1896-S , 1901-S , 1913-S Quarters: Understanding Price Differences.

KingOfCoins

There are major price differences in all grades for these three keys. One would expect that in grades G4-F12, all three dates would be equally likely to be submitted. This is even more true for higher grades. Now look at the Pops:

In all grades:
1896-S: 397
1901-S: 438
1913-S: 531

Now one would expect that each date would be submitted equally. This makes it appear that the 1896-S is the scarcest, and the 1913-S is most common.

In Mint State:
1896-S: 28
1901-S: 28
1913-S: 56

In Mint State each coin would definitely be equally likely to be submitted. This makes it appear that the 96-S and 01-S are equally scarce, and the 1913-S is twice as common.

Now for prices:
1896-S: G- $785 F- $1825 AU- $6200 MS63- $15000
1901-S: G- $6500 F- $17500 AU- $29000 MS63- $41,000
1913-S: G- $1300 F- $4000 AU- $8000 MS63- $12000


Now what explains the fact that prices are almost the reverse of what the data suggests? Is it due to hoarding?
The 1913-S is relatively cheap in Mint State, which the data suggests, and it makes sense.
Why is the 1901-S so expensive in circulated grades? Why is the 1896-S cheaper than the 1913-S in circulated grades?

I'd like to here some possibilities.

DennisH

Availability is one aspect, I would think. So is aura and cachet. I don't know how the 1901-S got them, but it clearly does.

coinkat

Good question... For high grades, I think resubmissions need to be considered.

The big problem with the Barber series is that the rarities exist in quantity below VG8 and then there are a handful in AU and MS and little in between. How many of the graded population of each date grade between VF20 and EF45? I am willing to suggest it is less that 10% of the total number of each date graded.

Having said that, it is likely that the 1901-s has been hoarded which has affected the perception of rarity.

intocoins

That's a good question. I think for years the 01-S was undervalued, but as i'm typing this I'm looking at the 2000 Red Book and in good this coin still was priced at 1,500.00 , the 96-S at 250.00 and the 13-S at 400.00, so I dont know if I totally agree with the undervalued statement. You would think that the 13-S would command the most money because the mintage was a miniscule 40,000, 01-S at 72,664 and the 96-S at 188,039 However most will say that the later dates were saved more then the earlier dates and the pops do reflect this.

Looking at your info , One would assume the 96-S is the better of the dates, but the mintage does not reflect this. So to answer your question I think people drove the price of the date up and it never had a chance to catch up to realization. Still a very nice coin in any grade ,but overpriced IMHO.

roadrunner

Always felt the 01-s was over-valued compared to other dates in the series. People were saving more coins by 1913. I would think the 96-s and 01-s would have similar survival rates. Mintages may be misleading. The 01-s is probably more heavily counterfeited.

Based on the data you show I would agree that the 96-s looks underrated compared to the 01-s. And collector's want lists and buying habits seem to support that. Price guides rarely show an accurate relative rarity in many or most series. I know they are out to lunch on the seated series, where mintages still sway people.

roadrunner

stockwiz

supply and demand is the simple answer. The 1913-s is higher in price in low grades because of the perception that it's scarce because only 40,000 were minted. In reality it would seem the 1896-s is just as scarce as the 1901-s, but much cheaper. I don't have an explanation for the high price of the 1901-s other then simple demand. Why is the 1909-s VDB cent worth so much when there are tens of thousands available? Why are there seated quarters out there where perhaps 100 pieces exist that sell for just two hundred dollars in F-VF condition? Supply and demand.

roadrunner

Stockwiz,

Unfortunately, the days of a $200 F-VF rare date seated quarter is long gone (100 pieces extant). I won't factor in lower demand varieties. Actually you can't buy any of them with 200 pieces known for $200 in Fine-VF. Only 100 pieces extant is really only for the rarest of dates. Maybe a 42-0 SD or 72-s falls in that category, but possibly as high as 150.

Mintages don't mean much for Barber quarters. The 13-s had a low mintage with a high savings rate. Try and find a mid-grade 97-s
quarter in Fine-XF. It may not be all that much more common than the keys. Certainly a better value imo.

roadrunner

RichieURich

<< <i>supply and demand is the simple answer. The 1913-s is higher in price in low grades because of the perception that it's scarce because only 40,000 were minted. In reality it would seem the 1896-s is just as scarce as the 1901-s, but much cheaper. I don't have an explanation for the high price of the 1901-s other then simple demand. Why is the 1909-s VDB cent worth so much when there are tens of thousands available? Why are there seated quarters out there where perhaps 100 pieces exist that sell for just two hundred dollars in F-VF condition? Supply and demand. >>



I think the bottom line is that the 1901-S is the rarest Barber quarter, and gets the biggest bucks because of that fact. A lot of collectors collect Barber quarters, and it is often the last one they are looking for to complete their set. Accordingly, they are often willing to pay more to get it to complete their set, and therefore it goes for more money. Putting some numbers to it, if there are 3,000 1896-S and 1913-S quarters, and 2,000 1901-S quarters, and there are 2,500 Barber quarter collectors, there would be 500 "extra" 1896-S and 1913-S quarters, and 500 collectors of the set who will be missing the 1901-S quarter. These numbers could yield the pricing relationships shown earlier.

Sunnywood

There are many factors at play here, including supply, demand, and historical precedent. By this I mean that once certain dates are established at given price levels, it becomes the common perception that this price is "the going rate" for that date, and collectors become accustomed to, and willing to, pay it. In some cases mintages reported in the Red Book play a factor. Before pop reports, we could only guess at relative rarity, and mintages were the only hard numbers available. Of course we now know that mintages do not necessarily correlate with present day scarcity. But always remember that pop reports can be quite skewed - especially for rarer and more valuable dates. Eventually the prices will equilibrate in accordance with true supply and demand (i.e. not based on mintages, nor pop reports, nor perception, but actual market availability).

Demand has various components. There is demand for circulated coins from collectors who complete albums of uncertified examples. There is demands for uncs, certified and uncertified. There is demand for type coins. There is demand for pop top and high-end certified gems. But one factor that has not been mentioned is the special component of demand in each series that comes from wealthy collectors of key dates and rarities. Once a date earns the title of "the #1 key date in the series," it immediately accrues this additional component of demand that the other dates do not.

Type collectors may want a high grade coin, but they don't care about the date, so they will end up with an 1892 or a 1916-D. Collectors of the series will of course need to chase all the dates. But then there will be those "key dates and rarities" guys who may only want to own a 1901-S, or perhaps one each of the three dates mentioned. That definitely adds to demand.

One thing that can be curious is that some dates may have a relatively high MS population compared to other better dates, yet be scarce in circulated grades. This may be the result of a mini-hoard, or more often simply a single roll that turned up somewhere along the decades. The MS value is supported by the relatively high circulated grade values, but the coin may be more available in MS than many other dates of lesser value.

Those of us who collect a particular series gain a better understanding of the relative rarity of the various issues in the grade ranges we are seeking. We generally become quite interested in the dates that we discover to be "sleepers" - unheralded scarcities. These are truly difficult coins to locate, becasue they are genuinely scarce, but the extra effort that has been expended ferreting out every single example of the keys has NOT been given to these dates. So in some cases, they may be even harder to locate than they keys. TahoeDale has pointed out in a thread on the Set Registry board that the 1909-O is a good example of this. So too are the 1898-S, and the 1911-D, and even the 1907-D. Of course these are in addition to the more widely acknowledged "semi-keys" such as 1896-O and 1898-O. Actually, in this series, there are quite a few tough dates !!!

Best,
Sunnywood

Analyst

CoinKat: <<For high grades, I think resubmissions need to be considered.>>

For 1901-S quarters, crackout artists, in theory, may gain from resubmitting relatively low grade coins. There are substantial price differences between an AG-03 1901-S and a Good-04 coin, or between a Gd-04 and a Gd-06 grade 1901-S. Please read today’s column.

Roadrunner: <<I would think the 96-s and 01-s would have similar survival rates. Mintages may be misleading. >>

While mintage figures are often misleading in other contexts, in this case, I agree with Rich Uhrich. The 1901-S is the scarcest Barber Quarter.

Roadrunner: <<The 01-S is probably more heavily counterfeited. >>

Yes, this is a reason why the % of 1901-S quarters that are submitted to the PCGS is greater than the % of 1896-S quarters or the % of 1913-S quarters that are submitted to the PCGS. Besides, there are many collectors who would consider buying a raw 1913-S in a Good grade, but would require that a 1901-S be PCGS certified before even considering it. The population data is misleading.

Circulated Barber Quarters, with emphasis upon recent auction results for Key Dates