Why not proofs?

GOLDSAINT

I am a little confused why there is not much more upward price pressure on most poof issues. Most collectors are looking for smaller mintages, eye appeal, color, strike etc. and proof coins seem to have it all, and yet they are passed over by many collectors. As a case in point, in the last few days I purchased a PCGS pr 64 seated quarter for my type set. In this particular year there were 16,600 minted business strikes and 600 proofs. CW coin values has the retail prices as follows MS64 $4,000 PR64 $1,100?
Even though we all know that more proofs survive than regular issues in high grades, with 16,600 minted there should be many more high grade MS64’s than proofs.
In general I personally discount all proof issues over 100 years old by one third. I do this because we all know the nasty things that go on that destroys valuable coins i.e. fires, theft, weather disasters, wars, etc. So in the case of my new quarter I figure that there were only about 395 of these proof quarters in all grades surviving.
Since Laura posted her advice several months ago to buy all proof issues with mintages less than 1,000 that cost under $1,000 I am finding that a little harder as time goes on but there are still lots of really good bargains out there in proof issues.
It seems to me that if collectors are looking for relatively rare coins at yesterday’s prices proofs are the place to be looking, what do you think?

XpipedreamR

Proofs aren't real coins.

RYK

I agree that classic 19th century proof coins are probably one of the better values in numismatics, and they are often very attractive.

I disagree with the following statement:

Even though we all know that more proofs survive than regular issues in high grades, with 16,600 minted there should be many more high grade MS64’s than proofs.

The population of proofs is generally considerably greater than that of MS-64 or better 19th century type coins, which, in part, explains the discount. Remember, even then, proofs were struck to be saved by collectors and circulation strikes were made to circulate (and they usually did).

I am no expert in this area and look forward to reading other opinions.

coinguy1

I just took a quick look at the July 2004 PCGS Population Report.

It shows a total of 1017 MS64 With Motto Quarters (I did not included the 1873-1874 Arrows type in the total). For Proof 64 With Motto Quarters, the report shows a total of 1337 pieces, including Cameo's and Deep Cameo's (and again excluding the 1873-1874 Arrows type).

A common date PCGS MS64 With Motto Quarter lists at $500 in the CCDN, while a PR64 lists at $585. So, despite a greater availability, the Proofs bid more than the business strikes do, probably in part, due to some of the very things that attract Goldsaint to them.

One other consideration I will note is the ability to complete a set - I believe that in most cases, collectors are more likely to attempt to complete a set of Proofs than they are business strikes, as Proofs don't usually have stoppers (issues that are virtually impossible to obtain) like business strikes sometimes do.

GOLDSAINT

“even then, proofs were struck to be saved by collectors and circulation strikes were made to circulate (and they usually did).”

RYK,
I am sure this is true but there are also two unknown factors here.
First there were coin collectors saving high- grade mint state coins during these periods and even if there were only 1,000 collectors saving pristine mint state quarters many 64’s should have survived.
Second the other unknown factor in high- grade mint state coins is how many are out there raw in old sets?
In the case of proofs no more can be available than 600 but collectors must always face the fact that as markets heat up and old collectors, that knew nothing of slabs, come into the market the population of high grade mint state coins can increase.

It seems to me that this is one of those cases where a collector can eliminate part of the risk by purchasing into a lesser minted issue.

Steve

A chance for me to plug a good example of classic proof coins with low mintages and currently very reasonable prices. The 1909 thru 1916 Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs. Steve

FrattLaw

I'm definitely in the proof camp. To me, there's nothing quite as attractive as a proof cameo 19th century coin. These were coins that were specifically struck for collectors. While many examples may have survived, assembling even a 1911 proof set can be challenging however, it can be done without breaking the bank. Same goes for the 1879 proof set I eventually want to complete.

With prices remaining relatively cheap compared to their MS brothern, I think earlier proofs do provide an excellent collectible as well as investment.

Michael

mgoodm3

i'm addicted to 19th cent proofs.

Conder101

<< <i>Even though we all know that more proofs survive than regular issues in high grades, with 16,600 minted there should be many more high grade MS64’s than proofs >>


his is where the flaw in your thinking is. Back then Proofs were not considered to be different but rather a "better" grade than Unc. So most collectors simply bought a proof specimen directly from the mint put that in their collction and then ignored all the business strikes. Survival rates for many 19th century business strike coins run around 1 to 3 percent. So a 16,600 mintage would translate into around 500 pieces still existing in ALL grades and most of those would be in the lower grades. If we a generous with out estimates we might say 10% or 50 of them are still Mint State. Since the proofs went directly to collectors they have a MUCH higher survival rate. Probably 400 of the proofs still exist. So almost half of the existing specimens are proofs. It stands to reason that a PF64 is probably easier to find than a MS64

Baley

even if there were only 1,000 collectors saving pristine mint state quarters

In the mid to late 1800's? I think that number is way too high.

after all, in your example, only 600 proofs were sold. Those 600 collectors had a proof. Why did they need an unc?

very few uncs were saved.

GOLDSAINT

“his is where the flaw in your thinking is. Back then Proofs were not considered to be different but rather a "better" grade than Unc. So most collectors simply bought a proof specimen directly from the mint put that in their collection and then ignored all the business strikes.”

“In the mid to late 1800's? I think that number is way too high.
after all, in your example, only 600 proofs were sold. Those 600 collectors had a proof. Why did they need an unc?”


So Condor and Baley, you both seem to be of the opinion that collectors only collected proofs and not unc’s in the late 1800’s, is that right? This is a question, as I don’t know one way or another, but then who saved all these high grade unc’s? This is particularly curious, if as Baley thinks, that there was less than 1,000 collectors collecting high grade Quarters.
Baley you think that there were a very small amount of collectors in the U.S. at that time, less than one thousand quarter collectors? I really have no idea, but there were about 19 million people in the U.S. in the late 1800’s, and I would think that the smaller denominations would have been more popular as few could afford to collect Gold or other high denomination coins.

cladking

Many of the old coins survived in high grade because they simply got caught up in the system
somewhere. Coins could be held in reserve at financial institutions or hoarded by the public as
a store of value or insurance againt hard times. Collectors did save some coins intentionally but
there were not substantial numbers.

Collectors have usually concentrated on old coins for their collections and that was true in those
days also. I've heard that much of the interest in more recent US coins in that era came from
Europe but have never seen independent confirmation of this.

Baley

of the opinion that collectors only collected proofs and not unc’s in the late 1800’s, is that right?

no it is not my opinion that ALL collectors collected ONLY proofs, but that the serious collectors of the day tended to PREFER proofs over uncs, when both were available.

Like everything else in life, it isn't a question of either/or, or black/white, but a spectrum of behavior.

I just feel that the number of collectors who would but away gem unc coins in the year of issue TENDED to be way less than the number of collectors who would save proof coins, during the era we're discussing, the late seated era.

Obviously, a number of mint state coins were set aside for various reasons, but their scarcity relative to proofs is higher, IN SOME CASES though not all.

edited for grammar (misplaced modifier)

GOLDSAINT

Thanks for all your replies and comments,
Here is a pic. of the reverse on the coin I bought. I dont have the coin yet so I might post other pics. later.
I thought this coin had very good color as many of these older proofs often do.

Conder101

<< <i> who saved all these high grade unc’s? >>


There would be a few who might hold a new unc quarter but most of them were probably simply from accidental survival being in forgotten hoards of emergency money or misers accumulations. Some may have set for ages in bank vaults as part of the banks cash reserve requirements. (For example bags of Unc Bust halves were discovered in bank vaults during the bank holiday in 1933. They had been in the vaults carried on the books as part of their cash reserves for decades. The Bank of New York still has part of a keg of Fugio cents in their vault that was deposited in 1788 and not rediscovered until 1856 ) That 19 million population, call it 4.2 million families of four. If only one family in a thousand had one of these forgotten hoards with ONE Unc seated quarter in it that would be 4,200 Unc seated quarters. I haven't examined the pop reports but how many Unc branch mint quarters are there? Almost all of those would have to be the result of accidental survival because almost nobody paid any attention to branch mints at that time. Collecting by branch mint did not become popular until after the turn of the 20th century.

Coinerww

proofs are very pretty.