A perspective on circulating quarters for bashers.
cladking
Posts: 28,701 ✭✭✭✭✭
In 5 rolls of clad quarters today I found only 14 undamaged pre-1980 coins.
This is a little fewer than would be expected but this number has been drop-
ping sharply since 2000. The states issued averaged about 17 per roll. This
is also a little lower than expected.
There was little of note from a numismatic standpoint in these rolls except for
a nice XF 1974-D. This coin is well struck from dies that are just beginning to
show signs of wear. The reverse die is worse and shows erosion around "E
Pluribus Unum". There is no damage and nice even wear. This could be a mint
set coin released eight or ten years ago or it might just be a nice choice coin
that has seen less circulation than most. If you went through about five bags
you could reasonably expect to find a nicer specimen. Coincidentally there was
a second '74-D in VF which would also be a keeper for most collectors. The third
best coin was a 1978 in nice VF. There were a few varieties but all of these are
very common. There was a nice Ch Unc CT D quarter and a few WV uncs.
You can not obtain the '74-D in high grade circulated condition except from cir-
culation. Most of these are a low grade F now and most are unattractive due
to poor stikes, heavy wear, and damage. There is a rare variety of this with a
1972 reverse which may not exist in BU rolls.
This coin had a mintage of 353,000,000 so is considered common as dirt so col-
lectors did not line up at the banks in 1974 to search through bags for nice choice
coins. Few of these were even set aside as singles or rolls. They were considered
debased junk and common as dirt so it's hardly surprising that no more than a cou-
ple thousand rolls were probably saved (and this is one of the easier clad rolls).
This leaves the mountains of mint sets. There were a couple million of these made
but probably three quarters of them have already been destroyed. The Denver
quarters in these sets tend to have poor surfaces and bad strikes but they are not
heavily marked and are much better than the Philly issues. There are no varieties
of this coin in the set.
So, the total world supply likely consists of the half million coins in the mint sets of
which about 20% are ugly and 2% are choice gem, plus up to half a million uncs
from rolls and sets which have already been destroyed. There are a million higher
grade circs in circulation but three fouths of these are unattractive or will be lower
grade before they are eventually rescued by a collector. There are 250,000,000 in
F- in circulation and the balance has been lost and destroyed.
No one is claiming that this coin is rare. In the very highest grades and in PL it's
rare and with a 1972 reverse it's rare but the typical unc or gem unc is hardly rare.
Nor is this one of the most interesting moderns. There are dozens which are more
interesting, important, or potentially valuable. This is merely the one I got in change
today.
It might be pointed out that the BU roll retails for $18 if you can find it (that's less
than 50c per coin), and that a nice gem isn't worth the slabbing fee now. This is a
tiny market when a coin that's scarcer than a '16-D dime isn't worth the cost of
grading.
This is a little fewer than would be expected but this number has been drop-
ping sharply since 2000. The states issued averaged about 17 per roll. This
is also a little lower than expected.
There was little of note from a numismatic standpoint in these rolls except for
a nice XF 1974-D. This coin is well struck from dies that are just beginning to
show signs of wear. The reverse die is worse and shows erosion around "E
Pluribus Unum". There is no damage and nice even wear. This could be a mint
set coin released eight or ten years ago or it might just be a nice choice coin
that has seen less circulation than most. If you went through about five bags
you could reasonably expect to find a nicer specimen. Coincidentally there was
a second '74-D in VF which would also be a keeper for most collectors. The third
best coin was a 1978 in nice VF. There were a few varieties but all of these are
very common. There was a nice Ch Unc CT D quarter and a few WV uncs.
You can not obtain the '74-D in high grade circulated condition except from cir-
culation. Most of these are a low grade F now and most are unattractive due
to poor stikes, heavy wear, and damage. There is a rare variety of this with a
1972 reverse which may not exist in BU rolls.
This coin had a mintage of 353,000,000 so is considered common as dirt so col-
lectors did not line up at the banks in 1974 to search through bags for nice choice
coins. Few of these were even set aside as singles or rolls. They were considered
debased junk and common as dirt so it's hardly surprising that no more than a cou-
ple thousand rolls were probably saved (and this is one of the easier clad rolls).
This leaves the mountains of mint sets. There were a couple million of these made
but probably three quarters of them have already been destroyed. The Denver
quarters in these sets tend to have poor surfaces and bad strikes but they are not
heavily marked and are much better than the Philly issues. There are no varieties
of this coin in the set.
So, the total world supply likely consists of the half million coins in the mint sets of
which about 20% are ugly and 2% are choice gem, plus up to half a million uncs
from rolls and sets which have already been destroyed. There are a million higher
grade circs in circulation but three fouths of these are unattractive or will be lower
grade before they are eventually rescued by a collector. There are 250,000,000 in
F- in circulation and the balance has been lost and destroyed.
No one is claiming that this coin is rare. In the very highest grades and in PL it's
rare and with a 1972 reverse it's rare but the typical unc or gem unc is hardly rare.
Nor is this one of the most interesting moderns. There are dozens which are more
interesting, important, or potentially valuable. This is merely the one I got in change
today.
It might be pointed out that the BU roll retails for $18 if you can find it (that's less
than 50c per coin), and that a nice gem isn't worth the slabbing fee now. This is a
tiny market when a coin that's scarcer than a '16-D dime isn't worth the cost of
grading.
Tempus fugit.
0
Comments
Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<< <i>Whoa there. You were OK in whatever you were trying to get across until you compared the 74-D quarter to the 16-D dime! Different time period different league and should not even be mentioned in the same post let alone same sentence. There isn't a clad coin period as rare as the 16-D dime. All clad coins are as common as dirt. You had better check the mintage and pop reports on the 16-D before you compare it to any modern coin.
Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>
I figured this would get some attention and you're right that there is some hyperbole in the statenment.
It is literally accurate if you define the terms properly but the same can be said for almost any coin. All I
meant was that if you look at the 15,000 top 1974-D quarters that the bulk of them do not command
enough money to even warrant grading. All 15,000 (or however many) are worth well over the grading
fees.
While this may strike many as a stretch and of little interest, that's mostly because we are accustomed
to thinking of these coins as being dirt common. But the real reason is that there simply are so few col-
lectors who desire this coin in any grade. Millions seek the '16-D dime to finish their sets or because
they believe it's underpriced but a nice gem '74-D quarter has so little demand that you'll have to search
for someones mistake or a raw coin. When you find it, and you will since it's not rare, it will cost a few
dollars and there will be fewer in existence than the total number of '16-D dimes.
Collectors on a whole are not stupid people. If what you state is correct Classic collectors will figure it out.
Of course, if what you're stating is an argument filled with holes than I'm sure that'll be figured out too, again, without the barrage of "proof".
Enjoy your hobby! If what you say is all true and good others will follow in kind.
peacockcoins
<< <i>TDN - of cource the 74-D is available in mint sets, by the millions! As are all of the clad stuff!!!!! >>
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
There are quite a few regular issue moderns that did not appear in mint sets. There are very
few varieties that appear in mint sets.
Even those which were in mint sets are often degraded and few mint sets still exist by the million.
These sets have suffered a huge attrition.
<< <i> Why are Modern collectors needing to constantly (at least lately) prove their point >>
You noticed that too.
Almost like they are guilty of something.
<< <i>Why are Modern collectors needing to constantly (at least lately) prove their point- collecting Moderns is smart and an attractive alternative?
Collectors on a whole are not stupid people. If what you state is correct Classic collectors will figure it out.
Of course, if what you're stating is an argument filled with holes than I'm sure that'll be figured out too, again, without the barrage of "proof".
Enjoy your hobby! If what you say is all true and good others will follow in kind. >>
Hey!! This thread's for modern bashers.
You are, of course, right.
However, it's been two generations that people have been ignoring the coins and it's high time.
Sure some have been paying attention for a few years now. While my primary motive is hardly altruistic
I sincerely believe that modern bashing is harmful to the hobby in the longrun. And it can be harmful to
me in the short run.
<< <i>
Almost like they are guilty of something. >>
Some of us just have thin skins in a few places.
<< <i>
<< <i> Why are Modern collectors needing to constantly (at least lately) prove their point >>
You noticed that too.
Almost like they are guilty of something. >>
They get angry when we don't jump on the bandwagon a cheer when they sell a condition rarity for hundreds or thousands of dollars, when the number of surviving specimens is in the millions. One could say the same thing about Barber coins for example, and the survival rates on those, relative to the original mintages, are a lot lower. The survival rates are even lower when you look at most issues of early coins from the 1790s and early 1800s. Even where hoards exist, the number of survivors still number in the hundreds in most cases (excluding the Randal hoard large cents.)
I’ve never said that collecting moderns is a waste of time. I’ve never written that there are not some moderns that are scarce to rare and worth a premium. I’ve only cautioned neophyte collectors about “excessive exuberance” when it comes to paying speculative prices that are only supported by a small segment of the market. And I’ve cautioned people about buying places on the Registry with coins purchased at speculative prices.
For that I get yelled at regularly.
It’s been said that those who present their opinions with extreme heat might well have a poor case. Perhaps that’s the situation we are seeing here.
<< <i>
<< <i> Almost like they are guilty of something. >>
Some of us just have thin skins in a few places. >>
And some of us had that removed at birth.
peacockcoins
We are comparing apples and oranges here.
There were over 353 million 74-D quarters minted. I'm sure, but don't know for a fact, there are not many of the super grades that the modern collectors seem to have to have for there sets. See the problem is there could be rolls or thousands of rolls saved back by someone(S).
You guys that are trying to put sets of moderns together in 69 and 70, try to do that in the Mercury Dime set!!! Most dates don't come higher than 67 and those are rare and mostly in the 40's. I had the # 1 set in 2002 at 66.03. This set had some 63 and 64's in it. How hard would it be to put modern sets together in 63 or 64???? Easy as dirt that's how easy. You could probably put most sets together from rolls from the banks!
But in 66 or 67 or 68 or 69 it gets tuff. You know why? Probably because nobody cared! Nobody saved them. They are ugly and common as dirt!
Which you rather have TDN's Trade Dollar set or that set of IKES that was on display at the FUN show!!!!!!! Anybody not picking the Trade Dollars is lying through their teeth!
You are now guilty of comparing apples to oranges. Compare two sets with comparable value.
Joe.
Cladking, I don't collect the same stuff as you, but there is a reason I read every thread you post. Keep up the good work.
<< <i>You guys that are trying to put sets of moderns together in 69 and 70, try to do that in the Mercury Dime set!!! Most dates don't come higher than 67 and those are rare and mostly in the 40's. I had the # 1 set in 2002 at 66.03. This set had some 63 and 64's in it. How hard would it be to put modern sets >>
There are no regular issue moderns in MS-69 or MS-70. (cents are a possible exception since a few come nice)
<< <i>You guys that are trying to put sets of moderns together in 69 and 70, try to do that in the Mercury Dime set!!! Most dates don't come higher than 67 and those are rare and mostly in the 40's. I had the # 1 set in 2002 at 66.03. This set had some 63 and 64's in it. How hard would it be to put modern sets together in 63 or 64???? Easy as dirt that's how easy. You could probably put most sets together from rolls from the banks! >>
There are no uncirculated coins in circulation more than eight years old. You can find AU dimes back to 1982 and AU quarters back to 1994. There may be a few '96 quarters in storage so this could change.
Many of the clads were tough in higher than MS-60 even when they were issued and few rolls were saved.
Try finding a nice attractive uncirculated 1969 quarter in circulation. Hell, you won't even find a nice attractive VF and it would take weeks to come up with a F.
<< <i>But in 66 or 67 or 68 or 69 it gets tuff. You know why? Probably because nobody cared! Nobody saved them. They are ugly and common as dirt! >>
Bingo.
<< <i>
Which you rather have TDN's Trade Dollar set or that set of IKES that was on display at the FUN show!!!!!!! Anybody not picking the Trade Dollars is lying through their teeth >>
If they were free I'd definitely take the trade dollars but would sell them to get the Ikes (and retire).
<< <i>
<< <i>Whoa there. You were OK in whatever you were trying to get across until you compared the 74-D quarter to the 16-D dime! Different time period different league and should not even be mentioned in the same post let alone same sentence. There isn't a clad coin period as rare as the 16-D dime. All clad coins are as common as dirt. You had better check the mintage and pop reports on the 16-D before you compare it to any modern coin.
Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>
I figured this would get some attention and you're right that there is some hyperbole in the statenment.
It is literally accurate if you define the terms properly but the same can be said for almost any coin. All I
meant was that if you look at the 15,000 top 1974-D quarters that the bulk of them do not command
enough money to even warrant grading. All 15,000 (or however many) are worth well over the grading
fees.
<< <i>
I am trying real hard to get the point of this cladking and failing miserably.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> Almost like they are guilty of something. >>
Some of us just have thin skins in a few places. >>
And some of us had that removed at birth.
<< <i>Whoa there. You were OK in whatever you were trying to get across until you compared the 74-D quarter to the 16-D dime! Different time period different league and should not even be mentioned in the same post let alone same sentence. There isn't a clad coin period as rare as the 16-D dime. All clad coins are as common as dirt. You had better check the mintage and pop reports on the 16-D before you compare it to any modern coin.
Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I figured this would get some attention and you're right that there is some hyperbole in the statenment.
It is literally accurate if you define the terms properly but the same can be said for almost any coin. All I
meant was that if you look at the 15,000 top 1974-D quarters that the bulk of them do not command
enough money to even warrant grading. All 15,000 (or however many) are worth well over the grading
fees.
I am trying real hard to get the point of this cladking and failing miserably. >>
The point is simply that if there are more than 15,000 people who desire to own a '16-D
dime in any condition then why can't there be more than 15,000 people who desire to own
gem '74-D quarters. The demand is strong enough for the dime that even an ugly AG will
get slabbed but only the top few hundred of the quarter get slabbed.
This isn't to say that the price of the quarter will increase or should increase, merely that
if it does increase to as high as the dime then the coins will be graded all the way down to
around MS-64. It's also not to say that the price must go as high or higher than the dime.
There will be substantial numbers of MS-63's and MS-60's and there will probably be two hun-
dred million in circulation for those who don't want to ante up a slabbed coin.
But before anyone dismisses these coins as dirt common they should remember that there
are tens of millions of new collectors and they just might be as quality conscious as we older
collectors as they gain experience and their collections grow. How many of these states col-
lectors could expand their sets back to 1965 and even be able to find an unc? While there are
a up to a million of these in existence many simply are not available or are not available at cur-
rent prices. The primary reason that half a million mint sets survive is that the owner still has
them. If he hasn't sold them in all these years what are the chances he'll sell at even twenty
times today's price? The same applies to many of the rolls and coins that survive from destroyed
sets; sellers aren't going to come out of the wood work even at much higher prices. Demand is
always ratcheting higher and supply continues to fall. So long as you can buy a roll for $18, then
it's safe to assume that many of the coins will get set aside and be unavailable. So long as gems
are scarce then it requires far less demand to push the price higher and increasing demand will
have an increasing affect on prices.
<< <i>
The point is simply that if there are more than 15,000 people who desire to own a '16-D
dime in any condition then why can't there be more than 15,000 people who desire to own
gem '74-D quarters. The demand is strong enough for the dime that even an ugly AG will
get slabbed but only the top few hundred of the quarter get slabbed.
This isn't to say that the price of the quarter will increase or should increase, merely that
if it does increase to as high as the dime then the coins will be graded all the way down to
around MS-64. It's also not to say that the price must go as high or higher than the dime.
There will be substantial numbers of MS-63's and MS-60's and there will probably be two hun-
dred million in circulation for those who don't want to ante up a slabbed coin.
>>
Hi cladking. The way I see it (only my point of view of course) is that as collectors grow for Moderns they will also grow for classics. Take the 16D- If 1000 more collectors wanted a 16D---they can't get one if all 15K that are slabbed are held, and that fact alone makes the price go crazy because someone will want one bad enough to start offering big bucks, then another then another. Now if 1000 more people wanted that 74D and all 15K slabbed (for arguments sake) are held---THERE ARE MORE AROUND --- lots and lots more and lots more in grades higher than the AG3's that are getting big bucks for the 16D's. The moderns have the curse of being around in bushels full at grades high enough for the bottom pickers to fill the holes in their coin boards with readily available stock.
Wouldn't some of that ignorance leave nicer coins for you at better prices?
<< <i>
Hi cladking. The way I see it (only my point of view of course) is that as collectors grow for Moderns they will also grow for classics. Take the 16D- If 1000 more collectors wanted a 16D---they can't get one if all 15K that are slabbed are held, and that fact alone makes the price go crazy because someone will want one bad enough to start offering big bucks, then another then another. Now if 1000 more people wanted that 74D and all 15K slabbed (for arguments sake) are held---THERE ARE MORE AROUND --- lots and lots more and lots more in grades higher than the AG3's that are getting big bucks for the 16D's. The moderns have the curse of being around in bushels full at grades high enough for the bottom pickers to fill the holes in their coin boards with readily available stock. >>
As we know collecting isn't about price or appreciation. But the '74-D is available for less than 50c in uncir-
culated condition. My argument isn't that the dime isn't a good value or even that the quarter is. But those
who are looking for moderns in any grade to drop may be missing the point.
Everyone should collect the coins that interest him and this is exactly what the newbies are doing. Where
these collectors go next is mere conjecture but suggesting that historic collecting patterns will remain un-
changed over the next couple decades can not be based on objective evidence. It's hard for me to imagine
that there won't be as much demand for unc clad quarters as there is for date sets of mercs. Obviously the
demand at the current time favors the mercs strongly. The pricing structure on the quarters would be very
very different if the demand were as high. You certainly wouldn't find mint sets for about face value and when
you found rolls they's be higher than $18.
The '50-D nickel had double the population in unc and in 1964 went up to $130 in today's money.
<< <i>However, it's been two generations that people have been ignoring the coins and it's high time.
Wouldn't some of that ignorance leave nicer coins for you at better prices?
It's like a race with a thirty three year head start.
I have some clad quarters I pulled from circulation in Denver (where I grew up) during the 1960's & 1970's. I put them in Whitman albums. The albums sat at my parents house and in a safe deposit box for over 20 years. I retrieved them a couple of years ago.
My of my, what nice coins they are. The best 1974D is toned a nice even golden color on both sides. It is drop dead gorgeous and has only a couple of minor marks that you can see only with a loupe. It also has a strong strike, great luster and eye appeal. Other clad quarters of the same and other dates from 1965 though the late 70's and early 80's are also drop dead gorgeous. Some of the MS clad quarters have stunning rainbow toning.
Are these coins worth a lot of money? Probably not, particularly since they are not slabbed. However, they are beautiful and to me are so much more than "modern crap" worthy only of being spent.
To me, they are like coins from the mid teens that were "modern crap" at the time and not worth saving. However. some of that "modern crap" was pulled from circulation in the year of minting and set aside. Today those coins are not viewed as "modern crap" and the collectors of today who lust for those coins are probably grateful for the then collectors of "modern crap" who pulled some from circulation and set them aside.
For me, some of the clad era coins are fun to collect. The expense is low, the fun is high and the by product of the efforts of collectors of clads is that future collectors will have a pool of great coins to search for and acquire. Also, they are really fun to look at, particularly in good lighting.
Just my $0.02 worth.
I can see cladkings point and SacntionII had some good points.
My point is this. There isn't one clad coin that is rare. Before you get mad and explode, let me explain.
There are some coins that would be expensive in 67 or higher, but I think it is safe to say that a complete set of all denoms from 1965 to present could be put together in the lowly grade of 65, which is GEM, very easy and not to much per coin. These are not rare. Most of them aren't worth the slabbing fee, which means whoever sent them in thought they were 6's or higher.
I have been buying the clad dimes, which I said I would never do, only because I want to have a complete dime set from 1796 to present. I buy the silver roosey's in 66 with a few 7's thrown in because they were cheap and started the clad in 66 for the earyly years and then 6, 7, and 8's for the later years because they are cheap. I just bought a 2004-P in 68 for 12 bucks! Most are 20 bucks or less. I have paid as low as 5 or 6 bucks for 6's and 7's. They are dirt common! That's all there is to it. The most I have spent on one coin is 75 bucks for my 96-W in 68. I don't know why I did that, but what the heck. The only reason I buy 67's or 68's is because the spread from the next lower grade is 10 to 20 bucks. If it jumps 100 bucks forget it! And those that jumps thousands, I can only shake my head. You see for example, the money a 1979-P SBA would sell for in 68, you could buy a 1885 V-Nickel in 64. That's what drives me NUTS!!!!!
It's when I see SBA dollars in 68 sell for 2500 or MORE that drives me crazy. I wouldn't do that if I had Bill Gates' money.
The WORST investment I ever made was a roll of 70-D halves. Back in the 70's and 80's I was putting together a set of Kennedy's for my Dansco book from circulation. Bingo, the 70-D was only in mint sets. So I had to BUY that one for 18 bucks, almost killed me. Then they started hyping them and some other modern stuff saying the 70-D was the next $100 coin. They started going up and up and I bought a roll (20) at $32 a coin. I had just got some money to invest and A dealer tried to tell me the 70-D was not rare and to spend my money on some nice 1921 Buff's in 64 or 65. Well, I didn't listen to him and now I have a $640 paper weight. They did get as high as 65 I think, but I was waiting on the 100 mark. Before you knew what happened they were going down the tubes to there present 9 bucks. You see even though there were only 1.2 million made, which is a low mintage especially now, they are all unc. The only way they wouldn't be is if someone got pissed and spent some. They should all be in mint sets or 2x2's or plastic tubes where my 20 gems are. I told my wife to clutch them in my hand when I die, so I can take them with me. Yes, I am still bitter and wish I had those 21-P nickels that the dealer tried to get me to buy!
I guess I'm saying I can see people collecting modern coins if they are doing it for cost and they want cheap coins, but to spend thousands on coins that can be found in rolls or mint sets I just can't understand and never will. But everybody gets to spend their money on what they want and shouldn't be critized(sp) for it. If everybody wanted what I want that would drive the price up on my coins, so I guess I want to encourage everyone to buy modern coins except for the dimes until I get all of mine.
<< <i>
My point is this. There isn't one clad coin that is rare. Before you get mad and explode, let me explain.
There are some coins that would be expensive in 67 or higher, but I think it is safe to say that a complete set of all denoms from 1965 to present could be put together in the lowly grade of 65, which is GEM, very easy and not to much per coin. These are not rare. Most of them aren't worth the slabbing fee, which means whoever sent them in thought they were 6's or higher.
>>
It's true that there are no rare regular issue clad quarters in gem. Whether this is a strenght of the
series or a weakness is up to the individual collector. It does make it possible to put together a
set cheaply but some people will feel it removes the excitement or the fun. In any case there are
numerous special issues which are not only rare in gem, but rare even in unc. There's a unique
1964 clad quarter and there were some 1976-P proofs issued but none known. Two coins, one
example- - you can't get much rarer than that. There are some spectacularly tough coins in circu-
lation. There were perhaps around 80,000 1977 type "d" reverse quarters made and this coin is
not widely known or reported. Virtually the entire surviving mintage is in circulation and the highest
grade is VF. Several varieties of the quarters have suffered the same fate and a few had even low-
er mintages.
Before we write off the regular issue coins as being not rare in gem, it should be understood that
there are several issues that one might think are rare if they sought them. The '69-P is a pistol in
high grade and if you don't know where to look it can be tough even in Ch BU. The '71-P is much
easier in choice grades but is nearly as tough in gem. The '83-P is scarce in gem. Before someone
jumps down my throat for using the term improperly (which I did) let me say that there are probably
no more than 1,000 true gems. By this I mean a 99% strike by serviceable dies and a minimum of
marking. Choice examples are not a great deal more numerous if you like a nice strike. The '82-P
is probably tougher yet. There are also dates that can be very difficult to find clean. Many of the la-
ter issues are plagued by scratches. Even among the gems there are some are are created more
equal than others. Crisp full strikes are very much the exception and if you seek 100% strikes or
fully defined talons then this set gets truly tough. I've never seen a '72-D with a 100% strike which
is ironic because this is one of the easiest issues with a 99% strike.
As we both know, throwing money at coins in the hope of more coming back is almost always a waste.
This is doubly true when it's not understood what the target is. We're all better off financially and are
much likelier to enjoy the hobby when we collect coins we are interested in. But I still maintain that
the interest in moderns is the interest which has been denied them for two generations. These coins
have had a forty year headstart on decomposing before there was much interest in even looking at
them. Many were horribly made and years of neglect didn't improve them. Now a whole new genera-
tion of collectors is coming on board and they don't share the same prejudices we do. Most of these
new collectors don't remember ever seeing silver in circulation and to them it seems natural that pocket
change should be made of copper nickel. It seems natural that the mint should do all they can to en-
courage collectors.
typo