What is low mintage to you?

seateddime

What is low mintage to you?

abitofthisabitofthat

I collect proofs from 1858 onward. Low mintage is about 500 or so. Over 1,000 is pretty high.

21Walker

62,350Kennedy Matte Proof (believe it is SMS) half...........Rick

doh

Mintage < 1,000,000

Longacre

3K or less. Good question and I am interested to see the range of answers

TwoSides2aCoin

Empty spots in my Whitman folders is low mintage to me

sparky64

100,000 for me.
I'm sure wayyy lower for others.

What's low for you?

ccmorgan

Well it all depends. In the 1800s <300,000 but the 1900s I'd say <1,000,000.
It also depends if the coin was issued for circulation or not.

thisnamztaken

It's kind of relative, but generally I consider any coin with a mintage less than 200,000 to be low; not ultra-low, but low.

copperfan

Any circ stirk under 100,00 gets me. Anything else under 10K.

STONE

For MS type coins this is how I guage them:

below 100k is considered Low
below 25k is considered Very Low
below 10k is considered Extremely Low


For Proofs, it is slightly different:
Below 5k is considered Low
Below 1k is considered Very Low
Below 250 considered Extremely Low

fc

proofs? less then 25.
circ strikes? less then 2000.

PerryHall

Mintages are not relevant. It's the surving population that matters.

AUandAG

any business strike under 250,000 or so. 1870 and onward.
bob

Barndog

75 or fewer known die pairings minted

seatedcoins

<< <i>Mintages are not relevant. It's the surviving population that matters. >>



Important point to take into consideration

tjkillian

Low Mintage <100,000
Very Low <10,000
extremely low <1000

COALPORTER

It depends on the series.
A Morgan under 1,000,000 is a better date.
A seated dollar under 100,000 is a better date.
For seated quarters and halfs anything over 1,000,000
is a "common" high mintage year. imo.

fc

<< <i>

<< <i>Mintages are not relevant. It's the surviving population that matters. >>



Important point to take into consideration >>



in general, with gold pieces, in my opinion, low minatge almost
always corresponds with extreme rarity.

for example, coronet half eagles,

1854-S - 286
1875-P - 200
etc...

copperfan

Survivng pops are useful, but not written in stone.

DeusExMachina

<< <i>Low Mintage <100,000
Very Low <10,000
extremely low <1000 >>

ambro51

Twelve

(wish it were mine....)

PerryHall

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Mintages are not relevant. It's the surviving population that matters. >>



Important point to take into consideration >>



in general, with gold pieces, in my opinion, low minatge almost
always corresponds with extreme rarity.

for example, coronet half eagles,

1854-S - 286
1875-P - 200
etc... >>



Yes, but there are many gold coins with high mintages and extremely low pops. Look at the later branch mint Saints. Look at the 1933 eagle and double eagle. Look at the 1929 Indian half eagle. Look at all the pre 1834 gold coins that were melted after gold was revalued (only three 1922 half eagles survive). I'm sure you can come up with many more examples.

MrObvious

<< <i>For seated quarters and halfs anything over 1,000,000 is a "common" high mintage year. imo. >>



I suspect you just meant this as a rule of thumb, but do note that there are at least several years in which the New Orleans mint produced over 1 million seated quarters and those coins are now at least scarce (even by seated quarter standards). Quite rare by the standards of any twentieth century series. Only a tiny percentage of the large mintage survived.

Broadstruck

<< <i>

<< <i>Low Mintage <100,000
Very Low <10,000
extremely low <1000 >>



>>



This works for me too!

MidLifeCrisis

One thousand or less

keets

Mintage is a strange thing and the range of answers would seem to confirm the difficulty in reaching a consensus answer. i always consider that the number of coins struck is relative to the time they were issued and the need for commerce. thinking like that shows that what looks like really low in absolute terms might actually be common or just unusual when viewed with respect to the time period of issue. during much of the mid-late 1800's a Proof issue of 2,000 seems quite high, while in the 1940's the much larger Proof issue of 15,000 seems low to us who collect in that era. both are normal.

certain Mint State issues seem extremely low but the same thinking should pertain to those numbers. an issue in the late 1800's with 100,000 seems low, like an 1893-S Morgan Dollar. in the late 1900's an issues with 1,000,000 seems low(if there is even a regular issue with numbers that low. the advantage is to the Morgan but we'll have to wait for another 80 years to see how todays Moderns shake out in comparison. all this to me means that a low Mintage really depends on the era.

the lowest mintage of all caused by this affect is stuff like 1932 and 1933 coinage; times were so bad and supplies from previous years were so high that no new coins were needed for some denominations. an even better example is around 1816 when i think only one denomination coin was struck with the date, making it an easy Mint Set to assemble!!

after that long winded diatribe, i'd think in the entire realm of U.S. Coinage that an issue with less than 50,000 is low.

coinkat

Surviving population is what matters and that was already noted...

OnlyGoldIsMoney

Liberty $2.50's with business strikes of 4,000 or less. I consider any issues with PCGS pops less than 50 to be scarce.

Steve27

For NCLT 50k
For circulating coinage 500K
For patterns 50

morgansforever

2000 W Bi-metallic, the unc. version 7,261.

Scott

JCMhouston

In US coins I only collect classic commems, so I consider <15,000 to be low mintage, less than 10,000 to be very low.

I also collect 18th & 19th C. British patterns and proofs, so <200 is low mintage, <50 very low for these.

I guess it really depends on what you are collecting.

Placid

<< <i>Mintages are not relevant. It's the surving population that matters. >>

coolest

for Proofs I would say anything less than 500.
For non circulating uncs I would say 5000.
For circulaing coins I would say 100,000.

Silverstate

<< <i>For MS type coins this is how I guage them:

below 100k is considered Low
below 25k is considered Very Low
below 10k is considered Extremely Low


For Proofs, it is slightly different:
Below 5k is considered Low
Below 1k is considered Very Low
Below 250 considered Extremely Low >>

sfs2002usa

~ 5K. Jackie Robinson Gold Uncirculated Half Eagle $5. I have one.

stockwiz

it's not mintage for me as much as it is survival rate and population. Proofs tend to have a low population and high survival rate.

mojorizn

Gotta go with Keets. Context is everything.

Mojo

lasvegasteddy

matte proof lincolns is low enough for me

CoinMaster1229

Modern Commemorative Silver Unc.

LOW 30,000 or less
Very low 15,000 or less

Modern Commemorative Gold Unc.

LOW 10,000 or less
Very Low 7,500 or less

Quarternut

<< <i>75 or fewer known die pairings minted >>



Hey Barndog...

Better change that to "Survive", we have no idea how many of each die pairing (die marriage) were actually struck, just what is left in collectors hands.

QN

garsmith

<< <i>Mintage < 1,000,000 >>

tydye

For Circulating coinage (no proofs, patterns or commmems) I feel 100K is a good average number.

veryfine

<< <i>Mintages are not relevant. It's the surving population that matters. >>


But how sure are we of the surviving population?

fc

<< <i>

<< <i>Mintages are not relevant. It's the surving population that matters. >>


But how sure are we of the surviving population? >>



not sure at all considering how many people do not even return
their labels when cracking out coins...

experts in some areas state pops for a certain date/mint can approx
be double what is actually out there due to regrade attempts.

CertifiedGoldCoins

The term "low mintage" is almost as misused as the word "rare" is, as a search on eBay will reveal. LINK

It's sort of irrelevant, since Mint figures were not always accurate, and exports and melting skew the result further. I agree with those who consider survival rates of more importance than the number reported struck.

Dave99B

< 80,000

Dave

Raybo

I agree with someone on this point.............I just can't figure out who it is.


Ray

Shamika

Anything less than 1,000,000.