Part 2 of : Population and price Comparisons of Various MS and PR Type Coins...

coinguy1

Trial balloon thread for this topic

Part 1

PART 2

A few comments, disclaimers and explanations before I get started:

1) I have cited population figures as reported in the July, 2004 PCGS Population Report.

2) I have cited bids as listed in the October 1, 2004 Certified Coin Dealer Newsletter (CCDN). I am utilizing that publication instead of the Coin dealer Newsletter because the latter does not list prices for some of the grades included in this exercise.

3) I do not claim that coins trade at the levels listed in the CCDN.

4) I have chosen coins of the grade(s) that I think might interest the greatest number of people and which allow for at least a somewhat practical/fair comparison of populations and prices.

5) A number of factors can and do account for what appear to be high (or low) relative prices for certain coins, based upon their reported populations.

6) If someone would like to present this information in a better/nicer format for the benefit of the forum, please feel free to do so.

7) I cannot guarantee that my figures have been recorded accurately and apologize in advance if I have made any errors.

8) I welcome and encourage your feedback - your opinions, explanations, analysis, etc.

9) I will refrain from sharing my thoughts on this data until others have had time to post theirs. (see #7 above).

Three Cent Nickels:
PCGS MS63 Population 1279; CDN $97
PCGS MS64 Population 1532; CDN $150
PCGS MS65 Population 710; CDN $425
PCGS MS66 Population 341; CDN $860

PCGS PR63 Population1609; CDN $195
PCGS PR64 Population 5171; CDN $237
PCGS PR65 Population 4823; CDN $370
PCGS PR66 Population 2409; CDN $540

What strikes me about the populations and prices for MS vs. Proof Three Cent Nickels above?

1) Proof 64's are more than 3 times as plentiful as MS64's (5171 vs.1532), yet bid at roughly 50% HIGHER ($237 vs. $150)!
2) Proof 65's are more than 6 times as plentiful as MS65's (4823 vs. 710), yet bid at only slightly less ($370 vs. $425).
3) MS 66's are approximately 7 times scarcer than PR66's (341 vs. 2409), but bid at only 60% more ($860 vs. $540).

The MS examples look to be a great relative value - who would care to provide possible reasons/explanations for these seemingly large disparities?

Who would like to look over the other types below and point out some surprising and/or interesting results?

Three Cent Silvers Type lll:
PCGS MS63 Population 544; CDN $192
PCGS MS64 Population 628; CDN $310
PCGS MS65 Population 418; CDN $625
PCGS MS66 Population 280; CDN $1065

PCGS PR63 Population 825; CDN $325
PCGS PR64 Population 952; CDN $460
PCGS PR65 Population 409; CDN $1000
PCGS PR66 Population 171; CDN $1550

Shield Nickels (No Rays):
PCGS MS63 Population 1164; CDN $110
PCGS MS64 Population 1548; CDN $180
PCGS MS65 Population 702; CDN $450
PCGS MS66 Population 244; CDN $1070

PCGS PR63 Population 939; CDN $190
PCGS PR64 Population 2798;CDN $247
PCGS PR65 population 2609; CDN $375
PCGS PR66 Population 1167; CDN $630

Liberty Nickels (With Cents):
PCGS MS63 Population 4008; CDN $70
PCGS MS64 Population 5318; CDN $127
PCGS MS65 Population 2072; CDN $400
PCGS MS66 Population 436; CDN $1070

PCGS PR63 Population 2682; CDN $130
PCGS PR64 Population 6058; CDN $166
PCGS PR65 Population 3553; CDN $350
PCGS PR66 Population 1361; CDN $550

Liberty Seated Half Dimes Legend Obverse:
PCGS MS63 Population 772; CDN $150
PCGS MS64 Population 855; CDN $305
PCGS MS65 Population 450; CDN $690
PCGS MS66 Population 228; CDN $835

PCGS PR63 Population 590; CDN $335
PCGS PR64 Population 613; CDN $455
PCGS PR65 Population 301; CDN $1060
PCGS PR66 Population 105; CDN $1650

relayer

Without running through the numbers again, I'm sticking with my same conclusion:

Summary

1) Designation is more important than strike
2) Proofs are valued more than business strikes (except when they are not)
3) Population numbers don’t affect the price proportionally to the supply
4) Coin pricing has no basis in logic

Android

It says that proof coins are more desirable to collectors than mint state. I've seen this at many dealers websites. The inventory of proof type coins in particular is far higher than mint state. Another factor, at least with type stuff, is that proof coins tend to be more colorful, increasing prices for eye appeal.

Baley

Collectors who can afford such coins tend to prefer the proofs? The demand drives the prices?

except when the MS examples are significantly rarer, in which case the perceived rarity drives demand?

FrankHKP7

I might be waaaaayyyy off base here, but as a new collector reading the latest and greatest regarding today's trends in the industry vs. what I've learned from my old man and other old school collectors in my local club, I'll opine...

Discussions with my father lead me to assume older collectors (in their 50's and 60's, possibly with more discretionary income) were searching for proof coins in their youth. I don't know much about how MS coins were graded in 50's but as far as I can tell UNC was about the highest he could find/ afford. I assume he couldn't afford Proofs. I recently showed him a 41 Walker in MS 65, and the first thing out of his mouth was, "Wow that's a nice one boy. Is it a proof?" Food for thought, at least this thread got me thinking.

Frank

mgoodm3

I think MS prices suffer for 3cN because it's not a very popular series. Proof prices are consistently high and MS prices for the various series varies by popularity.

michael

proofs are flashy coins and are somewhat more available then their ms counterparts and usually come with more fantastic colors than the ms coins and hence more demand and higher prices even with higher pops


michael

granddad

As far as the 3c nickels are concerned, the later years had small mintage figures conpared to the early years. However, a much larger % of those figures were proof in the later dates. Without checking the pop numbers, my guess would be that a large % of those pop figures would be for later dates. The price of the later date coins is rather low, but the early dates are high, bringing up the average for the type as a whole.

Louis

Trime

Mark,
The analysis by type hides a lot within the category .
Causes me to ask outloud how type prices are determined by CDNN?
Is it based on most available date; mean price per category; etc?
(I could look it up but it is 510 AM and I am glued to my chair)
The variance of value and POP of individual dates within a type and category are very great.

coinguy1

Trime, the published "type" prices are for the common date/lowest value issues. One factor that total populations for a grade and type (like those I have listed) fail to reveal, is how many of those pieces are in fact common dates.



<< <i>I could look it up but it is 510 AM and I am glued to my chair) >>

If it's Super Glue you might be there for a while.

Trime

Mark,
You wrote:'the published "type" prices are for the common date/lowest value issues. One factor that total populations for a grade and type (like those I have listed) fail to reveal, is how many of those pieces are in fact common dates.

So the POP figures are not necessarily for the coins identified as as common date/lowest value issues? Are they the total POP of the series for grade? In order to make maximum sense of this one would need to know the POP for the coin used to price. Since individual coins are rarely priced simply as bullion by type, their price is influenced by market factors influenced the combination of coins bought for date and type. If I have the data base correct I can move forward in my interpretation of the figures provided.

coltgus

I have for years set up a spread sheet and calculated how much it would cost to buy all the coins for each date in a given series. Then I look for the date/mint mark that it costs the least to buy. I do this by multiplying the PCGS pop by CDN bid price for each coin in a series. I multiply the MS63 price times the MS63 pop plus MS64 price times the MS64 pop etc. This helps me determine which coins in a series are overvalued and which are undervalued. So, for example, using this method on $5 Indians the 14-S is the best date while the 11-D is in the middle and the 9-O is near last. So the much heralded 9-O is overvalued based on pop and price, the 11-D is about right, and the 14-S undervalued. Over time (maybe a long time) these things tend to correct. An excellent example would be the 9-D Saint which used to sell for about $3800 in MS64 along with the 22-S and 26-S but now bids more than twice those other two. The 9-D showed up undervalued using this analysis 7 or 8 years ago.

morgannut2

This is an important idea and I wonder how "retail oriented" dealers explain what their customers' reasons are for paying a Proof premium.

morgannut2

Another question that's not clear is why you don"t see the proof premium in the more widely collected series.