sale/no sale, "A Tale of Two Bits"
zenny
Posts: 1,547 ✭✭
just surfing ebay for a few this afternoon and i happened upon two auctions.
one was for this:
sale
total mintage: 52,000 coins
a classic rarity that is unarguably the key to the series (aside from the 18/17 overdate, ok, so it's arguable).
the other was for this:
no sale
total mintage: 353,000,000 coins
a coin that one receives regularly in change at the grocery store.
a couple observations then some questions:
1. there were 352,948,000 more kentucky quarters minted in Philadelphia in 2001 than there were slq's in 1916.
2. there were 6788 times more KY quarters minted in Philly than there were slqs.
3. PCGS has seen approximately five tenthousanths of one percent of all Kentucky state quarters minted in Philly, (one coin out of every 198,873 or so).
4. NGC has seen 9/10 of 1 percent of the slqs, (one coin out of every 113).
the questions, (either for pondering or answering):
1. which would you rather own?
2. if pcgs ever sees the other 352,998,225 KY quarters minted in Philly, do you think perhaps a few other 69's will show up?
3. Which has a better chance of retaining value/improving value over the short term?
4. Which has a better chance of retaining value/improving value over the long term?
5. If PCGS were to see this coin again if it were cracked and resubmitted, what do you think the odds are that it would regrade as the 3rd 69 as compared to regrading as the 259th 68 or even the 823rd 67, (seeing as the seller basically admits it has no chance of grading 70 due to a mark on the obverse)?
6. Do you think the buyer made a mistake and should have bought the newer, far more perfect quarter than the older, tarnished, not even close to perfect quarter, and in the process save himself almost 10 grand?
(i'm guessing you know my answers)
z
one was for this:
sale
total mintage: 52,000 coins
a classic rarity that is unarguably the key to the series (aside from the 18/17 overdate, ok, so it's arguable).
the other was for this:
no sale
total mintage: 353,000,000 coins
a coin that one receives regularly in change at the grocery store.
a couple observations then some questions:
1. there were 352,948,000 more kentucky quarters minted in Philadelphia in 2001 than there were slq's in 1916.
2. there were 6788 times more KY quarters minted in Philly than there were slqs.
3. PCGS has seen approximately five tenthousanths of one percent of all Kentucky state quarters minted in Philly, (one coin out of every 198,873 or so).
4. NGC has seen 9/10 of 1 percent of the slqs, (one coin out of every 113).
the questions, (either for pondering or answering):
1. which would you rather own?
2. if pcgs ever sees the other 352,998,225 KY quarters minted in Philly, do you think perhaps a few other 69's will show up?
3. Which has a better chance of retaining value/improving value over the short term?
4. Which has a better chance of retaining value/improving value over the long term?
5. If PCGS were to see this coin again if it were cracked and resubmitted, what do you think the odds are that it would regrade as the 3rd 69 as compared to regrading as the 259th 68 or even the 823rd 67, (seeing as the seller basically admits it has no chance of grading 70 due to a mark on the obverse)?
6. Do you think the buyer made a mistake and should have bought the newer, far more perfect quarter than the older, tarnished, not even close to perfect quarter, and in the process save himself almost 10 grand?
(i'm guessing you know my answers)
z
0
Comments
We ARE watching you.
You just wait til the Set Registry folks get done with you.
You're MEAT, man.
Ray
1. which would you rather own?
The 1916 SLQ unless the Washington was a 1997 then I want it.
2. if pcgs ever sees the other 352,998,225 KY quarters minted in Philly, do you think perhaps a few other 69's will show up?
Absolutely yes.
3. Which has a better chance of retaining value/improving value over the short term?
The State Quarter.
4. Which has a better chance of retaining value/improving value over the long term?
The 1916 SLQ.
5. If PCGS were to see this coin again if it were cracked and resubmitted, what do you think the odds are that it would regrade as the 3rd 69 as compared to regrading as the 259th 68 or even the 823rd 67, (seeing as the seller basically admits it has no chance of grading 70 due to a mark on the obverse)?
Since the seller lists a $5,000 coin without bothering to give us a picture I aint got a clue. You buy it for the grade on the slab and keep it in the slab. I sure as L wouldn't crack it out and send it in raw.
6. Do you think the buyer made a mistake and should have bought the newer, far more perfect quarter than the older, tarnished, not even close to perfect quarter, and in the process save himself almost 10 grand?
No, because the buyer is obviously as Standing Liberty Quarter collector, not a collector of high grade Modern Quarters.
Tom
Noone could possibly compare a 1916 SLQ ( in ANY condition) to a KY quarter regardless if its a MS 69.
Yes I know the grade rarity senario but $ 4 $ my money's on the SLQ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
I know whose crown...the King of Folly
<< <i>Absolutely incredible, and no picture to boot. $6k for a state quarter? Somebody please tell me this is a joke. >>
No joke, this is the person who had the registry forum created to sell stuff because he couldn't sell it on this forum.
2. Most definitely!
3. The SLQ
4. The SLQ
5. Slim, compared to good.
6. Not at all.
2. Absolutely
3. SLQ
4. SLQ
5. 500:1
6. NO!!!
Back in 1916 the SLQ was just the new kind of quarter. Few were made, some had the foresight to hold on to them. EVENTUALLY that will happen with almost everything. Note i said eventually, thousands and thousands times more KY quarters were minted, but I bet in 400 yrs they'll be known as a classic rarity. Can you imagine what an MS69 WillowTree sixpence would cost? (circa 1652) 03 Redbook puts one in fine at 60K
<< <i>a coin that one receives regularly in change at the grocery store >>
true, but i've never actually gotten a slab in change at the grocery store. that's the difference!
K S
<< <i>Something I think we might all forget sometimes is that at one point, that SLQ was just like the state quarter. >>
Actually, no. As soon as the 16SLQ was issued it was bringing a premium. As I recall 16s were bringing $1 - 1.25 shortly after issue. That's 4 - 5X face at issue when there were few collectors. They were recognized as a rarity right from the start. P:rices quickly rose from there.
Add in the mintage of just 52K for the 16 vice 353 MILLION for the Kentucky and the fact that tons of State qtrs are being saved you're comparing a real collectible coin versus a "promotion".
The large premium on "plastic rarity moderns" pretty well ensures that some will take the risk of submitting more eventually leading to a price decline.
While no one will be here in 400 years, I'd hazzard a guess that future numismatists will be wonder WTH the buyers of these things were smoking (suggestion: "speedball").
1964 Jefferson Nickel, over one BILLION were minted, and NGC lists ONE in 67. (thats three times more nickels than kentucky quarters)
1964D Jeff Nickel, 276MILLION (still less, but still somewhat close to mintage of quarters) and again, NGC lists ONE in 1967.
Those two coins have been around for 40 years, and grading services have been around for almost 20, and yet still there's not a flood of super high grade examples floating around. Making both of them in 1967 a true rarity, a true conditionrairty, but a rarity nonetheless. Now again, I'm not a modern guy, nor a condition rarity guy (I don't chase 34S peace dollars or 1892S Morgans) but its not too far a stretch to see that SOMEDAY coins like these will be justified in bringing huge prices. Not today, today 6K for a quarter is ridiculous, but SOMEDAY............
Even I kind of have to admit, it would be neat to have the nicest known of something of which one BILLION were made, I mean a billion is so big its hard to contemplate. But would I pay thousands for it? No, go no, it would just be kind of neat. Thats the only reason I collect any of the coins that I do (type, bust halves, and Peace Dollars) is that I think it's neat to have them.
But wouldn't step in and try to tell someone that something they like is "uncollectable" either.
Here's the "Two Bits" version:
Imagine this is a link to one auction, the SLQ. Why no link to the MS69 State Quarter?...because there is no State Quarter program, no set registry, no reason in the minds of the masses for anyone to seek out and slab a modern coin.
Would the SLQ sell for more or less than it just did?
What would the general market conditions be for rare coins?
Would any long-term collector who bought that coin today have any clue where the collector base would come from to support the value of such a classic rarity when it sells again in the future?
Four years ago I would have been drooling over that state quarter...now I collect high grade Seated material by die variety. I and others just like me are the future market for this SLQ, in a great extent due to the market processes that you all love to ridicule.
RELLA
who boasts of twenty years experience in his craft
while in fact he has had only one year of experience...
twenty times.
We ARE watching you.
<< <i>Shouldn't this be titled "A Tale of Four Bits"?
>>
Well, initially it was going to be "A Tale of Two Bitties"......
I collect both and here is my two cents.
> 1. which would you rather own?
The MS62FH 1916 SLQ.
> 2. if pcgs ever sees the other 352,998,225 KY quarters minted in Philly, do you think perhaps a few other 69's will show up?
I believe they will. See other scarce dates of state quarter (e.g., MA-D, NH-D, RI-D), they pops were doubled in the last two months.
> 3. Which has a better chance of retaining value/improving value over the short term?
Anybody's call. In the last two years when coin market is WHITE HOT, I did not see SLQ price moves too much.
I have serious doubt that many folks collect SLQ (same as two cents, three cents).
> 4. Which has a better chance of retaining value/improving value over the long term?
Anybody's call. My bet is SLQ.
> 5. If PCGS were to see this coin again if it were cracked and resubmitted, what do you think the odds are that it would regrade as the 3rd 69 as compared to regrading as the 259th 68 or even the 823rd 67, (seeing as the seller basically admits it has no chance of grading 70 due to a mark on the obverse)?
If PCGS grading is consistent, they it will come back as an MS69. Since so many folks complain about their grading consistency, the odd to come back as an MS69 is slim.
> 6. Do you think the buyer made a mistake and should have bought the newer, far more perfect quarter than the older, tarnished, not even close to perfect quarter, and in the process save himself almost 10 grand?
I dealt with Ira several times. I believe Ira got a great eye to pick SLQs. Not many dealers really understand the SLQ. Ira knows SLQ very well. I think the buyer made a mistake that he did not buy SLQ last year when price is still reasonable
<< <i>6. Do you think the buyer made a mistake and should have bought the newer, far more perfect quarter than the older, tarnished, not even close to perfect quarter, and in the process save himself almost 10 grand? >>
Did he make a mistake buying the SLQ compared to the state quarter? Unlikely, since the state quarter will probably be a $200 coin a few years hence.
The real question, though, is did he make a mistake paying almost $15 grand for the SLQ just because it says "FH" on the holder? That's a damned flat looking head for FH.
Russ, NCNE
There is a different standard to grade 1916 Full Head. If you use 1917 standards to grade 1916 SLQs, then there is NO Full Head coin for the 1916. Please understand the rule of the game first.
<< <i>There is a different standard to grade 1916 Full Head. If you use 1917 standards to grade 1916 SLQs, then there is NO Full Head coin for the 1916. Please understand the rule of the game first. >>
Differing standard or not, a flat head is a flat head. It's the same with most of these strike designators for which a huge premium is paid based on the holder. If we're going to trash modern collectors for paying a condition rarity premium, then it's hypocritical to laud those who engage in essentially the same practice simply because a coin is considered a "classic".
Russ, NCNE