My comments on the thread regarding the $2500 state quarter

jdimmick

Several of the board members know my feelings on this area but I just felt that I had to comment about a statement made regarding comparison to older key dates in high grades.

First, I am not going to bash the high-grade modern collectors for one main reason, and that is because I believe you should collect what you like. Who cares what anybody else thinks, Buy what you like in what ever capacity your able. Whether it be a $2500 modern high grade item or a $2500 classic type, key , etc.

But I dont feel comparing the potential of super high grade modern (rarities) to classic key-date rarities is valid, at least to me. I do agree that there continues to be striking/quality problems with the modern state quarters and this is even highten by the mass volume of coins being produced in such a quick productive atmosphere, However, I still dont think, with the advancement of technology, improvement of equipment and the delivery of the coins over the past 50 years+, that the same types of problems on coins are produced today in numbers
equal to (in ratio) that were produced then.

With that and even bigger factor is the protection and storage of coins once they have left the mint.

Technology and developments of new age methods of storing coins has improved so greatly even in the last 10 years that many coins today dont have the time to sit around run the risk of potential damage that they did 50-100+ years ago. Now, someone looks through several hundred rolls of state quarters and finds one that may 67, sends it to the grading service, then wham, its under plastic and protected for life.

The statement was made comparing a 26-s Ms-65 Buffalo nickel, and MS-65 red 09-s vdb, and so forth. Most likely these coins had to be searched in the same manner for a nice specimen, then had to have survived all those years either setting in someone's coin cabinet to jingle around, coin tray, paper envelope,box, various albums like the old wayte raymond album that can ruin coins with slide marks, whitman type album, or even nothing at all. Not to mention being handled raw all those years by various collectors. (you can even add polution, oxidation especially on the original red copper) Remember the grading services did not start putting coins under protective plastic till mid 80's(someone can correct me on the correct date)?condor101

So in my eyes a true classic rarity which remains in high grade mintstate is not comparible to recent coins gone stright to protective covering.

Just MY opinion
jim dimmick

jonesy

Jim, You are a Gentleman, a Scholar, Honorable, Mentionable, the Works!! Great Reply!!
Glenn

keets

26-s Ms-65 Buffalo nickel, and MS-65 red 09-s vdb or any coins for that matter.

then had to have survived all those years either setting in someone's coin cabinet to jingle around, coin tray, paper envelope,box, various albums like the old wayte raymond album that can ruin coins with slide marks, whitman type album, or even nothing at all. Not to mention being handled raw all those years by various collectors. (you can even add polution, oxidation especially on the original red copper)

allow me to play devils advocate...........suppose they were kept in an original roll or bag as received from the bank and stored in a cedar chest until grandpa died in 1974. then they were given to his coin collector grandson who was aware of their value and protected them. along come the grading services in the mid-late 80's and the coins are holdered.

my point is that there has always been a segment of the collector base that was aware of preservation and protection along with a sense of value and scarcity. my favorite example is the 1938-D walker which was identified by the collecting community shortly after issue as an extremely low mintage. they were hoarded in mass quantity and are available in high grade today as a result of that, not luck. i understand your post but view it as a worst case scenario which assumes that most high grade coins of the past arrived at present by chance. there were many astute collectors in bygone years and we benefit from it today, much as future collectors will benefit from the limited preservation of many clad issues by todays collectors. my favorite example there is a 1983 quarter, half dime or full step nickel. the mint caught us off guard that year and the mass mintage wasn't saved because too many assumed sets would be available.

al h.

braddick

Wow, three for three. I agree with all of you. And, you're in good company as Bowers recently wrote an article detailing just what you wrote and is in full agreement with your overall view of both markets.

-It's still fun though collecting some of these Moderns (I prefer the term, "Contemporaries") especially when accompanied with booming color and luster.
The price, although rising as of late, is still reasonable too.

ursabear

jdimmick,

What a great post! I like the presentation of your thoughts. You make several good points. The second sentence is good, too.

I have no real arguments - I just wanted to say that I appreciate the tone and thought of your post. It is all to easy (as in other posts, sometimes) to go into multi-lateral bashing for one reason or another.

Coins (for the sake of investment) are inherently risky for most (not all) issues. Affordability and taste are very personal metrics. Collecting coins is not a science. Like what you collect and collect what you like. Advice is free and worth *twice* the price.

I digress...

Thanks!

cladking

All good points and all quite true. A significant number of 26-S nickels which would
otherwise be gems are impaired. There has been a great deal of attrition on this
low mintage coin and the many years have also destroyed many coins which were
carefully pulled out of rolls and bags by collectors. There is, however, a finite number
of MS-65 nickels. Some of these have been graded and some are raw but it is a real
number. I don't have in depth knowledge of this series so any guess may be far off,
but if a modern coin had this exact same population then the ratio of slabbed coins to
raw would be much lower and the price would be a tiny fraction of the price of the 26-S.
This isn't to say that one should collect, or invest in the modern. The 26-S is worth more
because the demand is far higher. This demand may continue to be far higher or to even
grow relative to the modern and cause it's price to go higher yet. The point is merely that
it is higher, that you can get rarity in moderns at a much lower cost and that the demand
for moderns has been exploding for years.

Of course Buffalo nickels have been pretty hot for a while too...

pmh1nic

"there were many astute collectors in bygone years and we benefit from it today,"

I'm not sure what time period you mean when you reference "bygone years" but numismatics in the U.S. had a very limited following up until the later part of the 19th century and other than Morgans classic coins minted before 1900 were not saved in anywhere near the quantities modern coins (especially those in the last have of the 20th century) have been saved in mint state condition.

A excellent book on early American numismatics is QDB's book "American Numismatic Before The Civil War 1760 - 1860". There were some extensive collections being assembled in the 19th century (Brand, Parmelee, Strickney, Mickley, etc.) but they were few and far between and for the average person building a collection of cents, nickels or dimes (forget dollars) represented a major dent in the family budget.

For the most part I don't believe there is any significant connection between the number of classic coins that were saved in MS condition (Morgan's being the one major exception) and the number of modern coins that have being saved and preserved in MS condition (a truer statement as you move forward from 1900 to the present).

keets

bygone years as referred to here would pertain to the coins mentioned in the original post and in my reply, 1909 and 1926, so i guess were talking 20th century. it's also notable that into the early 1930's and even later one of the best "protectors" of coins was the federal government and the national bank system. FDR's 1933 bank holiday uncovered hoards of many early-mid 1800's issues kept in vaults as cash reserve.

al h.

editted to say that based on population and mintage there must be a relation between the number of collectors in the past and the amount of coins saved. i always ask myself, when pressed with a response such as yours, then who saved all the mint state coins we have today from the 1800's?? logic says it was either many saving a few each, a few saving many each or..................

pmh1nic

"then who saved all the mint state coins we have today from the 1800's"

Relatively speak there really aren't that many. But for the ones we do have you can probably thank Virgil Brand for a lot of them. He would purchase multiple years sets from the mint every year including all gold and silver coins during the later part of the 19th century and early 20th century. He amassed a collection that exceeded 300,000 coins.

keets

i've always wondered about how the word got out about mint products back then. most people in the mid 1800's didn't really function with money, at least away from the major cities. and with communication being primitive and a fledgling mail system how would someone even find out about an issue and go about getting it. given that, i do indeed thank Virgil Brand and the modern distibution we've arrived at.

al h.

cladking

<< <i>"there were many astute collectors in bygone years and we benefit from it today,"

I'm not sure what time period you mean when you reference "bygone years" but numismatics in the U.S. had a very limited following up until the later part of the 19th century and other than Morgans classic coins minted before 1900 were not saved in anywhere near the quantities modern coins (especially those in the last have of the 20th century) have been saved in mint state condition.
>>



How many 83-P mint state quarters do you own? '82nmm Dimes? We could go on
and on, but the fact remains that the availability of mint state North Carolina quarters
has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the availability of 1969 quarters or anything else.
They are not interchangeable. There may well be a few billion MS moderns, but they
aren't all the same date.

Actually most of the silver 19th century coins were saved in far higher quantities than
MOST of the moderns. They were saved precisely because they had silver, and they were
saved by collectors who found them interesting. Virtually NO moderns were saved as a
store of value for more than a few years before being put back into circulation. This is an
ongoing process and fails to protect more than a mere handful of coins in high grade. Col-
lectors have mostly ignored these coins because they are considered cladcrap. Many MS moderns
would barely exist if not for the one or two million mint sets that the mint manages to sell
to the general public each year. Yes, many coin collectors buy these too, but until recently
almost no one really collected the coins. They were purchased just to keep current or be-
cause a profit was anticipated. These mint sets have been so unloved that they sold for
LESS THAN FACE VALUE for many years. The coins in them were so unloved that even the
poorly made and much hoarded bicentennial quarter drove no one to seek out the gems in
the 1976 mint sets. Here is a coin which is typically poorly struck and scratched straight from
the mint but the percentage of gems in '75 and '76 mint sets has shown virtually no change
since 1976.

Collectors of the future will have a choice between one of the 12 or 15 million surviving MS
bicentennial quarters or they can get one that looks nice from among the 30,000 gems that went into
mint sets. This is not a one or two point grading difference that you need a glass to detect,
no night classes will be required, this is the difference between a mushy poorly struck and
scratched up unc and a gem. My guess is they'll prefer the gem. While 30,000 such gems were
produced, how many survived years of neglect, how many were saved during the many years
they were available for LESS THAN A QUARTER.

New collectors are buying these coins and they are buying many other coins too. Perhaps if
we nurture these collectors they'll eventually have the interest and the finances to also buy
some of the survivors from the 19th century.

...Or we can just keep reminding them they are buying cladcrap.

pmh1nic

Cladking

"Actually most of the silver 19th century coins were saved in far higher quantities than MOST of the moderns."

What was and is are two different things. Where are all of those 19th century silver coins today. For the most part the vast majority were melted down and we are left with a miniscule percentage in collectible condition. Yes, clad moderns are not saved as a store of value but the few million mint sets produced by the mint have guaranteed that they have been saved in quantities that far exceed those surviving silver coins from the 19th century with Morgan's being the only significant exception.

"Collectors of the future will have a choice between one of the 12 or 15 million surviving MS
bicentennial quarters or they can get one that looks nice from among the 30,000 gems that went into
mint sets."

Consider that statement and the quantities involved and tell me one classic coin that has a surviving population anywhere near those quantities that has shown any significant appreciate in value. You can't because there are none. Forget the 12 or 15 million surviving MS coins, even if you just considered the 30,000 gems you won't find a classic coin with a surviving population of 30,000 that has had any significant appreciation in value.

Collecting is a luxury not a necessity and a collector base large enough to support a significant increase in pricing for coins saved in those quantities does not (and IMHO never will) exist. At $10 or $20 or $30 a pop for a mint set you may have a collector based that runs into the millions. Increase prices to $100 or $200 0r $300 and the collector based seriously erodes. Go to coins in the $1000 or $2000 or $3000 range and the collector base is miniscule. You're not going to find coins with a MS surviving population in the tens of thousands (with tens of thousands more in AU or XF) that are going to appreciate significantly in value. It's not going to happen.

cladking

<< <i>

What was and is are two different things. Where are all of those 19th century silver coins today. For the most part the vast majority were melted down and we are left with a miniscule percentage in collectible condition. Yes, clad moderns are not saved as a store of value but the few million mint sets produced by the mint have guaranteed that they have been saved in quantities that far exceed those surviving silver coins from the 19th century with Morgan's being the only significant exception. >>



Again, one does not go to the coin shop and order "Three moderns and a coin
paper please" any more than one orders "a classic, a colonial and four slabs".
It doesn't matter to the collector buying a 1986 mint set with one million made
that there were three million 1981 mint sets produced. That there were only a
million '97 sets has no bearing on the collector who desires 1982 coins which were
not included in mint sets. When a collector seeks out an 1853 quarter it doesn't
matter that the coin was made in astronomical numbers if large percentages of
them have been lost and destroyed in the last 150 years. By the same token if
you need a 1969 mint set it doesn't matter that two million were made if large
percentages of them have been destroyed in the last 33 years.

Additionally many modern coins do not appear in mint sets at all. None were ever
placed in a mint set. Besides the various date/mm this includes the bulk of the
varieties over the last couple generations.

pmh1nic

Cladking

I don't think the parallel you've drawn between the 1853 silver quarter (or classics in general) and moderns is valid for a number of reasons.

The 1853 had a mintage of about 15,000,000 and the demise of the vast majority happened as you said through melting. In addition to the 1 million 1986 mint sets there were 500,000,000 1986-P Washington Quarters minted. Even if 10% of the mint sets survive and 0.1% of the 500,000,000 quarters were saved you're still talking about hundreds of thousands of coins saved in a very high state of preservation. Add to that the additional hundreds of thousands that are still in circulation in AU and XF. You can buy this coin in BU condition individually for $3 or $4.

I can't predict what's going to happen over the next 150 years (although by 2153 we'll probably be living in a cashless and coinless society) and maybe there is some dynamic that would lead to the demise of the astronomical number (relative to the mintage numbers of the vast majority of classic coins and the melt value that led to their destruction) of 1986-P Washington Quarters that were minted. But given the shear numbers I find it hard to envision a scenerio where the number of these coins will have diminished to the point where you'll be paying $1,000 for a mint state example, about the price of the higher population Arrows/Rays 1853 Quarter in BU condition with a surviving population in all grades of approximately 1,000 ~ 2,000.

topstuf

Well, it will sure be an ugly world if the bullion value of the clad quarters ever leads to a "melt."

heh

My understanding on the early classics in high grade is that most were found in Europe. After we kicked out the British (in our headlong race to become exactly like them) the folks "back home" in England came over to visit cousin Percy in the "former colonies." And what do all tourists take home with them?

Ask any coin dealer who gets 6 calls a day asking about a box of "real old coins" that the caller can't read.

Ergo, early visitors took home early coins. .............And put em in a box.

cladking

<< <i>Cladking



The 1853 had a mintage of about 15,000,000 and the demise of the vast majority happened as you said through melting. In addition to the 1 million 1986 mint sets there were 500,000,000 1986-P Washington Quarters minted. Even if 10% of the mint sets survive and 0.1% of the 500,000,000 quarters were saved you're still talking about hundreds of thousands of coins saved in a very high state of preservation. Add to that the additional hundreds of thousands that are still in circulation in AU and XF. You can buy this coin in BU condition individually for $3 or $4.

>>



Yes. Exactly. This is it.

I suspect your numbers are off but this is essentially the idea. '86 sets have not been
destroyed in the percentages that some of the others have. At least a third of them still
exist perhaps nearly a half. This leaves 500, 000 coins for FUTURE collectors. There are no
significant numbers of coins in rolls or bags for this date. Probably fewer than 100,000
total coins. The hobby will need at least eight or ten million new collectors in the next
twenty years to maintain it's vigor and growth as we old timers retire. I'm guessing that
many of these new collectors will want nice '86 issues eventually. The hundreds of thousands
of XF and AU coins surviving are often unattractive or damaged, by the time that these coins
are found there will be more attrition and damage. In six or seven years there will be no
'86 quarter in circulation in better than VG if the current trends continue and collectors do
favor well struck, attractive coins. This could easily mean fewer than two million coins in
grades above VG with four or five million collectors. Many of these coins will be unc, but
quite unattractive. Nice gem coins will not be rare for his particular date, but as has been
discussed many times, rarity is a function of surviving numbers and demand. Five million col-
lectors chasing 50,000 coins can seem rare. Some people look at these numbers and conclude
that finding the nicest coins among these gems may be either interesting , fun, or potentially
profitable. Even in these grades there is obvious variation in quality so they buy high grade
slabbed moderns.

The '86 coins are among the higher priced moderns especially in MS-60. There are other dates
though which have much better numbers and much lower surviving populations.

BlueCole

keets

what do you really know about moderns??
hey, is there an echo in here?!?

al h.

pmh1nic

cladking

"Five million collectors chasing 50,000 coins can seem rare."

The mintage numbers are correct and I'd don't believe my speculation is overly aggressive or conservative.

You may have five million collectors chasing a coin when it is $3 or $4 coins (assuming they're all interested in modern, clad coinage) but when those coins reach $100 ~ $500 the number chasing drops dramatically and above $1,000 drops even more dramatically.

My point is this, there are very few dedicated collectors with the resources to pay $500 or $1000 for an individual coin. If there are 2 million collectors in the U.S. (and based on the research I've seen in CW that number is probably more like 250,000) I'd be very surprised (based on my knowledge of the collecting community) if even 1% purchase coins in the $500+ price range. Optimistically that's 20,000 collectors. Since all of these collectors aren't interested in modern coinage that number would be reduced further.

We've done some speculation here but based on what I know about the population of coins in the $500 ~ $1,000 price range, the vast majority have total surviving populations in all grades that are less than 10,000 coins (I've done the research and this statement is accurate) and it's only the handful of top end coins that sell in that $500 ~ $1,000 price range. That being the case I can't envision a day, given the size of the collector base in the market for $1,000 coins, where you're going to have 50,000 MS and possibly millions of coins in circulated grades that are going to sell in that price range.

cladking

The price for an MS-60 '86 quarter is already at $8. Counting extant coins from
previously cut mint sets the population of this coin is around 1,000,000+.

There are around 50,000 gems of which a few thousand are MS-66 or higher.

I've never suggested these coins are going higher or that they are a good coin
for investment. I have suggested that every indication is that demand to date
has been exploding and that there are no signs it will abate soon. I have also
suggested that they are a huge amount of fun to collect, that there are surprises
in circulation and that those building sets of coins generally want to have the easy
coins right along with the rarities. Certainly if prices were to increase then many
collectors would simply attempt lower grade sets which will diminish demand. And
I have suggested that a lower grade set might consist primarily of VG coins within
the next several years.

And I am not suggesting that you save VG '86 quarters.

dbldie55

Cladking is a lot like Baghdad bob. Always giving one story that is not always apparently the case, but always has fabricated statistics to back it up.

cladking

I'm the blind man groping around at the front of the elephant. While you're
stuck elsewhere talking about cladcrap.