1877 vs 1909-S Indian Cent

Batman23

I have always understood that the 1877 is the key of the Indian head cents. Looking at the mintages though there are almost three times as many 1877 minted than the 1909-s. Looking at the PCGS population reports they are both pretty close in numbers. Is there any information out there about the 1877 cents, how many are left, what happened to them, etc? Why isn't the 1909-s the key?

lordmarcovan

<< <i>Why isn't the 1909-s the key? >>

Higher survival rates, I'd imagine. More people saved them, since they were the last of the species.

doh

Differential retention. More people saved the 09-S because it was recognized as a low mintage issue when it first was released. Also, I've heard from several sources that the actual mintage for 1877 wasn't 852K and change, but was actually lower...possibly 258K and the mint just screwed up the books. Not sure how much validity there is with that theory though.

savoyspecial

doh, i have heard the same theory (rick snow's book i believe) in which there seems to be only one die pair used to mint the 1877 and in the 1870's it would have been darn near impossible to get 800k+ coins out of one die pair!

greg

Batman23

<< <i>Differential retention. More people saved the 09-S because it was recognized as a low mintage issue when it first was released. Also, I've heard from several sources that the actual mintage for 1877 wasn't 852K and change, but was actually lower...possibly 258K and the mint just screwed up the books. Not sure how much validity there is with that theory though. >>



If that is true then that would explain the huge price difference and why the 1877 is so scarce, even in low grades.

OneCent

The PCGS population report tells the story:

PCGS has graded 2,460 examples of the 1877 IHC. This represents .29% of the 852,500 mintage.

PCGS has graded 2,530 examples of the 1909-S IHC. This represents .82% of the 309,00 mintage.

Although the absolute number of coins graded are similar for each date, the ratio of coins graded to actual minatge is far less for the 1877. Simply stated, far fewer 1877 examples survived.

DennisH

First and last years of a series tend to get saved in bulk.

EagleEye

Yes, The theory is that because only one reverse die stuck every known business strike 1877 Indian Cent (2 obverse dies) and that die does not even suffer a single die crack or substantial die wear, that the mintage is overstated by a factor or 3 or 4 (200,000 estimated actual mintage)

I only need to get time to examine the records again and find the truth. It is the great unsolved mystery in the Indian cent series.

Denga, any thoughts?

CaptHenway

Rick,
It is possible that a quantity of 1876 coins struck in 1876 were delivered (from the Coiner to the Cashier) in 1877 and counted as 1877's. Don't know how to prove it, or guess how many.

This delayed delivery bookkeeping may have accounted for the 12,000 business strike dollars reported for 1895, if they were leftover 1894's delivered in 1895.
TD

EagleEye

The entire mintage was recorded deliverd in January according to my notes from the Archives (these notes are from 1990 and are very brief). I suppose if a coiners report (similar to the Straub Diary for1880's Proofs) existed, it would be helpful.

veryfine

As others have said, it's most likely a simple matter of survival rates.
The 1909-s vs. 1877 is similar to the 12-s and 1885 nickel.
The 1912-s has by far, the lowest mintage in the series. Yet, the 1885 is much more difficult to locate above vg. The 12-s is also the last year of the series, as is the 1909-s, and mintmarks add to their appeal.
Both the 1877 ihc and 1885 nickel had plenty of time to circulate and fall between the cracks. The average 1885 nickel has so much wear, it looks steamrolled. The 12-s is easier to find above G4 up through F-12. Same is true for the 1909-s ihc.
An 1877 ihc or 1885 nickel in any uncirculated grade is a real prize.

EagleEye

Of course survival rates do play a part, but it is not the only thing that accounts for their rarity. It is not the main reason for their overall rarity, but it is the reason that most are found in lower grades, where 1909-S Indians are mostly VF and above because they where plucked from circulation very quickly, perhaps all within 10 years. 1877 Indians were not even thought of as rare until the 1890's, due to the availability of the Proofs, which collectors preferred at that time.

Batman23

It just seems that if the number of minted 1877 cents is correct and no one saved them at the time, then we would see many available at the lower grades. Thus making it more of a conditional rarity like the 1914-D Lincoln. The price guides reflect the overal rarity of the 1877. This information of the single reverse die used for all the 1877 cents and because of this the 852,500 mintage probably being far too large is quite interesting. It looks like Eagle Eye has spent a fair amount of time on this subject.

dbldie55

<< <i>It looks like Eagle Eye has spent a fair amount of time on this subject. >>



That may be the understatement of the year.

doh

<< <i>That may be the understatement of the year >>


LOL, yes it just might be. Rick certainly is THE man!

veryfine

Maybe I'm alone on this, but I am often drawn to scarce or rare dates that stand alone, without mintmarked variations. The 1909-s is shared with the common 1909 Philadelphia version. Somehow, this dilutes the strength of the 1909-s.
The 1877 indian cent stands alone, much like the 1916 slq, 1885 nickel or 1921 Peace dollar. Obviously, my comments are not based on numismatic surveys or dollars and cents reality. It's just me, sitting here, musing about coins.
Of course, I am well aware of that insignificant little "s" on a 1901 quarter or 1893 silver dollar.

ziggy29

<< <i>The PCGS population report tells the story:

PCGS has graded 2,460 examples of the 1877 IHC. This represents .29% of the 852,500 mintage.

PCGS has graded 2,530 examples of the 1909-S IHC. This represents .82% of the 309,00 mintage. >>

Maybe not the *whole* story, but part of it. Given that crackouts are probably more prevalent for MS coins than for circulated coins, and given that the '09-S is much more likely to be found in MS, might we see a lot more crackouts reflected in the pop reports for the 1909-S?