Is Bruce Scher Confused About Condition Rarity
Typetone
Posts: 1,621 ✭✭
Bruce:
OK the title is just to get your attention.
On a current thread on Ohio P quarters you made the claim that since Ohio-P quarters are common as dirt that they must be a bad investment. Bruce given your collections, I do not understand your comments. Of all people, I'm sure you are aware of condition rarity. Take proof Mercury dimes for example. You have a set of 68s with only the 36 in 67. Is a 40 or 41 in 68 a good investment for $3,500 or even $6,500. With only a handful certified I think we could agree that they could still be undervalued, even at the higher level. On the other hand in 67 both dates are common as spit. Would you pay offer for either date in 67 to hold for the long term? I sure wouldn't. My guess is that you wouldn't either. Aren't moderns about condition rarity?
Now on to Ohio P quarters. Why do you call them junk? Sure in 67 or 68 they are everywhere, and are probably worth only a small premium to slabbing costs even in 68. But in 69 only a handful exist. Even if more are made, they are still likely to be scarce. They might be the most sought after type piece. Shouldn't those be worth quite a bit. Just because a coin is common in low grade, doesn't make it junk in highest grade. Now I realize that many do not buy into the condition rarity arguement, but it seems like you do. Most moderns are really collectible only in the highest or near highest grades. I do not see why you consider state quarters and the Ohio P in particular the exception.
Greg
OK the title is just to get your attention.
On a current thread on Ohio P quarters you made the claim that since Ohio-P quarters are common as dirt that they must be a bad investment. Bruce given your collections, I do not understand your comments. Of all people, I'm sure you are aware of condition rarity. Take proof Mercury dimes for example. You have a set of 68s with only the 36 in 67. Is a 40 or 41 in 68 a good investment for $3,500 or even $6,500. With only a handful certified I think we could agree that they could still be undervalued, even at the higher level. On the other hand in 67 both dates are common as spit. Would you pay offer for either date in 67 to hold for the long term? I sure wouldn't. My guess is that you wouldn't either. Aren't moderns about condition rarity?
Now on to Ohio P quarters. Why do you call them junk? Sure in 67 or 68 they are everywhere, and are probably worth only a small premium to slabbing costs even in 68. But in 69 only a handful exist. Even if more are made, they are still likely to be scarce. They might be the most sought after type piece. Shouldn't those be worth quite a bit. Just because a coin is common in low grade, doesn't make it junk in highest grade. Now I realize that many do not buy into the condition rarity arguement, but it seems like you do. Most moderns are really collectible only in the highest or near highest grades. I do not see why you consider state quarters and the Ohio P in particular the exception.
Greg
0
Comments
bruce scher
And, besides, some of those PR68 Mercs. are simply the PR67's that were upgraded in the past 12-24 months anyway - right?
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
I might very well agree, in general I find that the greater number of coins produced, the lower the average quality (I assume this is do to over-worked dies and other mechanicals). However, I would not want to draw any other conclusions since my argument pertains only to 2002 and later coinage (which you have now precluded from the discussion).
<< <i>There is one basic element missing from these posts, it has to due with the source of the coins which make the high grades. Traditionally, these came from either mint sets or coins intended for circulation, now I would bet it's only mint sets. I say this because the mint uses special machines to make the coins which are used in mint sets. So once they stopped banging the raw coins together (circa 2002), the mint set material beacame much better as a source for high grade material. In other words Mitch's statistics, with reference to the billion 1946 Lincoln cents, no longer reflect the current environment. I actually consider mint set coins to be NCLT, because in my mind they are not circulation strikes. >>
One can consider mint set coins to be NCLT as a group. Certainly in all cases a group
of mint set coins can be told apart from a group of regular circulation strike coins. How-
ever it is possible for a regular production coin to recieve a full strike even though it is
struck under less pressure. It is possible that a new die was used even though it is far
less likely since dies strike ten times as many coins. It is possible that the coin makes it
out of the mint without recieving any damage though this is improbable since regular pro-
duction coins recieve no special handling. Individually it is impossible to tell whether a
coin was produced for a mint set or for commerce. Some moderns are not really available
from mint sets as gems and one must find them in rolls or bags.
Since mint set coins are NOT distinguishable from regular production strikes it would be
more accurate to think of them as superior coins rather than different manufacture.
The mint has gone to great effort to make superior quality coins for mint sets all along.
This is especially true since the days of the SMS's and the advent of clads. The same mach-
ines making the mint set coins have been in use for years. It is the regular production
strikes which have been changed only recently to be made on high speed presses. And
even here not all of these are made on high speed presses.
While I'm not particularly impressed by the difficulty of finding high grade '72-S cents, the
'72-D is tough. There is not a strong correlation between mintage and quality in moderns.
It would probably be positive for most denominations.