How did the 1904-S Barber Half become the 1901-S Barber Quarter?

MrBreeze

In other words, how much hype has it taken to produce retail sales figures that have no basis in fact, rarity or relative value? I present some information for your enjoyment. I also included a couple of dates that I like, that are far cheaper, and are not so highly touted. Several Barber guys have alluded to these dates (including yours truly), but I guess I finally decided to put some real numbers on it. I have used several different metrics to compare Barbers, but I have only included two simple tables to illustrate the findings. Almost all of the metrics point ot the same answer. The first chart is the population numbers from PCGS and NGC (I am sorry if this is illegal, I will remove them if it is.) The second chart is a little more grey, and is not as specific, but does illustrate some interesting things. The second chart is the 30 Registry sets that exist at PCGS (Stats freaks, don't rail me on sample size, etc, I am not trying to defend a dissertation). I have included the sets with the grade (if one exists) of these four dates within the collection. You can see a few interesting trends in this chart, also. I will let the discussion (if there is any) begin, before I make some comments.

Summary at bottom if you want to skip the scrambled eggs.


PCGS VG/lower F VF 40 45 50 53 55 58 60/61 62 63 64 65 66 67 TOTAL
1901-o 1 3 9 2 2 3 2 5 1 7 4 7 3 2 1 52
1901-s 7 6 13 9 8 4 2 6 1 1 8 7 8 5 3 2 90
1902-s 1 3 3 2 5 5 5 2 5 9 7 6 4 2 59
1904-s 19 10 15 3 5 3 4 9 8 2 3 6 14 3 1 2 107

NGC VG/lower F VF 40 45 50 53 55 58 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 TOTAL
1901-o 1 2 2 3 2 6 2 4 5 10 6 2 45
1901-s 6 5 6 1 2 1 2 2 4 1 3 5 3 2 1 44
1902-s 2 1 2 2 1 5 7 5 6 5 5 5 1 47
1904-s 9 5 7 2 2 2 2 13 4 1 3 4 2 1 1 58

CHART #2

1901-o 1901-s 1902-s 1904-s
1 Duckor 67 67 67 67
2 Friend 66 66 67 66
3 Shire 65 66 66 67
4 Szatk 65 64 63 64
5 MFH 58 40 55 58
6 Eagle 53 12 50 50
7 Irv 62 40 50 58
8 Redsh 58 55 53 61
9 USCG 45 45 45 45
10 Glenn 64 63 65
11 Sunda 35 40 40 35
12 Brandon 53 30 53 12
13 Pelican 45 45
14 Ed
15 Umakem
16 Ville 35 20 25 12
17 MFH 2 30
18 Norman 55
19 Barry 40 40
20 Rushford 4 10
21 Hoosier 3
22 Tom 20 25
23 Shire 2 64
24 Chicago 62
25 Soup 30
26 Elbesaar
27 12s
28 Rush 2 6
29 20s
30 8s 8
Grde pts 841 680 846 748 This is the sum of grades to determine the average grade
Coins 16 17 16 18 This is the number of coin collections (out of 30) that have an example
Pct 53% 57% 53% 60% The percentage of collections that have an example of the coin heading the column
Avg 53 40 53 42 The average grade of the example within the different collections



Chart #2 with 100% complete collections removed

1901-o 1901-s 1902-s 1904-s
Irv 62 40 50 58
Redsh 58 55 53 61
Glenn 64 63 65
Pelican 45 45
Ed
Umakem
Ville 35 20 25 12
MFH 2
Norman
Barry 40 40
Rushford 4 10
Hoosier 3
Tom 20 25
Shire 2 64
Chicago
Soup 30
MFH 3
12s
Rush 2 6
20s
8s 8
Grde pts 334 250 193 284
Coins 7 8 4 9
Pct 33% 38% 19% 43%
Avg 48 31 48 32



The charts look nothing like I planned so I will have to edit this for it to make sense. I will edit it tonight.

EDIT: Summary

PCGS/NGC certified coins - Population reports

1901-o 97 total coins certified, 18 in AU
1901-s 134 total coins certified, 22 in AU
1902-s 106 total coins certified, 23 in AU
1904-s 165 total coins certified, 41 in AU

Concerning PCGS Registry sets

16 of 30 sets have an 01-o
17 of 30 sets have an 01-s
16 of 30 sets have an 02-s
18 of 30 sets have an 04-s

After removing the 100% complete sets:

7 of 21 sets have an 01-o
8 of 21 sets have an 01-s
4 of 21 sets have an 02-s
9 of 21 sets have an 04-s

Another interesting observation is the grade average of the coins included in the Registry sets.

The 04-s and 01-s are significantly lower in grade average than the 01-o and 02-s. So while the 04-s and 01-s exist in more sets, they average a lower grade. One might conclude that the price is the main factor in acquiring this "rarity," but availability is not. The 04-s and 01-s are perceived/hyped as rarities, and thus command a higher price. This tends to lead collectors to a lower grade to fit the budget, so to speak. But, is the 04-s as rare or deserving of its lofty status. At the end of July, two coins sold in the same auction. One was a 1902-s PCGS AU53. The other was a 1904-s PCGS AU55. Now, we have all heard that the 04-s is impossible to find in AU. Well, the 04-s went for $6,000+, and the 02-s went for just over $500. According to nearly all of the research I have seen/done, the 04-s is not 12+ times more rare than the 02-s in AU. In fact, it has not been proven that it is even as rare as the 02-s in AU. Unless everyone but me knows about the "secret hoard" of 02-s and 01-o Halves out there, I guess I will continue to buy the plethora of 01-o and 02-s halves out there until I can't find any more. Anybody have one for sale?

P.S. - All of my research/observation is in circulated Barber Halves. I do not follow, chart, watch, buy or research anything concerning MS Halves.

roadrunner

I don't have the patience to see what that data is telling me. Maybe you can summarize it.

All I know is that in the 1970's and early 1980's there were no shortage of UNC 1904-s halves to buy. And since the price was higher for 04-s, I was looking for other more underrated O and S mints at the time. This doesn't mean the coin wasn't tough in circ as I was not tracking those. Today the 04-s in UNC is considered rare.
Maybe it is, but I'm not convinced. Never thought much of any Barber denomination of 01-s, and 04-s. I felt most were overrated or at least overpriced with mintages (not survival rates) driving the issue.

roadrunner

MrBreeze

Be careful roadrunner. As I Seated guy, I know you have a good idea about relative rarity.

InYHWHWeTrust

Greg,

I think I see what your getting at here. 'Psychological' rather than 'Logical' explanations seem to best fit the answer to your question based on the data you present. From the years of pooled experience of older Barber collectors on the boards here, there are many tough dates in the Half series that the price guides haven't caught up with (yes, buy up those 01o, 02s, 93o, 08p, etc, etc and hold/wait til demand catches up, if ever). AND, conversely, others that the data just don't seem to justify the higher prices, a la 04s, maybe even some other early branch mint years (92 and 97 come to mind). Psychology, hype, low mintage numbers that Brian mentioned above, like the Lincoln 1909s vds, SLQ 1916, ad nauseum.

Some dates are next to impossible in F12, yet more available in XF40-45, but DEMAND hasn't driven the price up enough to get them in plastic, or simply out of old collections, if they even exist.

Avid, Interested Barber collectors/dealers with wide connections + daily watching ebay, internet, small/large coin shows, knowledge of private transactions + 50 years individual experience per person=> best way to get at relative rarity. I am eager to see the BCCS report on halves due out sometime this year.

But in the end, if that VF35 1904 s with dirty two-tone flushes out, will I or someone pay $3295.00 for it? Supply: demand. The coin business isn't Wally World

Don

ARCO

The 1904-S became the 1901-S quarter based on collector experience and on the miniscule Unc. pop reports that have developed over the years. In reality, the 1904-S and the 1896-O are the two Unc. scarcities, followed by the 1901-S and the 1901-O. Poor strike makes Gem 1901-O halves nearly non-existant.

When you look at the mintage figures for the 1896-O and 1904-S and then the Unc. survivors, you get a ratio much much lower of Unc. survivorship over even the popular 1901-S Barber quarter by a huge margin. 1904-S and 1896-O halves however, exist by the thousands in lower grades, so these dates are condition rare. Some collectors don't think that condition rarity is that big of a deal, and they may be right.

My favorite dates in XF or AU (if original and not dipped out / cleaned / looking like pasty sh*t):

1) 1901-O & 1904-O are the two kings in original XF or AU from my relative experience.
2) 1896-S has been popular for a long time, but I have never seen an acceptable XF or AU that I like. This has been the toughest "key" date for me to find in any grade.
3) 1901-S the past Barber king. Much less available than the 1904-S (probably because of the high 04-S prices which bring more to market).
4) 1898-O Who ever sees these in original XF or AU?
5) 1893-S and 1902-S The 1893-S seems actually easier in AU than in VF20. The 1902-S is the quiet sleeper that resists any and all efforts to find it.

Tyler

PonyExpress8

As with many key date coins circulated examples tend to be graded a bit more as oppossed to leaving them raw. If I am reading what your raw date and inferences mean correctly this is part of the explanation.

In taking a look at the rarer dates in MS here are the current numbers for PCGS. I alsp glanced but did not summarize or include NGC but the figures are similar.

Grading events MS Graded 65 and higher Graded Heritage MS appearances in the past 5 years (Includes PCGS, NGC and ANACS)
1893-S 117 43 5 14
1896-O 76 20 11 8
1900-O 79 30 6 7
1901-O 52 24 6 9
1901-S 91 34 10 9
1902-O 75 33 6 8
1902-S 60 33 12 8
1904-S 109 31 6 3

In overall MS for PCGS the 96-O is the rarest followed by the new number two the 1901-O. The 1900-O then the 1904-S follow. Note the 65 and higher coins and the 93-S has one less then the 1900-O, 1901-O, the 1902-O and the 1904-S all at 6. it would appear from auction appearances the 1904-S is pretty rare.

With the registry sets listed you can pinpoint where most of the 65 and higher coins at least for PCGS are. There may be a duplicate here and there for lower grades under 65 but the numbers for those 65 and higher seem to be pretty accurate.

TahoeDale

The thing I like about the 1904-S half, in the higher grades, is that we know where they all are.

Steve and Peter have the 2 67's, from James Stack and Norweb, respectively. I have the lone 66, from the Eliasberg collection.

With several more high pops in the 01-S quarter, and not the same provenance information, the half seems to have more pizazz, at least to me.

But this date does not appear to be as rare as it was in 1995, when the PCGS pop report showed 10 graded, in ALL grades. The increase in prices has gotton 95 more graded.

The Eliasberg sale had not taken place, Dennis Nagy had not sold his NGC 66,( now one of the 67's) and gradeflation had not occurred.

In 1995, PCGS had not graded any of the 1896-O's in 66 or the top pop 67.

And the internet had not spread into coins!

DrPete

Interesting thread.

The first time I noticed such a strong message about the 1904-S half was the first book on Barber Half Dollars by David Feigenbaum back in about 1991. He did a careful analysis of the various halves available in all grades including mint state. This was a very popular book and showed the first evidence of the rarity of the 1904-S half by someone with extensive knowledge of the series. Granted, the population of the mint state graded 04-S half has grown since the publication of the book, but being #1 then did nothing but help the rarity of the issue increase in popularity. The 01-S and 96-O halves were also recognized then as having very low numbers of available graded coins in mint state, but about twice as many were counted in those early pops.

Now, some 16 years later we all have easier access to the mint state pops of PCGS and NGC and other books and publications have done studies on the series pointing out the rarity of many of the issues. The pops in MS for the 04-S is now a very close second to the 96-O, but both are still not very common and stand apart from the rest of the certified pops. I have always considered the 96-O to be undervalued, especially compared to 04-S.

I also know that the pop reports are not as clean as they once were and I seriously doubt they are completely accurate. This being said, the registry listings and contact between some of the owners of the top coins graded can help to verify the true numbers of high-end mint state coins. As TahoeDale mentions above, we know the whereabouts of the two MS 67 and the one MS 66 04-S halves graded by PCGS as well as a few other mint state coins.

What has become somewhat troubling in the past couple of years is the number of barber halves resubmitted and the tags not turned in which results in inflation of numbers on pop reports. The urge to resubmit coins is particularly likely when the next grade up represents a huge increase in price. For this reason, I think that the population listed for the 04-S in MS 64 by PCGS is artificially inflated, as an example. Hard to make a case for that in the grades of MS 65 and above, given the known whereabouts of the great majority of the coins.

So, in conclusion, the 04-S has been known as the KING of mint state barber halves for the longest time (since we've had pop figures), and the other nearly equal coins in terms of survival, have lagged behind. What this means for the future is totally unclear to me. When one of the top three sets is sold sometime down the road, we will have a chance to see what price the top-end 04-S halves go for, particularly if the coins are sold at auction. I fully expect that Dale or Steve will sell their sets before I do.

The high grade circulated 04-S coins have followed in the wake of the mystery and pricing of the mint state coins, but my observation over the past 10 years is that nice VF and better examples are extremely uncommon and bring large premiums over listed price guides. This trend seems to still exist. There may be a few dates with lesser numbers of available coins, but the 04-S seems to hold its own.

tombr

Here are the 3 04-S halves that I own. Whle nothing spectacular, I can say they are hard to come by in the mid grades. We now know where the 2 VF-25's in the population report are.

Barbercoin

Interesting and intriguing points here. I present to you that in many cases "marketing forces" are hard at work driving profits. Enter relative rarity...... an elsuvie term, but for those of us looking for semi-keys (as I pound my head against the floor), we suspect there are far fewer available than mintage indicates.

Despite common advice, I will wait for my 01-s, 13-s purchases until later. By then, I hope that the focus will shift to ..... hmmm.. say Barber dimes?

Thanks for the points

coinkat

I tend not to rely too much on Pop reports. Having said that, I still think the 1904-s is rare in the VF to AU range, but pop reports are not the best way to advance the argument

originalisbest

Those are three very nice mid-grade '04-S halves!

tombr

Actually, I think the F-12 looks better. I have a VG-10 that sure looks F-12 to me, but the powers that be don't agree.

Without a doubt, all mid grade Barber Halves are tough to come by. I've concentrated on the following dates:
96O 96S 97O 97S 98O 01S 04S 07S. The O's are very tough--most are dark and are poorly struck.

roadrunner

In the 70's and early 80's the price to value ratio of the 1904-s in MS was not quite there. There were enough MS coins to choose from across the nation. I did studies with frequency of appearances of most major series (bust, barber, seated, gold 1793 to 1933) to see if anything popped out as being quite underrated. A few bust coins jumped out (1802 half, 1804 dime for example) along with a nice pile of seated coins...though mostly in the quarters. Barbers had a few winners as well...but the 1904-s was nowhere among them at that time.

roadrunner

MrBreeze

A couple of points.

As I said, I am in no way familiar with MS Halves.

As for the 04-s, I am not saying it is not rare, it is easily (and I mean easily) in the top 5. What I am saying is that the premium, similar to the 01-s quarter, is subject to debate. Also, the pop reports are not the only vehicle I am using to present my opinion. They are but one small piece of the big picture. I have found that personal experience, along with the wealth of knowledge that is available from other Barberians, is the most useful way to find real information. But, I can't quantify the fact that three of us can't ever find this date, or five of us can't find that date. I agree, the numbers should not, and are not, the most accurate figures for populations, but they certainly should not be ignored. I have studied sales, pop reports, availability, etc. And while the 04-s certainly commands higher prices in the market, I have not found any evidence that supports price multiples of ten and fifteen times over similarly rare dates.

Dave99B

This is a great thread!

Interesting analysis, guys....although MrBreeze’s chart and data has given me a slight headache.

I’d add that every series has a date or two that gets overly touted (I hate to use ‘hyped’, as I’m not sure its always intentionally done). Even many non-collectors will know that the 1909-s v.d.b. cent is a very special coin. Sometimes these ‘keys’ deserve the limelight, sometimes they don’t (or at least not to extreme levels).

A series collector needs them all, so it doesn’t affect them that much. But many serious ‘type collectors’ will chase the key date as the example for their set. I mean who wants to settle for an choice AU 1909-o quarter, when you can hunt for and overpay for a nice AU 1901-s? This really messes up the supply side of things, and escalates the prices for keys through the roof.

As far are pricing goes, it never seems to mirror relative rarity at all. Because coin ‘A’ is 10 times rarer than coin ‘B’, you might expect a rough 10-fold difference in price between the two. That is rarely the case.

Dave