Modern=Anything after 1900?

Touchdown

I had this question myself after hearing a couple collectors and dealers say modern. I asked some dealers and collectors and I got different responses. So, I did a search in the Message Boards under Modern. There are also many opinions. So, since not everyone can agree on what dates are modern. I say anything after 1900 is modern since no accepted date has been approved to be concidered modern. Why 1900 and anything later?

It just real easy to remember 1900 and most important no one will try to say antyhting earlier is modern. As opposed to 1965,71 or even 1934 where they want to go back even futher. So, 1900 atleast you won't hear anyone disagree that it should be before 1900. Excuse me if I offended anyone collecting coins after 1900 thinking they weren't modern.

LucyBop

how can a 55 be a Modern and not a classic?

clw54

Yeah, but a specific across-the-board creates other complications regarding series. Is an 1901-S quarter modern, but not a 1900? Seems to me that the dividing line should cover specific series, but that's just my opinion of course.

XpipedreamR

Classic vs. modern isn't a distinction that has any value in determining what I choose to collect or any other aspect of my "coin experience." So I guess for me, the answer is "who cares?"

LindeDad

Who elected you supreme ruler?

291fifth

My definition of modern:
cents: 1925 to present
nickels: 1934 to present
dimes: 1934 to present
quarters: 1932 to present
half dollars: 1934 to present
dollars: 1878 to present

sinin1

my personal cut-off for modern is 64/65 silver cut-off


20 years ago I felt it was series dependant
32-48 depending on series

Lincoln's?

nwcs

My personal view is classic is before 1947, semi-modern 1948-63, modern 1964-1977, and ultra modern 1978 to date.

fcloud

I look at it as pre-Presidents.
Everything up to and including 1909 Indian Head Cent = Classic
1909 to date Lincoln Cents = Modern
Everything up to and including 1938 Buffalo Nickel = Classic
1938 to date Jefferson Nickels = Modern
Everything up to and including 1945 Mercury Dimes = Classic
1946 to date Roosevelt dimes = Modern
Everything up to and including 1930 Standing Quarters = Classic
1932 to date quarters = Modern
Everything up to and including 1947 Walking Halves = Classic
1948 to date Franlin halves = Modern
Everything up to and including 1964 Peace Dollars (If there is a 1964s out there) = Classic
1971 to date Dollars = Modern
Pre 1933 gold = Classic
New Commem gold = Modern
Old Commems = Classic
1982 and newer = Modern

As you can see my opinion breaks when the old classy looking coins which promoted Miss Liberty (for the most part) went away and were replaced with people. Of course this in only the way I look at it and I realize many people look at it differently.
To each their own!

PerryHall

The clad era is also the modern era in my opinion.

JrGMan2004

The definition for modern is different for everyone... some, 1965 and the start of clad is where Moderns begin. NGC says 1955 starts Moderns... some people say moderns are anything that's younger than them... some say anything after 1840 is modern... hell, some even say anything after 1792 is modern I bet we could find some ancients collectors that would call anything made in "AD" is modern

coinkat

the modern era is subject to debate... by British standards, it would be well befor 1900

roadrunner

For coins, I generally look at the early 1930's, as moderns. This is when stuff starts to get saved or hoarded right from the mint. Certainly anything after 1933 to me is modern.

roadrunner

Man

I think of classic as anything 25 years or older but since coins are so common, modern is anything younger then the oldest person alive.
So if a coin is younger then it's a modern.

Artist

<< <i>my personal cut-off for modern is 64/65 silver cut-off >>



Although my own collecting emphasis is on 1900 to 1950. Some of the designs issued in 1900 had not changed since the 1830s, while others had their basis on ones that were even older. By 1950, coins looked pretty much like they do today. In between, you have St. Gaudens, Adolf Weinman, Herman McNeil, James Frasier, and almost the entire run of classic commems. Quite a wonderful time for United States coins. To me, collecting those issues whether by type or by series requires a different mindset than does collecting post 1964 coinage.

cladking

<< <i>For coins, I generally look at the early 1930's, as moderns. This is when stuff starts to get saved or hoarded right from the mint. Certainly anything after 1933 to me is modern.

roadrunner >>



This is a great basis on which to base a definition.

But it fails to take into account the fact that coins were generally not saved again after 1965 unless
you call the later ones neo-moderns and those after 1997 (when they were saved again) neo-neo-
moderns. It seems simpler to just refer to the post 1964 coins as moderns and post '97 coins as
ultramoderns.

Obviously terms can vary dependent on the referent. In speaking of the coins of another country or
of automobiles then the terms may refer to another era. In coins there is simply no doubt whatsoever
that some dividing line happened in 1964 and a term is needed to identify it.

It seems logical that since the two things most collectors seem to agree on is that moderns suck and
clad is crap that the dividing line for this term might be 1964.

There's no doubt that there are other natural dividing lines and that as time goes by the meaning of
terms can change and evolve. What's modern today will not be modern in half a century and this
change would seem to have already occurred with the post 1933 coinage.

Baley

So I guess for me, the answer is "who cares?"

Why do you want to define "modern"? Once it's defined, then what??

flaminio

I've given up on "modern" vs. "classic" or whatever. Coins have been in use continuously since 600 BC or so, and I see no reason to construct an artificial demarcation anywhere along that time. All are fair game as far as a collector need be concerned.

Conder101

<< <i>So, 1900 atleast you won't hear anyone disagree that it should be before 1900. >>


I place the start of "modern" coinage at 1836. It was that year (in the US) that steam power took over from human muscle power in the striking of coins. It also marked the point at which hand creation of the dies ended as well. Until that point dies were made by using many seperate punches. Afterwards the dies were made from hubs that contained all of the details of the coin except the date. All the individualality of buttons.

Touchdown

Wow! I thought I was pushing it with 1900. But, I guess I will just use it as an advantage. When I am buying I will tell the dealer it is Modern if it is after 1836. And if I am upgrading I will use the 1971 as being Modern.


1836. It was that year (in the US) that steam power took over from human muscle power in the striking of coins.Text

Thanks Conder for that valuable information I never knew that.

Myqqy

I really don't think it matters at all where people draw the line between different periods of coin production. For me, the two biggest marker points are 1836, for the reasons conder101 mentioned.... and 1965, for the switch to base metals......

Hobbyist

<< <i>I've given up on "modern" vs. "classic" or whatever. Coins have been in use continuously since 600 BC or so, and I see no reason to construct an artificial demarcation anywhere along that time. All are fair game as far as a collector need be concerned. >>



I agree.

Some classifications are useful in numismatics but the whole Classic/Modern thing only seems to have usefullness in classifying which coins people want to call Crap.

leothelyon

The difference between what series would be considered modern verses collecting the classic series has everything to do with the popularity and wealth of a series. I believe that the Franklin half dollars and the Jefferson nickels are moving faster into that direction than most late dated series. the early Washington quarters up to 1954-S and Lincoln cents, possibly to 1934-D have established themselves into the stronger market. There are many series that haven't caught the bug, so to speak, and some date way back to the mid 1800's! I believe some series will never become classic to collect because there is little interest in them.

Leo

mozin

I collect Bust material which I am sure hardly anyone would consider modern. My other series is the Classic Commems but I find myself considering the Booker T W and Washington Carver too modern for my interests. Besides, I think these two designs are the worst in the Classic series.

flaminio

<< <i>[...] Washington Carver [...] >>

ITYM "Carver-Washington" HTH HAND.

majorbigtime

<< <i>how can a 55 be a Modern and not a classic?

>>



I see Lucy on the bumper!!!

Hey Ricky, come quick!

coinnut86

<< <i>I look at it as pre-Presidents.
Everything up to and including 1909 Indian Head Cent = Classic
1909 to date Lincoln Cents = Modern
Everything up to and including 1938 Buffalo Nickel = Classic
1938 to date Jefferson Nickels = Modern
Everything up to and including 1945 Mercury Dimes = Classic
1946 to date Roosevelt dimes = Modern
Everything up to and including 1930 Standing Quarters = Classic
1932 to date quarters = Modern
Everything up to and including 1947 Walking Halves = Classic
1948 to date Franlin halves = Modern
Everything up to and including 1964 Peace Dollars (If there is a 1964s out there) = Classic
1971 to date Dollars = Modern >>


Pretty much everything still being minted for circulation