POLL: Are you or will you be a 3CN collector?
Prethen
Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭
I'm talking with some specialists in the field of 3CN and there's some interest in creating another reference guide (I can't say more than that now). Who knows maybe there will be a new book? The fact is, there are very few 3CN collectors in the country. Because the interest is so darn low, the prices are kept very cheap for mintages (and survival rates) that in other series would cost thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars to get an example.
If you're interested in starting to collect them...what's stopping you? The prices are cheap for all but a handful of them. What information would you like to see that hasn't already been printed about them?
If you're interested in starting to collect them...what's stopping you? The prices are cheap for all but a handful of them. What information would you like to see that hasn't already been printed about them?
0
Comments
As for your original question, I do not care for the series. I actually like the design, but it is a small, base metal coin, and I have trouble getting myself excited about them. I own two for my type set. I cannot decide which one to jettison...maybe I will do a poll for it at a later date.
<< <i>There has recently been an exhaustive reference published for the 3 CN series by a local collector. I do not know the name of the author or the book (Numisma certainly does), but I have seen the book, and I cannot imagine how it could be improved upon. >>
Are you talking about the Allan Gifford work (the one that costs nearly $200)? Anyone have that one?
I actually like these little things, but I'm afraid the train is starting to leave the station without me. There's just not much left in the classics that are still affordable relative to their supply, and this one (at least a few of the issues) may be getting much harder and pricier in the years to come.
In any event, I've kicked around the idea of an all-AU set (with impaired proof-onlys down to the AU level). I picked up the proof-only 1886 (my current avatar) last year as a head start and because I didn't know how many of these I'd find in roughly my target condition (this one is currently ICG PR-50).
[Edit to add: Anyway, what's stopping me? Mostly the knowledge that ANY collecting endeavor I start suddenly gets hot and pushes it out of my budget. If I started on this in earnest, the business-strike keys of the 1880s would go the way of all the other keys that have run away from me in other parts of my collection.]
The key element a good 3CN book needs is an extended, careful, thoroughly illustrated discussion of the difference between MS and PR coins for 1884 and 1885 years. Such a book would be worth its weight in gold for 3CN collectors! However, according to Gifford, such a discussion might be impossible because the same dies were used for MS and PR coins. I hope Gifford is wrong....
<< <i>What happened to "no" as a choice? >>
It's the last option. Unless you'd rather be less emphatic about it.
<< <i>The key element a good 3CN book needs is an extended, careful, thoroughly illustrated discussion of the difference between MS and PR coins for 1884 and 1885 years. Such a book would be worth its weight in gold for 3CN collectors! However, according to Gifford, such a discussion might be impossible because the same dies were used for MS and PR coins. I hope Gifford is wrong.... >>
Yeah, 1884 and 1885 would be the big ones. Others are important too in distinguishing between proofs and business strikes, but '84 and '85 are the real stoppers for business strikes. Often you have to go by the rims, is my understanding.
If the dies were the same (not unreasonable given the mintages), you'd have to go by characteristics of the strike and the surfaces. That would probably mean that most circulated '84s and '85s would automatically be considered proofs in many cases; unless enough business strike-style luster remained and the rims looked like an MS piece, I think the assumption -- whether raw or slabbed -- would be an impaired proof.
I disagree with the sentiment that the train is pulling away. On the contrary, it has never left the station basically since the series was minted. Prices are essentially stagnant for the series.
<< <i>I disagree with the sentiment that the train is pulling away. On the contrary, it has never left the station basically since the series was minted. Prices are essentially stagnant for the series. >>
Never said it was...yet. Just that given my history with collecting endeavors, it would start to do so if I jumped in.
By the way, what's your opinion of the Gifford book?
I have since sold that coin and moved on to other collecting areas. But I do think 3CNs, 3 cent silvers, 2 Cent pieces, and half cents have remained under valued in the market and generally suffer from lack of collector interest. As such, they seem like perfect areas to get real value for your money.
<< <i> I was focusing on key dates and read that this was "the" key date for the series because it was a proof only issue with a mintage of only 510. Not long after buying it, I read that 510 was probably not accurate. In fact, I think I remember QDB estimating more like 900+ were minted. That turned me off to the coin a little. I think official mint records only show 510 but it's really anyone's guess. >>
Wow. 510 is key but 900+ isn't?
My understanding is that 510 full sets were produced, but that minor coinage had more produced and that it's the dimes, quarters and halves which had a mintage of 510. I've heard estimates from anywhere from 800 to over 2,000 for the mintage of proof cents, 3CNs and nickels. Which is somewhat ironic, because 1877 is the *key* to all the minor coinage but they are common as dirt -- from all mints -- in the silver denominations. Yet the minor coinage proofs are the ones worth a boatload in proof, either because they are proof-only or because they are the key to a very popular series.
Hehe, I see your point. But from a rarity standpoint, the mintage may be practically double what I thought it was when I bought the coin. Its value could only go down from there. Still a key and a nice coin to have, but not the coin I thought I was buying.
Related to your other comments...I think that rarity and mintage of proofs and proof only issues can be misleading, especially to a new collector. The 1877 Indian Head Cent is a good example of a key date in the regular issue, with the corresponding 1877 IHC proof being sold at artificially inflated prices just because it has the same date.
Yes, that's what I was looking for. I think they're neat, and I have no wish to see them go away. I simply have no desire to collect them... as is the case with many other series.
<< <i>
<< <i>What happened to "no" as a choice? >>
It's the last option. Unless you'd rather be less emphatic about it. >>
In this poll, your choices tell us how you really feel
Someday maybe, but not anytime soon.
Seems to be a common theme for me lately.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What happened to "no" as a choice? >>
It's the last option. Unless you'd rather be less emphatic about it. >>
In this poll, your choices tell us how you really feel
I guess you can say that I'm swayed a bit to the perspective that either you love them, have to have one for type, or hate them. I guess there might be one or two modern collectors out there that just have no interest and no reason to add one to their collection. Then again, maybe their arms haven't been twisted enough!
I started collecting these because they were undervalued. It is the same reason I look at the other obsolete series. The fewer people that collect them, the better chance I have of collecting them. Since I am a "collector" making a profit is not something I consider.
Out of curiosity, what grade of 1875 did you get? That coin can be near impossible to find in XF/AU. I'm also curious to know how you were sure that the 1880, 1883, and 1887 were not Proofs. The 1882 is actually somewhat available. I've been able to acquire several example of this date. The only tricky time it comes to evaluating that date is when the date has a clear "2". The die chipped "2" versions, from what I've gathered, are only known in business strike form (unless I'm proved wrong!).
Bruce Scher
<< <i>3CN is three cent nickel as opposed to 3CS that is three cent silver, another interesting series. I suspect virtually all collectors who own one fo these coins has it as a type coin. >>
Thanks!! I'd like to collect them, yes.
I like the 3CSilvers better. There is more intrinsic value and they generally can be found with great original toning.
They are just about the same price now.
I gave up.
Proud recipient of two "You Suck" awards
<< <i>I started a collection of business strikes in the 60's.
They are just about the same price now. >>
You must have had all the common dates. The tougher date business strikes in EF+ have not stood still, especially in the last year or so.
I have Gifford's book as well. Not the last word, perhaps, but the most thorough review of the dies of anything I've seen.
Lots of neat die clashes and anomalies in this early series (the Mint had a lot of trouble dealing with the new copper-nickel composite). The 1883 controversy about whether the proof coin with the bump on the hairline is an MS is just one of several.
This series is definitely a backwater. It really has never taken off in the course of the current boom. It's quite an opportunity to accumulate a very nice looking high grade set for modest funds, IMHO.
Here's a neat proof DCAM:
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
I might bale out and finish my 2 cent pieces first.
Ray
<< <i>I started the series about a year ago but I think I might of got in over my head as far as business stikes go.
I might bale out and finish my 2 cent pieces first.
Ray >>
Please include me in your generous giveaway as I seek an AU 3CN specimen for my type set. If these terms are not acceptable, please PM me to negotiate.
Kind regards,
J
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I've got news for you the 1880, 1883, 1884, 1885, and 1887 can be VERY tricky to tell from Proof. Many of these were minted as Proofs but have lusterous, not mirrored, surfaces. Plus, they weren't necessary sharply struck as Proofs and sometimes just got one squeeze from the dies. Alan Gifford's book does a good exploration of all relevant Proof and business strike dies but his analysis is not perfect, though.
Out of curiosity, what grade of 1875 did you get? That coin can be near impossible to find in XF/AU. I'm also curious to know how you were sure that the 1880, 1883, and 1887 were not Proofs. The 1882 is actually somewhat available. I've been able to acquire several example of this date. The only tricky time it comes to evaluating that date is when the date has a clear "2". The die chipped "2" versions, from what I've gathered, are only known in business strike form (unless I'm proved wrong!). >>
The 1975 is PCGS 63. The 1880 is NGC 61; the 1883 PCGS 55 and the 1887 in NGC 62. If they got it wrong, so did I.
for these poor old eyes.
Camelot
<< <i>I collect 3CN in MS ( missing 2 dates) and proof ( complete) in 65-68. Believe I have 98 coins plus 18 patterns. >>
holy crap...
now...
let's see some pics!
-sm
The Maddy Rae Collection
CURRENT BST OFFERINGS
<< <i>They be just too small
for these poor old eyes.
The main reason I don't collect the 3CN's baby sister, the 3CS.
I only have two 3CN's - both 1889 - Proof PCGS PR 66 CAM and
a PCGS MS 65 [ EX: NGC 66 ]:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
"I am sorry you are unhappy with the care you recieved, is their anything I can do for you right now, how about some high speed lead therapy?" - A qoute from my wife's nursing forum
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." – Thomas Jefferson
Actually I would prefer to dig a 3cS to a 3cN, but I would take either. The silvers do better in the ground. I have seen both found within 5 miles of here. The 3cN that came up (only about .2 miles away from my house, at an old plantation site) was an 1870, and rather brown and porous from its long dirt nap. The 3cS that came up from another site a few miles down the road was gorgeous, EF+ quality. Both were found by a friend of mine.
No, I don't have plans to collect them by date (unless I dig a date run- yeah, RIGHT), but I like 'em.
Dpoole's set of proofs is awesome. I got a peek at a few of those one time.
However, it was also the first time I seriously looked at them, and I find them fascinating and definitely
undervalued for the mintages. Plus, a date and mint mark set feels more attainable for something
like the 3 cent silvers.
Think about it...
1) one would only need 25 coins to complete an business strike set, including
the 1852 inverted date and the 1862/1. 23 if you cut those out.
2) no real stoppers, at least in terms of price. Last 10 years are between
$400-$500 for just about all in F12.
3) Great value. Mintages for 1867-1872 are all between 1,000 and 4,500,
yet all are valued at $500 in F12.
4) This series was minted during one of the most historic periods in our
history (1851-1872)
IMO, the only thing holding this series back is collector demand. I would
not be surprised to see people begin to collect these at a higher rate.
I think I am going to strongly consider these little guys from now on.
The hardest part would be justifying the expense for a Dansco if they all
fit on the same page
Just my 3 cents!
commoncents123, JrGMan2004, Coll3ctor (2), Dabigkahuna, BAJJERFAN, Boom, GRANDAM, newsman, cohodk, kklambo, seateddime, ajia, mirabela, Weather11am, keepdachange, gsa1fan, cone10
-------------------------
3CN - you need to collect only 23 business strikes (no 1877, 1878, or 1886, but you'll need the open and closed "3) and/or 25 Proofs (or 26 if you want to differentiate between 1887 and 1887/6).