Which of These Coins is a Key Date? Which Has More Inherent Market Risk?

CalGold

Here are the choices:

1916-D Dime
1927-D Dime

Here is some data:

1916-D
Grade Pop Market Price
MS66FB 18/6 $57,000-63,000
MS65FB 32/24 $46,000-57,000
MS65 5/1 $30,000
MS64FB 116/56 $25,000
MS64 $20,500*


1927-D
Grade Pop Market Price
MS66FB 9/0 $17,000-22,000
MS66 11/0 $1,600-2,200
MS65FB 24/9 $8,000-12,600
MS65 30/11 $1,000-1,250
MS64FD 38/33 $1,500-2,000
MS64 45/41 $600


Price data from Heritage auction archives except 16-D no bands--price from PCGS price guide.

CG

illini420

I would much rather have the 1916-D

Always in demand, regardless of whether it has higher pops and higher prices than other dates. There are likely hundreds of other coins that have lower pops out there at a fraction of the prices of the 1916-D, but not many want them (that's why they are not worth as much). Very basic supply and demand.

The 16-D is a KEY DATE, the 27-D is not!

I can find 27-Ds in a bag of junk silver, try finding a 16-D!!!!!

Overdate

A key date in a high grade is a trophy coin.

A key date in a low grade is not a trophy coin (unless it's unique or nearly so, such as the 1870-S $3 gold).

A common date in any grade is not a trophy coin (unless it's genuinely rare for the grade, such as an MS69 Morgan dollar).

I'll go with the 1916-D!

500Bay

I'd take the 1916-D anyday....

Steve27

1916-D Dime (key date, has relatively high value in all grades)
1927-D Dime (non-key date, every 10-year old Merc collector has one)

MidLifeCrisis

The 1916-D is the key date and has much lower risk because it's a popular and famous coin among collectors of all ages. The higher prices reflect that...but the coin will always be in demand.

Barry

The 27-D is most risky. It's not a key date and the BIG multiple markup for something as inconsequential as FB makes it more risky.

Fairlaneman

<< <i>1927-D Dime (non-key date, every 10-year old Merc collector has one) >>



Per the OP examples? I doubt it. Whats more I doubt if the school kids have it in XF.

"The 27D is most risky." I would take the 27D over the 16D right at the moment and feel very comfortable.

Ken

ricko

The '16D is key.... most sought after, most likely to hold/increase in value... Cheers, RickO

tahoe98

<< <i>The '16D is key.... most sought after, most likely to hold/increase in value... Cheers, RickO >>




.............YEP!

originalisbest

I respect Fairlaineman's perspective on Mercs, but I'd want the '16-D. I have a G '16-D and an xf '27-D that I like very much, but would I rather have a '16-D in XF -- yep!!!

CalGold

Everybody keeps saying that the 16-D is the “key.” Prove it!



<< <i> it's a popular and famous coin >>



Yes it is. Never discount fame. But is it really a “key date”? Or is it just a “famous” date that “investors” like?




<< <i> I can find 27-Ds in a bag of junk silver, try finding a 16-D >>



I could say the same thing about the 1884-s dollar or even the 1892-s dollar compared to a 1903-O or even the 1898-O. So are you saying that a “key” is defined by its comparative scarcity in low grade?




<< <i> The '16D is key.... most sought after, most likely to hold/increase in value >>



Key to who? The pop numbers and prices show that its not the key to Merc collectors who are assembling near gem or gem sets. The number of Merc sets being assembled in gem grade is limited by the pops of the 27-D, not by the much higher pop of the 16-D. And note that the gem no bands 27-D is shunned (10% of the price of the FB coin) even though its pops are lower than the 16-D. Compare the much smaller (percentage wise) price disparity between the FB and no bands 16-D iin MS64 (I couldn’t find price data on the 16-D no bands in MS65 or 66).

The inverted ratio of pop numbers and prices in the case of the16-D in MS64 or better suggests that many are held by people who do not collect Mercs.

But it is not a one-year type coin, and the 16-P easily fills the type set needs of those who want a first year of issue. So who is buying the 16-D?

If market risk is at least in part a function of whether a coin is in strong hands or weak hands, which hands are stronger, those of a set builder or those of an “investor” or “key date” buyer?

CG

originalisbest

The stronger hands are those of the investor/key date buyer, for there are simply more of them, and always will be, vs. the enthusiast who pursues a complete gem set of Mercs. Thus the gem '16-D will always be recognized and and appreciated more than a gem FB '27-D, overall, and overall be a better investment as such. "Fair" or not, it is what it is.

MidLifeCrisis

<< <i>Everybody keeps saying that the 16-D is the “key.” Prove it! >>


Well, ummm...one way to define a key is it's true rarity relative to the rest of the coins in the same series. This generally defines how hard the coin will be to obtain in any grade. So...

Mintage for circulation
1916-D ... 264,000
1927-D ... 4,812,000

Elcontador

A key date trumps a coin which is condition scarce. People want 09 S VDB cents & 16 D dimes. They are the scarcest coins of their respective series. Ditto re the 12 S Nickel. These coins are available, but you're going to pay a premium because everyone wants them. It has always been this way and it's not going to change.

messydesk

Without looking at pop reports, the same probably could be said for the other "famous" keys, that there are conditionally rarer coins of other dates that cost less money than the keys that would take you a long time to find. There has always been and barring a huge promotion of conditionally rare semi-keys, there probably always will be.

CalGold

<< <i>
Mintage for circulation
1916-D ... 264,000
1927-D ... 4,812,000 >>



Mintage for circulation--Morgan Dollars
1881-CC ....228,000
1892-S....1,200,000

Since Morgan dollars are more widely collected than Mercury dimes, and CC dollars are most popular of all, we can conclude that the 1881-CC dollar is the more valluable, "key date" of the four coins shown. Right?

CG

Fairlaneman

<< <i>

<< <i>The '16D is key.... most sought after, most likely to hold/increase in value... Cheers, RickO >>




.............YEP! >>



Ya think so? Maybe you should check some history on the 16D. My 25 years within the series would say it does not hold its value. The 27D would lose value also but nothing like the 16D. Anyway we are talking keys here and not value.

One thing the TPG's did for this series is point out what the real condition rarity coins are. We must call them condition rare because everyone knows a coin cannot be a key if its mintage is higher than another coin or coins within the series.

Geez....maybe we should go to the 19S or 19D and see what people think. Off the top of my head I think there was tons of them minted.

Ken

lasvegasteddy

as much as i'd take the 16 over the 27

i'd sell the 16 and pause over the 27 but if the 27 was a 66fb...i'd try to cash it too

i still think the 16 was a first year issue and many will surface

TomB

What are the grades associated with the choices?

Overdate

Mintage for circulation--Morgan Dollars
1881-CC ....228,000
1892-S....1,200,000

Since Morgan dollars are more widely collected than Mercury dimes, and CC dollars are most popular of all, we can conclude that the 1881-CC dollar is the more valluable, "key date" of the four coins shown. Right?

Depends on the grade.

1881-CC Fine about $350
1892-S Fine about $30

Also, surviving Mercs are more correlated to mintage than surviving Morgans, due to government melts.

originalisbest

Comparing apples to oranges is a poor way to set up a strawman argument, CalGold.

pmac

I'd pick the '16-d. Although I'm slightly more interested than the casual collector, casual collectors recognize the '16-d as the key to the series. This argument involves classic supply & demand, and I think the investor would recognize that the demand for the '16-d will always be high, thus his investment is more secure. The argument that it being the first of the series that more will surface is quite valid, but it's popularity will keep it in demand, just look at the responses in this thread.

oreville

16-D hands down.

Remember, even non-coin collectors want the 16-D.
Non mercury dime collectors want the 16-D.

What partially created the fame is that Whitman in the old blue books had that blue plug in the opening for the 16-D, in effect telling all collectors that the coin was essentially unobtainable.

AngryTurtle

<< <i>

<< <i>Everybody keeps saying that the 16-D is the “key.” Prove it! >>


Well, ummm...one way to define a key is it's true rarity relative to the rest of the coins in the same series. This generally defines how hard the coin will be to obtain in any grade. So...

Mintage for circulation
1916-D ... 264,000
1927-D ... 4,812,000 >>



I would add that mintage does not always translate into current survival population, in other words some mintages might have 5% surviving population, and other mintages almost zero.

its really surviving population that defines the key. Survival population is often, but not always proportional to original mintage.

In the particular case of 16-D vs 27-D , I have no idea!

CalGold

OK, so lets see we’ve got here.

Folks like the 16-D because:
Its famous
The guys pressing Mercs into Whitman holders can’t find a 16-D in bags of bulk silver.
People who don’t need one for their set will buy one anyway.

But how does that make it a “key” date? Key to what? Traditionally, it was the key to filling the Whitman holder because you couldn’t find one in your change so you had to go out and buy one.

But is it the key to completing a Merc set in MS64FB or higher, where you’ve got to go out and buy all of the coins anyway? The 1927-D pop numbers show that there can only be 71 FB sets graded MS64 or higher in PGCS holders. But there are 172 FB 1916-D Mercs in that grade range!

So there are 101 1916-D Mercs that the Merc collectors don’t need for their sets. That’s 101 extra coins out of a total pop of 172 coins!

Now I suppose that 101 newbs could decide to start Merc sets and give those coins a home, but what would that do to the price of the 27-D? There would be 101 new sets with a hole to fill because they don’t have a 27-D and can't get one because there are none to be had!

But the 16-D is the "key" coin, right?

CG

Gription

<< <i>Comparing apples to oranges is a poor way to set up a strawman argument, CalGold. >>



absolutley

coolest

Before I acquired my 16-D, I purchased an MS65FB 1916-P for about $300. After I bought the 16-D PCGS F12, I put the 16-P up for auction and it closed at $56, ouch. Apparently there is not much interest in "common date" dimes.

PCcoins

Of course I'm going with the rest of the group here... The 16-d is the key to the series, and I would love to own one in the grades you posted. Prefibly the 66FB

GrumpyEd

I go with the 16-D.

originalisbest

CalGold, not only is the 16-D the "key", it's also the key, as well as the KEY, and maybe even the KEY!

Sorry, that's just the way it is. Ain't gonna change, neither.

MidLifeCrisis

<< <i>But is it the key to completing a Merc set in MS64FB or higher, where you’ve got to go out and buy all of the coins anyway? The 1927-D pop numbers show that there can only be 71 FB sets graded MS64 or higher in PGCS holders. But there are 172 FB 1916-D Mercs in that grade range! >>


I suspect that more 1916-D Mercs have been certified by PCGS because it is the key date in the series. Not many collectors bother sending in their 27-D Mercs.

But seriously CalGold, I think we have answered the questions posed in the title of this thread. No matter how often you ask, or in how many different ways, the answer will still be 1916-D. But if you still don't agree, don't buy one.

Fairlaneman

<< <i>Not many collectors bother sending in their 27-D Mercs. >>



MidLife were you serious with the above? Any mercury dime collector with half a brain would send in a 27D if it was a mint state coin. I suppose a raw dime collector would not though. Certainly ALL dealers would. Hmmm.... maybe that small population tells us something about the lack of this dime in mint state condition.

CalGold is not trying to change anyones mind about the 16D. He is just pointing out that since the TPG's have hit the collecting scene old KEY DATE assumptions made just because of mintage figures are not always true.

Ken

RYK

I do not know much about either coin, but I do know that I would not be comfortable with either at the prices in the OP.

woodardcoin

<< <i>

<< <i>Everybody keeps saying that the 16-D is the “key.” Prove it! >>


Well, ummm...one way to define a key is it's true rarity relative to the rest of the coins in the same series. This generally defines how hard the coin will be to obtain in any grade. So...

Mintage for circulation
1916-D ... 264,000
1927-D ... 4,812,000 >>

MidLifeCrisis

<< <i>

<< <i>Not many collectors bother sending in their 27-D Mercs. >>



MidLife were you serious with the above? >>


I was serious. Most new collectors (young and old) use the Redbook when they are first starting out to help them understand coin values and key dates in any series. So, comparing values in the 2009 Redbook, we have:

27-D Merc
AU50 - $90
MS63 - $400
MS65 - $1,300

16-D Merc
AU50 - $9,200
MS63 - $18,000
MS65 - $30,000

If I'm a new collector, especially a young one, I may not bother to pay the grading fees on a 27-D. After all, according to the Redbook, there are several other coins in the series that are worth as much or more...but none that come close to the values quoted for a 16-D. So, young or old, new or experienced, I would most likely pay the grading fees on a 16-D. I'd want to get it authenticated, if nothing else.

A new collector learns that a 16-D is a valuable key date very early in their collecting lives. They also learn (right or wrong) that a 27-D is not all that special when compared to a 16-D.

Coxe

I am not as hip with this series as others here. Could be lower pops because people aren't submitting them? However, if the 27-D is indeed the condition rarity suggested, that is an example of something liek I would opt for. The 16-D is a classic redbook rarity based on mintages. Perhaps it is not as overblown as the 1909-SVDB cent, which is scarce but very avaialble in any reasonable grade. Base don mintages and immediate hoarding, you might have a rough time finding the SVDB or the 16-D Merc in rolls or change. Same could be said of the 50-D nickel. Seems the entire mintage, as low as it was, is availble and in a typical gem grade.

ziggy29

There is far more risk, IMO, in a condition rarity than a classic key date in all conditions.

Having said that, there could also be more potential reward.

Nap

If interest in Mercs fell by a considerable amount (unlikely, but possible) the 16-D would retain more value than the 27-D due to its esteem as a key date.

I personally think the 16-D is ridiculously overvalued, but the market sets that, and they have had ample time and plenty of opportunities to do so.

I would guess the 27-D in 66FB has sold at auction far fewer times than the 16-D so it is difficult to say whether that approximate valuation is inflated or is a bargain.

veryfine

Some of you are in a dream world if you underestimate the attraction of a low mintage coin. Regardless of population reports and availability. the finite number of possible coins ejected from the press turns heads. The 16-D has an INCREDIBLY LOW MINTAGE within the context of its series. When it comes to the 16-D, no other Mercury dime comes close in terms of star power.
Ken,
We debated in the other thread, and I don't think you are a "key date basher." It is obvious that you are on a more sophisticated level of Mercury dime knowledge than many of us. But, the 16-D transcends all collecting levels; beginners, investors, low grade album fillers, mint state perfectionists, collectible enthusiasts and Mercury dime specialists. I can't argue with your logic and research, but rather, the terminology used. The 16-D is THE key date, although it may not be the hardest to find, and the price may settle down for while.

ziggy29

<< <i>I personally think the 16-D is ridiculously overvalued >>

In terms of price relative to true scarcity, yes. But "supply" is only half of the market pricing equation.

Take the '16-D dime or the '09-S VDB or the '01-S quarter (in AG/G) or almost any Morgan, and you'll see prices that seem out of whack compared to true scarcity.

Fairlaneman

veryfine both threads have been fun. Varied opinions are healthy for collectors and sometimes shows a different light on a subject. This would be no fun at all if everyone had the same opinion.....

Ken

MidLifeCrisis

<< <i>veryfine both threads have been fun. Varied opinions are healthy for collectors and sometimes shows a different light on a subject. This would be no fun at all if everyone had the same opinion.....

Ken >>

DIMEMAN

The 16-D is expensive not rare.

The 27-D and S are much harder to find in nice unc.

As Ken said there are many other Mercs such as the 19-D and S that are harder to find in nice unc.

Heck, if you want to base it on price go the the 45-P with bands! It's very expensive, but common as dirt w/o bands!

The 16-D has just gone nuts in last couple of years and I really don't know why?

Same with the 16 SLQ and 01-S quarter!

JMHO

veryfine

<< <i>The 16-D is expensive not rare.

The 27-D and S are much harder to find in nice unc.

As Ken said there are many other Mercs such as the 19-D and S that are harder to find in nice unc.

Heck, if you want to base it on price go the the 45-P with bands! It's very expensive, but common as dirt w/o bands!

The 16-D has just gone nuts in last couple of years and I really don't know why?

Same with the 16 SLQ and 01-S quarter!

JMHO >>


The 1916 SLQ is in a class by itself. The mintage is so low for an introductory 20th century issue, it almost seems like a mistake; and from the Philadelphia mint, no less. It is NOT your typical run of mill low mintage date. It is really a separate sub-type with unique characteristics. It is NOT created by the ham fisted, one-dimensional engravers of the 19th century. It is NOT surrounded by branch mint coins sharing the same date.
Those are just some of the reasons why the 16 SLQ is so popular.

zeebob

The 1916-D is in the same class as name like IBM. Everyone knows the name. Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.

The 1916-D in all grades is way less risky.