QDB's recent CW column: Collecting condition rarities is causing collectors to overlook traditional

RYK

In a slightly different take on the topic that is regularly debated here, QDB discussed the current collective numismatic interest in condition rarities (ie. MS-70 anything) at the expense of traditional rarities (the 1802 half dime was the index example) in any grade. Mr. Bowers all but predicted that this current flavor-of-the-day would soon pass. I am not so sure.

"As a traditionalist at heart, I see this as a temporary market phenomenon, profitable and fun while it lasts." (QDB)

Doug Winter posted a recent blog on "fundamental rarity" vs. "condition rarity" which covered very similar ground.

As a "fundamental rarity" kind of guy, they are preaching to the choir, but any and all opinions on the matter are certainly valid. So long as the current trend is in place, there will be more ugly circulated coins available for me.

MrEureka

Mr. Bowers all but predicted that this current flavor-of-the-day would soon pass.

It won't pass, but the pendulum will swing.

originalisbest

Why not have your cake and eat it too? Collect the finest known specimens of the rarest dates. And kill for them only as a last resort.

Coinosaurus

In the 19th century, people didn't much care for "moderns" either.

keets

i think terming what is currently happening as collecting condition rarities sells collectors short. while Mr. Bowers has certainly earned his respect in the hobby, things have probably changed more in the last 20 years than in the previous 200 as far asa how collectors collect and what is available to them in the way of knowledge and access to the best coins. unfortunately, making a reference to "MS70 anything" sets the tone for a biased discussion when it's actually anything but a biased trend. all coins across the spectrum of U.S. issues are being sought by collectors in the highest grades possible for one fundamental reason-----the high prices and demand are making them available.

it's a simple human drive to obtain the best possible. collectors in todays version of the hobby are simply obeying that calling.

RYK

I actually disagree somewhat with the premise of the article. I do not follow 1802 half dimes, but perhaps they are an exception, rather than the rule. When a relatively common classic coin that is popular hits the market (ie. 1799 eagle or draped bust dollar), the demand is strong and the price high. There may be pockets of relative weakness among "traditional rarities", but overall, there appears to be a shortage of coins, not a lack of interest. In fact, a review of Heritage auctions reveals that three 1802 half dimes have sold in the last 4 1/2 years, and all were problem coins that seem to sell for reasonably strong money. Heck, this net poor-1 example sold for $10,000 in 2004:

tradedollarnut

The percentage of collectors who seek to complete an early half dime set has fallen drastically since the turn of the 19th century. The same with many series. It's only logical for the preeminence of unpromoted rarities of that century to fall off some.

Bear

<< <i>Why not have your cake and eat it too? Collect the finest known

specimens of the rarest dates. And kill for them only as a last resort. >>




Hell, If you been to a live auction lately, the folks are prepared to kill

as a first resort. The auctioneers are starting to chrck for weapons

at the door. Of course, Laura dont need a weapon, she just leans over

and rips the guys throat out.

Regulated

Choice traditional rarities seem to be bringing respectable bids at all the auctions I've been at.

Bochiman

<< <i>In a slightly different take on the topic that is regularly debated here, QDB discussed the current collective numismatic interest in condition rarities (ie. MS-70 anything) at the expense of traditional rarities (the 1802 half dime was the index example) in any grade. Mr. Bowers all but predicted that this current flavor-of-the-day would soon pass. I am not so sure.

"As a traditionalist at heart, I see this as a temporary market phenomenon, profitable and fun while it lasts." (QDB)

Doug Winter posted a recent blog on "fundamental rarity" vs. "condition rarity" which covered very similar ground.

As a "fundamental rarity" kind of guy, they are preaching to the choir, but any and all opinions on the matter are certainly valid. So long as the current trend is in place, there will be more ugly circulated coins available for me. >>




Plagiarism at work? They can't both have had the same idea at the same time!!!!

USCGCraig

I don't consider "Condition Rarity" as being the top 1 or 2 grades. For example, in Barber Halves, Mint State coins are available. Granted the top grades are tough to find and costly. However, there is another grade range which has "Condition Rarity" and that is the unmolested, problem free VF-XF Barber Halves. They are just not out there. I'm sure there are other series where this is true. Right now you have a dedicated bunch of Barber Half collectors snapping up problem free VF-XF coins whenever they come on the market.

RYK

I don't consider "Condition Rarity" as being the top 1 or 2 grades. For example, in Barber Halves, Mint State coins are available. Granted the top grades are tough to find and costly. However, there is another grade range which has "Condition Rarity" and that is the unmolested, problem free VF-XF Barber Halves. They are just not out there. I'm sure there are other series where this is true. Right now you have a dedicated bunch of Barber Half collectors snapping up problem free VF-XF coins whenever they come on the market.

Craig, that is an excellent point. Dipped and overgraded AU Dahlonega $5's are all over the bourse, but you are unlikely to find an original and properly graded XF, unless Al Adams/Gold Rush Gallery is set up.

dpoole

The grading services, for all the inconsistencies and shifting standards, have introduced the concept of consistency and universality (while you may disagree with the grade, everyone can see that NGC DID grade coin X an MS68). The grading has introduced an intervening event (the grading) that in itself has become a commodity in the market.

I think of it like a beauty contest. Fifty beautiful women. Individually, we may select a woman different from the one who wins, for our own reasons and tastes. The fact of the matter is, though, that many folks may disagree with your selection for reasons of THEIR own. Also, the judges of the beauty contest selected a particular woman, who may or may not be different from the one you found appealing. But then SHE'S the queen of whatever. And she retains that title thereafter, which lends her all the status and privileges thereunto appertaining (unless somebody cracks her out ).

It is that event, that status, in addition to the coin itself, that people are buying and selling. And I expect that event will always lend discrete value to a graded coin, however long "always" lasts.

Longacre

Fundamental rarity will never go out of style. Conditional rarity is subject to an evolving interpretation, and therefore, more risky.

slumlord98

While I understand the premise, an 1802 half dime isn't the best example to use. These are relatively common, as MrHalfDime has pointed out, except at EF or higher, and bring a premium far beyond what their intrinsic rarity should command.

TwoSides2aCoin

facts are: condition rarity vs. traditional rarities.... both are tough to get for a good price.
I liken it to a kid's ball game (traditional rarity). You see parent's veins popping out of the neck, screaming at refs, umpires, and kids... with a passion that speaks to the "killer" in man. Just like traditional rarities. (with only one victor)
People practically and willfully butcher one another for the "traditional" RARE coin.

Now take chess on the other hand (condition rarity)..... You won't see parents out there hooting and hollering and making a big stink... even though their kid is smarter than any jock on the field. They sit quietly and wait in anticipation for the "kill". (with one victor)
could I get the "check", mate ?

I've always had a profound respect for QDB, but I believe this article was just to meet a quota and deadline without any real substance than to type away. After all , the comparison without the adjective is still "RARITY"... be it traditional or conditional. Hello ? can someone define : RARE ?

the real truth is with a RARITY: ... to the victor, go the spoils and QDB would have gotten paid even if he wrote about how a coin compared to a manhole cover.

DHeath

Fundamental rarity will never go out of style.

Longacre, isn't that contrary to QDB's lament?

cladking

<< <i>Fundamental rarity will never go out of style. Conditional rarity is subject to an evolving interpretation, and therefore, more risky. >>



All coins are unique and therefore rare.

While coins are priced rather than graded, collectors will always seek the best strikes and cleanest surfaces.
No matter how much time elapses strikes will not fill in and marks will not heal.

If collectors start seeking their coins in VG with ugly wear on terrible strikes then most all moderns will become
worthless.

DHeath

Many of the absolute rarity folks do darkside.

IrishMike

I don't have the article in front of me at the moment but having quickly read it Monday, I didn't come away with the idea that he thought the collecting of modern conditional rarities would go away, but then maybe I misread it.

Gemineye

I cannot comment because I have not read the article..............................

MrBreeze

I hate to have the same answer for every thread, but, the answer in all cases is demand. It is simple ECONOMICS. Rarity, like beauty, is a perception in every case, and is subject to the eye/brain of the beholder. If 1000 people want an MS69 1999 Georgia quarter, and no one wants an 1802 half dime, then the quarter will be the coin that is the most overpriced (lack of available supply to the demand), relative to a market standard. If one person wants the half dime, he or she could get that coin for the overpriced reserve. I think I would like to see what prices would be realized in an environment where there were no artificial floors. On the latest Heritage auction, I think there were something like, 285 coins which did not meet the reserve and were not sold in the auction. That was probably better than 30-40% of the lots for that auction. Does that mean the sky is about to fall? I don't know, but I doubt it. But, it does say that the coins which did not sell have adequate supply, or are completely overpriced for the grade. Don't forget the two words that make capitalism work - Greed and Fear. Oops.... I meant supply and demand.

On another note:



<< <i>it's a simple human drive to obtain the best possible >>



Not true. That is the result of being socialized and conditioned to think that. It is not a human drive.



<< <i>You see parent's veins popping out of the neck, screaming at refs, umpires, and kids... with a passion that speaks to the "killer" in man >>



That is also not true. The parent screaming at refs, kids, umpires etc., wouldn't know the "killer" in man if it slapped him in the face. He or she is actually the most insecure person in the crowd, so far from the line where the killer exists, that they would need a GPS to get them there. The only "passion" in that particular type of individual is the passion to have everyone look at them to know that they exist.

earlygoldnut

"all coins across the spectrum of U.S. issues are being sought by collectors in the highest grades possible for one fundamental reason-----
"the high prices and demand are making them available."


So is loose grading in some cases- high MS and proof grades are being handed out today like candy on halloween these days.

keets

<< it's a simple human drive to obtain the best possible >>
Not true. That is the result of being socialized and conditioned to think that. It is not a human drive.

you're free to hold that opinion, but the progress of the human race tends to say otherwise. it would appear an innate desire to improve upon conditions and not to languish, not from a personal perspective but from a human perspective. we tend to seek the higher and not the lower. with prices of the coins we buy being left out of the equation, i doubt more than a miniscule percentage would find more appeal in a PO1 when presented with an MS65 of the same issue(there are contrarians in every group!!). it's simple human nature that can be tested with any small child child who hasn't been "socialized" yet. on the reverse side of the arguement, prejudice is "the result of being socialized and conditioned to think" in a certain way and can be proved with the same small child.

MrBreeze

"you're free to hold that opinion, but the progress of the human race tends to say otherwise. it would appear an innate desire to improve upon conditions and not to languish, not from a personal perspective but from a human perspective. we tend to seek the higher and not the lower. with prices of the coins we buy being left out of the equation, i doubt more than a miniscule percentage would find more appeal in a PO1 when presented with an MS65 of the same issue(there are contrarians in every group!!). it's simple human nature that can be tested with any small child child who hasn't been "socialized" yet. on the reverse side of the arguement, prejudice is "the result of being socialized and conditioned to think" in a certain way and can be proved with the same small child."

I don't want this to be a huge can of worms, because this is not the place. But I will try to examine my own opinion by using your own statement. We are driven by our desires, not by the human perspective to obtain the best. Striving for the "best" in all things is only done by a very small percentage of the population. If that were the case, only MS70s would sell (its not that simple, but you get the point). "Higher and lower" is determined by each individual. What you think is the best is not the same as the rest of the billions on this Earth. By saying there is a "best," you would understand that there is no existence of the best without the existence of the worst, and everything in between. Your use of the terms "best," and its antithesis "worst," is inherently flawed by the fact that that it is your opinion. Each of us gravitates to some point on a spectrum of many desires. I could give you a million examples using an "unsocialized child"(which, by the way, cannot exist) which contradict the fact that a kid would choose what is best. I kid would never be able to distinguish between what is best and what it wants. Ask any parent. As for coins, to keep us somewhere on the landscape, my 2 year old only likes coins which can be put in a tube, poured out, and loaded again. My four year old only likes IKE dollars because they are big and have force when dropped or clanged together. In every aspect of a child's life, this same pattern manifests itself. The child will make a choice or decision based on desire and experience, not it's perception of the best. As for the statement that prejudice is the "reverse side of your argument," it is actually the same side of the argument. According to Jung, who I feel has a good grasp on the subject, prejudice has roots in the desire for humans to feel comfort in their similarities (that is a rudimentary summation). The argument stating all humans naturally seek "the best" assumes that we are common in all aspects of life and are single-minded in focus, action and thought. The "progress of the human race" has proven that we are far from that. We are, by nature/nurture, unique in this world. I would close by asking a few questions for thought. Which type government is best? Which type of religion is best? Which culture is best? Which coin is best?

RYK

I don't have the article in front of me at the moment but having quickly read it Monday, I didn't come away with the idea that he thought the collecting of modern conditional rarities would go away, but then maybe I misread it.

"...I suggest that basic rarity--key date issues that are rare at all grade levels--are foundational to numismatics. I expect this focus to return to the hobby."

Coxe

There is absolutely noone who is going to, with any credibility, pick up a coin and wow it instantly as a PR70 or MS70. However, in any grade that is possible for classic rare dates. Sure, you might need to authenticate it by further detailed inspection, but there isn't splitting hairs between authentic and fake like there is between adjacent (69 and 70, for instance) Sheldon grades.

I wouldn't go so far as to entirely dismiss this ultragrade modern collecting but just say that it is a different collecting than traditional numismatics. I see no difference whatsoever between buying Mint bullion/SAEs and their commemoratives or proof/mint set coins. They are massively produced under careful production and distribution techniques expressly for the collector market, no different than collector plates. The fact that the Mint is doing this (instead of the Franklin Mint) and that it is technically legal tender is absurd justification to equate to 18th and 19th century Mint rarities. They are very different. There are no regular issue (exclusing mistakes like missing mintmarks) dates since the Mint recognized the strong interest in their coins in the mid 20th century. I am sure folks will want to forward exceptions. That said, I am not saying classic rarities won't arise from dates of the last 50 years. I believe the rarities will not be by date though. They will come overwhelmingly from the circulation strikes and will be based on rare strike condition (like full step nickels) and error strikes, since these would be tough coins out of this modern and efficient Mint. Some dates surely will be tough in grades above gem as we know already, but no overall rare dates in all grades. Low mintages have not produced rarities (e.g. 1950-D 5C) and we will not experience melts of our clad coinage.

In the end it is all supply and demand. I didn't read Dave Bowers' article but we all know that prices for any collectible will be sustained only if the supply/demand ratio remains intact. We are seeing a lot of new collectors enter the overall hobby due to the state quarters and other programs. I see many stepping up and out to classic rarities and classic series but don't see anyone goin the other way. Perhaps there are some exceptions, but the divergence going to be toward fundamental rarity as colelctors become eductaed and informed.

morgannut2

OK I'm an EXCEPTION to the above. I simply can't afford to add more "fundamental rarities" -- so I'm fooling around with modern mint sets-- beautifully toned, matching as possible, in the undergrade. Even looking for some pop top clad business strikes too, I know to be tough. BTW- I have several "moderns" clasic dealers have said "WOW" to, before saying they hate moderns!!

DHeath

That 1802 half dime RYK posted in this thread wouldn't be interesting to me if it were unique and Washington had hammered it out of his vest buttons. It's a slug. $10,000 to be able to say "By God, I've got one and you don't!"? I suppose we're all insane in our own way. If QDB is right and those catch fire, what will be the trigger?

cladking

<< <i>There is absolutely noone who is going to, with any credibility, pick up a coin and wow it instantly as a PR70 or MS70. However, in any grade that is possible for classic rare dates. Sure, you might need to authenticate it by further detailed inspection, but there isn't splitting hairs between authentic and fake like there is between adjacent (69 and 70, for instance) Sheldon grades.

I wouldn't go so far as to entirely dismiss this ultragrade modern collecting but just say that it is a different collecting than traditional numismatics. I see no difference whatsoever between buying Mint bullion/SAEs and their commemoratives or proof/mint set coins. They are massively produced under careful production and distribution techniques expressly for the collector market, no different than collector plates. The fact that the Mint is doing this (instead of the Franklin Mint) and that it is technically legal tender is absurd justification to equate to 18th and 19th century Mint rarities. They are very different. There are no regular issue (exclusing mistakes like missing mintmarks) dates since the Mint recognized the strong interest in their coins in the mid 20th century. I am sure folks will want to forward exceptions. That said, I am not saying classic rarities won't arise from dates of the last 50 years. I believe the rarities will not be by date though. They will come overwhelmingly from the circulation strikes and will be based on rare strike condition (like full step nickels) and error strikes, since these would be tough coins out of this modern and efficient Mint. Some dates surely will be tough in grades above gem as we know already, but no overall rare dates in all grades. Low mintages have not produced rarities (e.g. 1950-D 5C) and we will not experience melts of our clad coinage.

In the end it is all supply and demand. I didn't read Dave Bowers' article but we all know that prices for any collectible will be sustained only if the supply/demand ratio remains intact. We are seeing a lot of new collectors enter the overall hobby due to the state quarters and other programs. I see many stepping up and out to classic rarities and classic series but don't see anyone goin the other way. Perhaps there are some exceptions, but the divergence going to be toward fundamental rarity as colelctors become eductaed and informed. >>




There are no MS-69 or MS-70 regular issue moderns.

Classic US coin whether common or rare are not the be all, end all of numismatics. It's a big
world out there and this didn't just start recently. Anyone who thinks the world or numismatics
revolves around Morgan dollars and old coins are a step up from states quarters has a very myopic
view of the world.

RYK

That 1802 half dime RYK posted in this thread wouldn't be interesting to me if it were unique and Washington had hammered it out of his vest buttons.

I would say that if it were in fact hammered by Washington out of his own vest buttons, it would be extremely interesting, mostly because Washington was dead three years before the coin was minted. Otherwise, to me, it is an ugly POS, and I could think of a lot better way to spend $10,000. To each his own.

AgMe

<< <i>...but the divergence going to be toward fundamental rarity as colelctors become eductaed and informed. >>



::yawn::

Why? Go outside, there are plenty of pop 1 rocks out there... doesn't make them anymore popular...

It seems to me the vast majority of collectors collect the coins of their youth... it's not so much they really care about the coin as it is to remember when they were young.

Large cents are relatively rare... yet you can have a fairly nice one for $20 USD.

We've beaten this dead horse for years now... I would say the vast majority of collectors (all ages) are in the <$100 USD per coin range; if anything the "relative value" of the classics is probably the same.

Are all these threads just jealously at the returns ultramoderns are bringing? Is it because so many of the classics crowd got burned in the 80's? Move-on already!