Who ever said "conditional rarities" aren't really "rare" ...

CoinHusker

...has never looked through rolls. Notlogical and I have been going through rolls (about 1,000 quarters so far) of Nebraska quarters from the launch back on April 7th and have only found about 9 that I would guess would grade MS64 and up and by up I mean 65. Most are just absolutley awful with marks, weak strikes, etc. I mean we're going cross-eyed.

Next time I see a Ms67 or higher in a modern circulation piece I will have a new found respect for who found it and how rare it actually is. IMHO

LindeDad

What you have just said is why the dealers that make them get the big bucks. And to add to the story if you find them that you think are 67 or better. You have to lucky enouph for the graders to agree with you.
BTW thats why I am broke a lot of the time, I buy them in the plastic allready.

cladking

<< <i>...has never looked through rolls. Notlogical and I have been going through rolls (about 1,000 quarters so far) of Nebraska quarters from the launch back on April 7th and have only found about 9 that I would guess would grade MS64 and up and by up I mean 65. Most are just absolutley awful with marks, weak strikes, etc. I mean we're going cross-eyed.

Next time I see a Ms67 or higher in a modern circulation piece I will have a new found respect for who found it and how rare it actually is. IMHO >>



Some of the older ones were probably harder to find nice. The trick in the old days was
to go from bank to bank and spot check what they had. If you ever found a nice well made
coin then you'd obtain a large quantity and look through for clean examples. Some appeared
to simply be unavailable. Coins like the '69 quarter just were too rare to have much chance
of finding one in high grade. At least now days a higher percentage are well made, they're
just beaten up before they leave the mint.

In most cases you'll find the best specimens in the mint sets but this won't always work and
doesn't apply to all moderns.

CoinHusker

<< <i> At least now days a higher percentage are well made, they're
just beaten up before they leave the mint.
>>

Coxe

I agree, but for issues that were released in mint sets that is from where most of the superb pieces come. For the other mints, that is very true. Moderns that have a chance to be condition rarities will be those only found in rolls. Stike rarities among them, like FS nickels I would keep a particular eye out for. PR70 ultramoderns are where I draw the line on condition rarity. In fact, I just don't see an seriously significant very modern proofs deserving a lot of future respect except for the errors (no S).

cladking

<< <i>I agree, but for issues that were released in mint sets that is from where most of the superb pieces come. For the other mints, that is very true. Moderns that have a chance to be condition rarities will be those only found in rolls. Stike rarities among them, like FS nickels I would keep a particular eye out for. PR70 ultramoderns are where I draw the line on condition rarity. In fact, I just don't see an seriously significant very modern proofs deserving a lot of future respect except for the errors (no S). >>



There are other exceptions as well. It is true that virtually every single modern that
appears in a mint set does appear as a gem but finding some of these as gems in mint
sets isn't necessarily easy. For example the 1974 or 1976 type I dollars. You can look at
hundreds of mint sets and not see any nice gems of these. The '74 tends to have dull sur-
faces, poor strikes, and marking while the '76 has horrendous marking and some strike de-
ficiencies. It's not just a problem with the big Ikes either. '69, '84-P, '89-D quarters also
are extremely elusive in mint sets as well struck gems. Every denomination has some ex-
amples which are tough in sets as gems. Sometimes these overlap with coins which are
impossible in rolls or weren't saved in rolls.

Even the moderns that are just difficult (rather than near impossible) in sets like '71 25c,
'84 1c, '71 25c, or '72 10c are far less available than is widely believed. When they were
minted they might have represented three or four percent of a two million set production,
but the years have not been kind to them in all cases. Selective attrition has whittled their
incidence down to two percent and there may be fewer than half a million remaining sets.
Additionally significant percentages of these may also be tarnished now. Where it might
appear there are 80,000 nice gem coins available from sets there may be only several hun-
dred actually available on the market, and these won't be slabbable due to low prices so you
may have to seek them raw.

Few people realize just how impossible many of the 1965 to date nickels are. Many are avail-
able as gems and many are available with full strikes but few are available with both. Some
are simply not available with full steps.

Then there are the varieties. Watch out for these since few are available in sets and some
aren't available in rolls either. In fact due to original small mintages for some and years of
attrition in circulation they are barely available at all. Not only are scarce varieties rare now
but so are some of the "common" varieties.

Don't be too quick to write off proofs. While these have a narrow range in quality for most,
there are exceptions. There are also varieties among these and there is a lot of potential de-
mand not only for superior examples but also for typical coins. Few of the typical common
proofs will ever have large premiums but some of these are available for less than double
face value today. One has to suspect there is room for growth.

Baley

it's true, really gem moderns are conditionally rare.

pharmer

<< <i>

<< <i> At least now days a higher percentage are well made, they're
just beaten up before they leave the mint.
>>



>>




This obviously is the case, but why? Seems counter-intuitive for them to be more well made but more poorly handled?

CoinHusker

<< <i>
This obviously is the case, but why? Seems counter-intuitive for them to be more well made but more poorly handled? >>




Remember, we are talking about a government entity here.

Coxe

I agree with you, cladking. (I think you were adding more detail to my arguments actually.) The general point I was making was that most of the higher grade mint state examples are pulled from sets, not rolls, for dates/mms represented by mint sets. Production quality you bring up is definitely true, especially on those Jefferson nickels. I maintain that full step mint state gems of most dates have a LOT of futue potential. (The only one I have is a 1953-S though -- yes, MS65 and full steps.) Although SMS coins have had somewhat of a run, I think the 1965 and 1966 cameos are great, and the 1964 one are huge opportunities while most people don't even know about them. Uncirculated Ikes, in general, are in short supply in higher grades and are not coming up a whole lot higher in pops, with the dates you cite as particularly problematic. As more collectors gravitate to them, the supply easily will dwarf the demand for most or all dates in high grades. Proof valuations of common dates at less than double face, which I did not know, is indeed a bargain. I don't have my finger on that pulse and that of modern proof commemoratives. I cannot see the PR70/PR69 valuation ratios as long term sustainable though.

cladking

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i> At least now days a higher percentage are well made, they're
just beaten up before they leave the mint.
>>



>>




This obviously is the case, but why? Seems counter-intuitive for them to be more well made but more poorly handled? >>



The total amount of damage to coins before they leave the mint may not be sig-
nificantly increased but a lower number seem to escape with little or no marking.
Strike quality is higher partially because the mint is paying more attention to the
factors that constitute strike quality and they are lowering the relief. Dies can now
strike hundreds or even thousands of coins before die wear is evidenced where in
the old days it might be only dozens or hundreds. Die steel took a huge leap for-
ward in the early '90's which allows the mint to swap out dies a little sooner.

The mint knows that people are paying attention now so they are trying harder.
This is probably much of the reason that they've stepped up mint set quality though
this may backfire as collectors seek the regular strikes in high grade and find little
success. Improving the quality of circulation issues may prove difficult because of
handling changes in recent years. Coins now drop further into larger bags and then
have more weight on them as they are drawn off the bottom. This is not the sole
source of marking but may be a significant one.

notlogical

<< <i>I mean we're going cross-eyed.
>>




No kidding!