, due to these actions. You have been designated a troll and will now be ignored by
me.

Happy holidays,
Brian.

Russ · December 28, 2002 9:28AM

<< (russ, you are obviously excused from this given your difficulty with facts and data). >>

jtryka,

I have no problem at all with facts and data. What I do have a problem with, though, is being called a "slab-happy moron" by arrogant elitists who seem to find it impossible to simply accept what others choose to collect without disparaging them for doing so.

Russ, NCNE

DHeath · December 28, 2002 9:30AM

Amen,

Ikes comparitively were manufactured with lower strike pressure, terrible planchets, mass production techniques, etc, and are in no way comparable to the quality of the high-end Morgans. One has only to count the actual number of MS68 non-silver issue Ikes in comparison to the MS68 Morgans to get an idea of the difficulty this comparison invites.

jtryka · December 28, 2002 9:30AM

I apologize wingedliberty, I should not have responded by insulting russ in exchange for his insulting me twice aleady in this thread with me responding only in a civil way. Perhaps you consider me a troll, which by your reckoning I infer to mean anyone that says anything mean to your friends regardless of how mean or insulting your friends are being to them. So be it.

Russ · December 28, 2002 9:34AM

<< with me responding only in a civil way. >>

jtryka,

You know, you'll probably get away with that since enough people will read this thread who did not read all the garbage and insults you leveled in other threads. Yeah, you're real "civil".

Russ, NCNE

KlectorKid · December 28, 2002 9:35AM

Sorry

KlectorKid · December 28, 2002 9:36AM

Sorry

jtryka · December 28, 2002 9:37AM

I'm sorry Russ, you are absolutely correct, I am an arrogant elitist. You can collect what you want, you are great, all moderns are great, they are all undervalued, please send me your address so I can give you money to spend on moderns, you are also smarter and more beautiful than me, and have better taste than me, and are overall a better person. I am just a worthless POS. Is that better winged liberty? I try to have an honest civil debate and it ends like this. Russ, if you can't focus on today's thread and put my comments of the past behind you, then perhaps I should dig around the forum archives for incidents that you would rather forget? I seem to recall some rather controvercial ones from over the summer, but I prefer to let the past be just that. If you want to continue to berate me for my comments yesterday that go ahead, but I have been very, very civil on this thread, despite the opinions of your hypersensitive friend.

wingedliberty · December 28, 2002 9:38AM

Guys, to set the record straght, jtryka was the first to call modern collectors "PCGS morons", He was
the first to do it, lets see if he has the courage to at least admit that.

Brian.

wingedliberty · December 28, 2002 9:40AM

His definition of a civilized dialogue is to call modern collectors "PCGS morons", that should speak
volumes about him.

Brian.

Russ · December 28, 2002 9:42AM

<< then perhaps I should dig around the forum archives for incidents that you would rather forget? >>

jtryka,

Dig away. As soon as you find one where I've denigrated another member simply for what they choose to collect, post it. I'll be waiting for your results.

Russ, NCNE

KlectorKid · December 28, 2002 9:42AM

Get your facts straight winged. he called them
"ill-informed registry idiots"
"PCGS monkeys"
"modern morons"

Stop sending out false info.

toothpuller · December 28, 2002 9:44AM

Thanks Jeff,

Its an excellent idea to attempt to assemble some data and to post it as you did for the forum members to draw their own conclusions. This gives everyone the opportunity to twist the results to fit their own purposes. Seriously, maybe some members [like DHeath kindly offers] can suggest some constructive ideas on how to better tweak your formula rather than to dismiss your study outright.

As to the idea that mostly new collectors are getting into the registry poptop game, I suspect that most of the highest priced moderns are being bought by experienced collectors. Whether this is a sound financial practice remains to be seen.

"Put collecting happiness before money" - neat thought Supercoin

Edited to add: This thread certainly imploded. Sorry I tried to get in.

jtryka · December 28, 2002 9:47AM

Yes Winged liberty, I used that term, we well as idiot, and another one that slips my mind at the moment. Those comments were not directed at any individual though. I did not call you or russ any such name, and I still have not. I also think that everyone who drives a range rover is an idiot and a bad driver. I have a lot of strong opinions, that you may not agree with, but I don't cuss you out, or use perverse language. I use strong terms when I feel I need to, and after becoming sick and tired of what I consider meaningless banter about grade points, and pop reports etc. I blew my stack. That's true, and I admit it and I take full responsibility for it, which is why I am enduring your attacks right now. Anything else you'd like to accuse me of? No, I don't kick puppies, but I do eat meat (mostly beef, and sometime veal).

wingedliberty · December 28, 2002 9:48AM

KlectorKid:
I had no idea about the other insults that you quoted.
I guess that just makes it worse. I see he still does not have the courage to admit for the
insults that he first hurled.

Brian.

jtryka · December 28, 2002 9:49AM

<< Dig away. As soon as you find one where I've denigrated another member simply for what they choose to collect, post it. I'll be waiting for your results. >>

Tell me russ, who did I denigrate? Which forum member? I want names please.

jtryka · December 28, 2002 9:53AM

<< I see he still does not have the courage to admit for the insults that he first hurled. >>

Can you not read man???? How about this: I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT! I ADMIT IT!

I ADMIT SAYING THOSE THINGS AND I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM! If you are looking for a teary eyed apology and a big smooch on your behind, then I'm sorry I can't help you there.

DHeath · December 28, 2002 9:59AM

Adam (KK),

The 1978-P Ike, which is arguable one of the most common in high grade looks as follows in the PCGS pop report - 197 - MS66 5 - MS67 0 - MS68

1883-P Morgan (another common date)
522 - MS66 41 - MS67 2 - MS68

Coincidentally, the total pop for clad Ikes is zero in MS68.

Russ · December 28, 2002 10:01AM

<< Tell me russ, who did I denigrate? Which forum member? I want names please. >>

jtryka,

You denigrated an entire class of collector for nothing more than their choice of what to collect. In case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of members of this forum who collect moderns and choose to do so in PCGS slabs. Your ability to parse would make any politician proud.

Still waiting for you to dig up a thread where I've done the same.

Russ, NCNE

KlectorKid · December 28, 2002 10:03AM

You are right and so is Supercoin sorry for the wrong info.

braddick · December 28, 2002 10:07AM

Man, I sure hope collecting Moderns, or any part of the hobby isn't a fad like Beanie Babies! Regardless, your point is not lost on me.
jtryka- Thanks for taking the time to break it down into hard numbers. Even if they prove to be off here or there the big picture is super high quality coins are expensive and only SOME of them are genuinely scarce or rare.

relayer · December 28, 2002 10:08AM

The premium for modern coins is the opinion of PCGS.

The coins are not rare, the opinions are.

DHeath · December 28, 2002 10:11AM

Relayer,

I understand your point, but have you ever seen a clad Ike that you thought would grade MS68, and if you collected Ikes, would you pay a premium for a coin that nice?

roadrunner · December 28, 2002 10:15AM

The MS68 grade is probably not a good one to compare with any series. It presents a whole 'nother discussion.

I find it interesting that Morgans, Walkers, SLQ's are your choice of classics. Tossing in 20th century series collected in sets for the most part is another topic too. I consider the true classics to be 18th and 19th century coinage not usually collected in complete sets: bust, seated, early copper, early gold, proof gold, etc. And if collected in sets the grade is usually not Choice/gem or even UNC due to the rarity and prohibitive costs.

roadrunner

tradedollarnut · December 28, 2002 11:20AM

You guys are all wet...and half of you are being jerks about the whole thing. Now let's apologize and move on.

Don't you think the marketplace takes this all into account? Yes it's a bubble and yes it could go higher. Or lower. The risk reward is all priced into the price and all the yelling, screaming and name calling isn't going to change the market value one whit.

I personally pay outrageous premiums to get the next grade in my main set - a classic set. I paid $75,000 to upgrade a coin. How stupid is that? How stupid is it to pay $126,850 at auction for the only MS68 when a coin two grades lower is only $15,000? Who the hell cares! It was my choice to do so, just like it'd be some modern collector's choice to pay some outlandish premium for a high grade modern. The market place takes into account all the variables much more perfectly than you or I.

Collect what you want, pay what you want - don't worry, be happy!

Whitewashqtr · December 28, 2002 11:39AM

JTRYKA,

At the attempt of being objective, I see you keep talking about factual information. But your factual information is actually subjective. You picked the pricing source, Numismedia. You chose the grades to analyze. You chose the series. You could have picked anything, but it is not necessary a representative example.

Why chose Numismedia over PCGS or better yet market sales over the past 6 months. Why limit the study to the denominations of quarters, halves and dollars and those specific types.

Bottom line is.. you threw some numbers together and passed them off as facts!! Your data is unreliable. And I totally disagree with your study being passed off as "fact".

Consider putting together a better study that includes data from several sources, over a period of time and with all the different series. Then maybe it can be considered as more reliable. There is a reason the prices are the way they are.. its called "the market". It does go up and down, with supply and demand.

You should re-think your analysis. Just my objective opinion.

DHeath · December 28, 2002 11:40AM

LMAO........great post TDN. My wife put the entire hobby in perspective for me some time ago when she said, "You're all crazy. You're buying money for more than it's face value."

darktone · December 28, 2002 11:47AM

tradedollarnut is on the right track here. You have all been excellent forum members and I have enjoyed all of of your threads. It's time to stop and apologize! Normally when these problems occur I say nothing but I think have come to know you all good enough to consider you friends- so please be nice. mike

Catch22 · December 28, 2002 12:12PM

It's easy to suggest that people should simply collect what they enjoy collecting and have fun with the hobby. While I agree with that sentiment (to a certain degree) it's hard to fathom the current prices being realized for modern issues. I'm genuinely not trying to sound even the slightest bit snobbish, but value has to play a large part to sustain the level of interest in modern issues. I just don't see the level of information currently available to justify these prices.

Obsolete and classic coins have years of intense scrutiny and study to sustantiate their rarity and corresponding prices. Modern issues, by their very nature have little historical study regarding the availability of condition census issues. Factor in mintages in the hundreds of millions and it's easy to understand the skepticism many have over the long term, potential collectibility of these coins.

There are substantial similarities to the rare coin market of the early eighties driven by high precious metal prices and Wall Street interest in the liquidity promised by the slabbing services. This brought many new players into the hobby and drove up prices to unsustainable levels. The eventual bloodbath that ensued crippled the rare coin market for many years and drove off most all of the newer players. In a matter of a few months, people saw their rare coin portfolios dwindle in value to 20 or 30% of their previous values.

The big difference between then and now is that the current speculative market seems to be limited to the modern issues for the most part.

All I'm saying is that many modern issues, while certainly interesting in their own right, are currently being traded at speculative prices rather than historically justifiable values. Consider a little diversification in your collecting portfolio and enjoy the additional knowledge of the hobby in a more general sense.

A small empirical study: Modern vs Classic Pricing

Comments

Leave a Comment