Options
Why don't you collect moderns(Post-1964)? sans Poll......................
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
Why is the question of "Why do modern collectors collect modern coins?" so unsettling to so many collectors?? Honestly, it's so ridiculous that it borders on the absurd. Ask yourself------have you ever wondered why collectors collect Classic coins to the point where you'd need to try to understand with a Poll that's meaningless, because the answers are so pigeon-holed that they offer no reasonable choice?? In the most simple terms, Modern Collectors collect what they collect for the same reasons that you collect what you collect.
Is that easy enough to understand without a stupid Poll?? This horse is dead, been dead for years now. Why do you insist on beating it into submission when you clearly don't have a clue about the beast you hate so much.
Just worry about yourself, Live and Let Live for a change. I feel better now.
Al H.
Is that easy enough to understand without a stupid Poll?? This horse is dead, been dead for years now. Why do you insist on beating it into submission when you clearly don't have a clue about the beast you hate so much.
Just worry about yourself, Live and Let Live for a change. I feel better now.
Al H.
0
Comments
follow it up, though, with a count of everyone who's questioned why you collect Southern Gold, or perhaps the number of times you've seen a thread which wondered seriously why anyone would collect Seated Coinage. it's all so tired, old and predictable.
I've come to the conclusion that there are many people that just have nothing better to do than think up some way to irritate other people.
My main interest for collecting, as it was when I was seven years old, is that coin collecting provides a tangible collection between me and our past. I generally avoid modern coins, except those that help me make that connection. I was born in 1965, so the post-1964 coins do not excite me. However, some of the modern commemoratives, including four I purchased from the OP a couple years ago, help me celebrate the past, and I am happy to have these in my collection.
you're supposed to answer the rant and then move on!!
Actually, I think that perhaps you jumped the gun on this one, this time. I thought that the poll was fair and balanced. Of course, maybe the existence of such a poll bothered you, but I would not be offended by a similar poll titled, "Why do you collect 19th century coins?
follow it up, though, with a count of everyone who's questioned why you collect Southern Gold, or perhaps the number of times you've seen a thread which wondered seriously why anyone would collect Seated Coinage.
People have asked me this in the past, but there has never been a poll on it, to my knowledge. While 50% of the forum, maybe even a higher percentage, collect modern coins at some level, my guess is that fewer than 0.5% own a southern gold coin, and perhaps 5% own more than five seated coins. Therefore, there is not an audience for such a poll, IMO.
For the record, I consider myself an ex-collector of southern gold. I would not rule out occasionally picking up a piece, but it is no longer the raison d'etre of my collecting effort.
i have always wondered why many collectors who so willingly express their dislike of Modern coinage seem aloof to one undeniable fact: someone chose to save the coins they cherish in a time when they were Modern issues themselves. for that reason alone they should encourage what they seem to hate.
I just bought a roll of 1965 SMS Quarters last night on ebay. I'll recently started dabbling in rolls of early clad. Why? Because I remember the first year of clads (1965, incidently) and the coins actually do provide me with a tangible connection to my own past.
As a YN at the time, I remember doing a complete visual inspection of the very first clad quarter I recieved that year - and I wasn't quite sure whether I liked it, or hated it. The luster was very foreign compared to what you get used to seeing in silver. It was richer and not as bright as the clad luster we see now. Just a curiosity for me, I guess.
I knew it would happen.
even stranger, almost all of the members i know who are what might be termed Modernistas also collect Classic coinage in a way that would surprise most members, intelligently and with a plan. there seems to be this misconception that if you collect Modern issues you don't/won't collect more traditional coins. it's sort of like ignorantly judging others through your own narrow window's viewpoint.
Keets, there was probably an enterprising individual in 1835 trying to sell a few "special issue" 1804 dollars from the Mint, or new Proof Half Cents and his customers probably caught all kinds of static from the dealers of the time who were busy trying to unload their inventories of 1792 half dismes. So, who was right?
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>i think what you refer to as "disdain" is simply collectors expressing their dislike of a certain coin when questions are asked. i would challenge you or any other member to post links where collectors state that they hate classics as a whole, even if it's just in a reply, but especially if it's in thread form and of a serious nature. they just don't seem to exist. >>
The vast majority of collectors are men and classic coins often depict allegorical / idealized women. Biology may dictate that it's hard to dislike Lady Liberty in all her incarnations, given how many there are (including Mercury, Nike and Indian headdress types).
Some people seem to have a blanket dislike for non-allegorical depictions, whether the people are Presidents or other unidealized historical figures.
Speaking ONLY for myself, I collect moderns because I like to win. I like buying raw coins I see the value in, from others who do not. I like starting with equity instead of waiting for the market to move. The darkside has a similar draw for many. I've been lucky enough to find coins for $10 that the market values at many thousands, and I've learned what the TPG's will do with my submissions, and what they're about. I've learned which moderns are truly difficult, and which are simply submission anomalies. I've been able to treat collecting as a hobby, because I've played with house money for years. I've learned to grade the coins I collect, and they aren't so modern to me. Most are 50 years old.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
But for the most part, the dead president designs of our circulating coinage don't excite me. I also am tired of the same old designs (short-term modification of existing dead president designs like state quarters and "special" nickels notwithstanding) and prefer to collect obsolete designs.
The collecting world would be a better place if people didn't care what others collected. It would also be a better place if occasional questions about the moderns market for *some* issues or commentary about a specific modern design weren't automatically dismissed as blanket modern-bashing.
As usual, you are right on. Everyone should collect what they like, within an individual budget. And should avoid posting critical comments of others for their choices.
And 100 years from now, many of the modern (post 1964) coins and commems will be worth many times what is paid today.
But, if one is looking to dispose of their purchases within a lifetime( or within 20 to 40 years), then a rarer coin has a better chance for appreciation than a generic.
And except for the condition rarities, the chances for a high mintage example that is saved directly from the mint to rise in value over the shorter term is small.
Mintages of 5000 or less are surely a better choice.
And the classic commems show the difference. The Stone Mountain had a mintage of 1.3 million, and the Hawaiian less than 10,000. Even at issue time, it cost $2 for the Hawaiian.
$250 will buy a Stone Mt. in 65, where it will cost around $5000 for the Hawaiian.
It's very odd to start a thread bemoaning the beating of a dead horse...thereby ensuring that it will be beaten further.
<< <i>hey Ricko, i always get the impression that the dealers are upset because of the dollars flowing away from their table and perhaps from their tired stock, but don't ever expect any degree of honesty about that. >>
I've always found that it's more interesting talking to a collector who's passionate
about what he collects than to talk to someone who isn't. I'd rather hear an excited
collector talk about gas masks than someone who's only interested in profit talk about
something that excires me.
It really doesn't matter what gets you excited; classic, modern, or gas masks.
I do not like the feel of clad coins or the newer cents.
They seem to be only valuable if they are at MS grade levels that I am unqualified to assess.
I tend to steer clear of condition rarities since it only takes a little mishandling to make them worth less.
There are so many minted that it doesn't feel like a challenge to find them - there are some "rare" variations of coins but I do not collect these even in older series.
<< <i>
Keets, there was probably an enterprising individual in 1835 trying to sell a few "special issue" 1804 dollars from the Mint, or new Proof Half Cents and his customers probably caught all kinds of static from the dealers of the time who were busy trying to unload their inventories of 1792 half dismes. So, who was right?
I don't believe there was ever a time in the past that collectors scoffed at
setting aside moderns. Sure, it was ridiculous to set aside so many millions
of the coins that were current in the early '60's and even more ridiculous to
pay huge premiums for them but the problem here was one of scale not in-
tent. Most people just wanted to save new coin for future collectors. Many
did expect to get rich in the process.
Most collectors through history have tried to keep current unless they spec-
ialized in some esoteric area.
<< <i>The vast majority of collectors are men and classic coins often depict allegorical / idealized women. Biology may dictate that it's hard to dislike Lady Liberty in all her incarnations, given how many there are (including Mercury, Nike and Indian headdress types).
Some people seem to have a blanket dislike for non-allegorical depictions, whether the people are Presidents or other unidealized historical figures. >>
In the US one might believe this but you don't have to look very far
to see the real reason. Switzerland has an allegorical design for
their coinage which dates back to the middle of the 19th century.
This is a beautiful (and female) design that is collected by people
all over the world. The composition switched from silver to cu/ ni
in 1968. Today the common silver pieces are often bid to rather
remarkable prices but the much tougher cu/ ni go for a song.
It's like this all over the world regardless of the designs; where the
change was made to base metal the coins become much scarcer and
much less expensive.
<< <i>Al,
Speaking ONLY for myself, I collect moderns because I like to win. I like buying raw coins I see the value in, from others who do not. I like starting with equity instead of waiting for the market to move. The darkside has a similar draw for many. I've been lucky enough to find coins for $10 that the market values at many thousands, and I've learned what the TPG's will do with my submissions, and what they're about. I've learned which moderns are truly difficult, and which are simply submission anomalies. I've been able to treat collecting as a hobby, because I've played with house money for years. I've learned to grade the coins I collect, and they aren't so modern to me. >>
Indeed. And it's really great being able to get a coin for your collection or a rarity
in pocket change. Having the coins in circulation gives you the opportunity to ob-
serve the way they wear and become distributed.
Finding rarities in dealer stock or anywhere else for very little cost is a big incentive.
A few years ago dealers would sell condition rarities cheap even when they knew
it was a rarity. This seems to be getting less common now days. Even dealers who
have no interest in moderns might check the Ikes or the SMS/ proof sets for cameos.
<< <i>
The collecting world would be a better place if people didn't care what others collected. It would also be a better place if occasional questions about the moderns market for *some* issues or commentary about a specific modern design weren't automatically dismissed as blanket modern-bashing. >>
I agree wholeheartedly.
There is far less modern bashing now days than reaction to it. Everyone has
a right to an opinion and just because they express a negative one about a
modern coin certainly doesn't make it bashing. It might be nice to have more
discussion about negatives concerning moderns but that's probably in the fu-
ture since these tend to turn into bashing.
I can't blame people for seeing a problem where one might not exist because
this has been a big problem in the past.
<< <i>
<< <i>The vast majority of collectors are men and classic coins often depict allegorical / idealized women. Biology may dictate that it's hard to dislike Lady Liberty in all her incarnations, given how many there are (including Mercury, Nike and Indian headdress types).
Some people seem to have a blanket dislike for non-allegorical depictions, whether the people are Presidents or other unidealized historical figures. >>
In the US one might believe this but you don't have to look very far
to see the real reason. Switzerland has an allegorical design for
their coinage which dates back to the middle of the 19th century.
This is a beautiful (and female) design that is collected by people
all over the world. The composition switched from silver to cu/ ni
in 1968. Today the common silver pieces are often bid to rather
remarkable prices but the much tougher cu/ ni go for a song.
It's like this all over the world regardless of the designs; where the
change was made to base metal the coins become much scarcer and
much less expensive. >>
If one looks at US cents which have had the same composition for many years through 1982, one might not come to that conclusion. Some collectors seem to take exception to Lincoln cents (anything with a dead President is sometimes considered a modern), yet these coins through 1982 have the same composition of earlier designs that are held in higher regard by the same collectors.
When the topic of moderns is raised on these forums, there is often a stated desire to return to designs of idealized women.
There are several reasons why some collectors prefer classics over moderns and several factors may be in play for any given collector.
<< <i>
And 100 years from now, many of the modern (post 1964) coins and commems will be worth many times what is paid today.
But, if one is looking to dispose of their purchases within a lifetime( or within 20 to 40 years), then a rarer coin has a better chance for appreciation than a generic.
And except for the condition rarities, the chances for a high mintage example that is saved directly from the mint to rise in value over the shorter term is small.
Mintages of 5000 or less are surely a better choice.
>>
I strongly disagree. Of course collecting is more about having fun than making a profit
but increasing prices is more about increasing demand than anything else. The supply
of coins in the 19th century was beyond anyone's ability to forecast because collector
coins were saved by collectors, retained by banks, or lost in warehouses. They often
sat on the sea floor for protracted periods or were even shipped abroad for storage. Low
mintages might have high survival rates and low mintages might have a very poor ability
to survive.
None of this applies to coins made since 1964. Basically what you see is what you get.
Coins that weren't saved don't exist or exist only in a highly degraded condition. Mint-
ages still have to be understood and there is a variable attrition and demand for all this
material but one can have a pretty good understanding of the number of coins avail-
able without trying to compare price guides, pop reports, and likely demand.
A coin can easily triple or increase ten fold in value if it's only worth a dollar but this is
no mean feat for a coin currently worth $500. Look at the behavior of Kennedys over
the last few weeks. Some have about tripled at retail due to a little increased demand.
$10 for a common Kennedy seems a pretty crazy price but keep in mind that most of
these have fewer surviving examples in unc than the '50-D did in 1964 when it got up
to $160 in today's money. No, don't go out and pay $10 for any Kennedy because it
might or will go higher. If you need one for your collection then buy the mint set and
save the money (pre-'95 only). But imagine if the demand for the tougher Kennedys
began to approach the demand that once existed for the '50-D nickel. The price could
be multiples of $160.
Again, please don't buy coins or any collectible, because of what could happen. It's
a great way to be disappointed and this hobby is best for fun only.
The few critics on this board have had no impact on demand or pricing of moderns. Unfortunately, many dealers now recognize modern "cherries" as worth a premium, and price them accordingly. They're rapidly becoming ordinary.
BTW - Happy New Year.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Didn't all the famous collectors collect moderns in their day?
<< <i>I do not collect moderns for several, not insulting (I hope) reasons:
I do not like the feel of clad coins or the newer cents.
They seem to be only valuable if they are at MS grade levels that I am unqualified to assess.
I tend to steer clear of condition rarities since it only takes a little mishandling to make them worth less.
There are so many minted that it doesn't feel like a challenge to find them - there are some "rare" variations of coins but I do not collect these even in older series. >>
Cool.
Actually it's pretty easy to learn to grade most moderns. Usually what you
see is what you get. If it looks unc or proof then it is. Very few of these have
problems because problem coins go straight into circulation usually. It is diff-
icult to learn the gradations of proof but can be done. It's nearly as difficult to
tell a 69 from a 70. But if your interest is in circulating issues you can learn
these more quickly than any of the classics.
If you want to collect circulated only and no varieties, moderns can still be a
lot of fun, but you're right that there won't be any worth a lot of money in
your collection. Despite the mintages being huge these coins weren't only
not saved in unc, they also weren't saved in AU. Many weren't saved in XF
or VF either. Try putting together a set of nice VF clad dimes or quarters. By
nice I mean attractive well made coins with even wear. You'll find such a set
to be exceedingly challenging. You'll probably soon lower your sights to Fine.
Cents and nickels might appeal to you and can be just as interesting.
These are very inexpensive and very educational.
<< <i>
There are several reasons why some collectors prefer classics over moderns and several factors may be in play for any given collector. >>
I'm sure you're right and there's probably no bad reason to hate moderns.
I'm just saying that there seems ample evidence that the root reason for most collectors is that moderns aren't silver.
I also don't collect gold. While there is quite a bit of historical value to many gold coins, I personally don't find any of the designs on these coins to be attractive.
These comments are about my collecting interests, and in no way are intended to disparage or belittle anyone else who has different collecting interests.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>
...is that moderns aren't silver. >>
To elaborate a little...
The same thing exists with the New Zealand coinage after WWII. The one shilling
coin is also a good design with a Mauri warrior. The prewar issues were made in
smaller numbers and many were saved. When the switch was made to cu/ ni the
mintages soared because more were needed as the old coins went out of circula-
tion. So the debased coins would seem to be common but instead they simply were
not saved. Today even though there's still very little demand for these rarer coins,
they are so rare they still cost more than the older coins.
Collectors are aking up all over the world and discovering that many of the cu/ ni
coins weren't saved and sometimes the circulated versions were then melted. There
are now a couple of high mintage moderns that sell for $1000. There's a '50 E Ger-
man coin and a '57 Greek coin.
Some of the rarest coins are from the '70's but it will take a little while for these to
be identified by collectors.
At least they are collecting coins - that is good for the hobby!
Another way to think about it is that at least they are not competing with me for what I collect
Personally, I don't dig moderns as much as classics because I go for rarirty (and not Mint designated NCLT rarity, ala plat proofs). That's why I like die varieties. Among the moderns, I do like full step nickels of the 50s through early 70s. There are also some DDO and DDR cents that are sweet, though too tangential for my interest presently. But it takes all sorts of styles,interests and approaches in this hobby. Knock yourself out collecting whatever it is you like to collect. Be wary of claims of monstrous future potential where there is little or no supporting history. If you want to play the 70 game, just like with penny stocks, those are your dollars and risk them as you feel comfortable and competent.
Do you find my response a signature of unsettling?
edit>> After reading some of the other responses, I have to also say I am not fond of modern coins because I despise honoring dead presidents on our coins. It is so unAmerican (per the founders of the nation). I also don't like the looks of many of them. That's just my preference though.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>Try finding a 1970-D type "b" reverse quarter. >>
I do know how scarce this quarter may be - but if it gets popular and rises in value - then we will get a better idea how many of them are socked away. At this point - there is not enough of market for them to be searched out.
<< <i>
<< <i>Try finding a 1970-D type "b" reverse quarter. >>
I do know how scarce this quarter may be - but if it gets popular and rises in value - then we will get a better idea how many of them are socked away. At this point - there is not enough of market for them to be searched out. >>
My guess is 50% of them are "socked away" in circulation and 50% have already been "socked away" by father time.
There might be as many as a hundred uncs but don't bet on there being any. It required people to be looking at these and there just weren't more than a tiny handfull back in 1970.
I wasn't aware of their existence until the late '70's and didn't find anyone with more knowledge on the subject until the early '90's. If you do the math it seems a certainty that the number available will be much closer to the low end of the range than the high end. I don't have a dozen examples (in unc) of even the more common varieties that I discovered when current. If there were someone out there accumulating such coins then I'd know about it.
You can't find rolls to check. The very few rolls set aside have had a very high attrition because of being searched for gems and the like.
Don't forget too that low mintage coins tend to all be eleased in a single area. Most areas had no coins set aside so many of the varieties were not saved. Even where they were saved the numbers were small.
everything that i collect was once considered modern!
For me I like both moderns and classics (primarily MS and Proof), however for many reasons I tend to collect coins that were in production when I was a kid and young adult (1950s-1970s).
These reasons include cherry picking great MS and Proof coins at low prices with the hope that the picked fruit will result in profit upon resale; not having the discretionary income needed to play too much in the MS and Proof Classic end of the pool; and collecting in areas that I have spent quite a bit of time educating myself on.
As always Keets, my hat is off to you on yet another excellent post that has generated numerous quality replies. Happy New Year to you.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Do you find my response a signature of unsettling? >>
Just this;
<< <i>Nothing goes unnoticed and is not socked away in rolls and higher quantities fresh from the Mint or bank. >>
I assure you that many of the early moderns escaped notice and were not
socked away at all. Try finding a 1970-D type "b" reverse quarter. Some of
these early clad rolls barely exist at all!!! Then you'll have to find many dozens
or hundreds of rolls to find one poorly made and poorly preserved example.
I've been looking since 1972 for an original roll of 1969 quarters. I've still
not seen even one. >>
Precisely. Re-read what I wrote in context. some serious condition rarities despite all of the numbers for a good stretch of dates. I don't believe that is the case anymore. ...meaning, I agree that people didn't put them away from many years. That is not true nowadays though. There are a lot of rolls being put away. We are on the very same page.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>
Precisely. Re-read what I wrote in context. some serious condition rarities despite all of the numbers for a good stretch of dates. I don't believe that is the case anymore. ...meaning, I agree that people didn't put them away from many years. That is not true nowadays though. There are a lot of rolls being put away. We are on the very same page. >>
d'oh.
I deleted the earlier post.
I suspect though that there are still some coins (like the dime and cent) that don't
always get saved in large numbers. It's hard to tell until years later but look at the
prices of some of the nickels from the late-'90's. Some are pretty high.
Although cladking might argue this point, the debasement of silver coinage in 1965 rendered our minor denominations less "collectible" for decades. The Lincoln Cent took a hit in 1982. Now, it appears that we are ripe for a complete makeover in all denominations - to include further cheapening of the alloys or even elimination.
Thinking of the pre-WWII hyperinflation that occurred in Germany, I sometimes look on ebay at German coins, and I can see the progression that occurred after silver was removed. Of course, now we have more technology to throw at it, but we seem to be coming to a cross roads that will force our coinage into the ultra-cheap realm and/or force a major shift in our most common denominations.
The interesting thing that I wanted to mention is that I never seem to have a problem finding a full range of German silver coins when I do a search, but there just aren't very many of the cheap aluminum coins that were produced during the hyperinflation era. The same thing seems to be true for the immediate post-WWII years. Hardly any 1945, 1946, or 1947 German coins are seen. Maybe they just aren't valuable enough to offer on ebay, or maybe.........nobody saved any of them?
We might be entering a similar phase, except that we aren't reconstructing a whole war-torn society, and we have beaucoup coin collectors who save practically everything in quantity.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
Although cladking might argue this point, the debasement of silver coinage in 1965 rendered our minor denominations less "collectible" for decades. >>
It's perspective. I couldn't have agreed more until 1972. Most collectors still agree.