1857 large cent, large date versus small date: populations, availability, and pricing
coinpictures
Posts: 5,345 ✭✭✭
I'm trying to get a handle on the 1857 large cent small date versus large date. Some of the stuff below is a bit random.
Are there any records or estimates of the mintage breakdown of large date versus small date on the 1857 large cent? What about estimates on survivorship?
Combined mintage according to the Red Book is 333,546. You have to go back to the 1811 to find a lower mintage. It's considered more scarce than the 1857 half cent, despite having a mintage of almost ten times that of the half cent (1857 half cent had a mintage of 35,180 pieces).
It's weird: certain sources indicate the 1857 small date is more scarce, but other sources indicate that the large date is more scarce.
CoinFacts says they are both "Very Common".
Online Auction Populations
Teletrade has sold (or reports sold) a total of 31 pieces of either variety in MS63 or higher since 1998, only 2 pieces since 2003.
Heritage reports a total of 32 small date pieces sold in MS62 or higher since 2001, only 6 of which are PCGS:
TPG Populations
NGC population - large date: 423 in all grades, 237 in MS63 or higher
NGC population - small date: 63 in all grades, 39 in MS63 or higher
PCGS population - large date: 379 in all grades, 165 in MS63 or higher
PCGS population - small date: 122 in all grades, 34 in MS63 or higher
Price Guides
There seems to be somewhat of a disconnect between the above populations and the price guides.
Greysheet only lists the large date (not sure why).
Both Coin World and Numismaster have the large date as being more expensive of the two varieties.
The 2006 Red Book has the small date being slightly more expensive than the large date.
Numismedia only lists one price and does not indicate which variety it is for.
PCGS Price guide puts the small date somewhat more expensive than the large date.
Of course, I'm basing conclusions on what I see online, which doesn't take into account EAC and/or raw coins. It's possible that in those circles, the script is flipped and there are far more small date examples than large dates, but I find that unlikely.
So what's the deal on large date versus small date? Just how scarce is the small date compared to the large date?
Are there any records or estimates of the mintage breakdown of large date versus small date on the 1857 large cent? What about estimates on survivorship?
Combined mintage according to the Red Book is 333,546. You have to go back to the 1811 to find a lower mintage. It's considered more scarce than the 1857 half cent, despite having a mintage of almost ten times that of the half cent (1857 half cent had a mintage of 35,180 pieces).
It's weird: certain sources indicate the 1857 small date is more scarce, but other sources indicate that the large date is more scarce.
CoinFacts says they are both "Very Common".
Online Auction Populations
Teletrade has sold (or reports sold) a total of 31 pieces of either variety in MS63 or higher since 1998, only 2 pieces since 2003.
Heritage reports a total of 32 small date pieces sold in MS62 or higher since 2001, only 6 of which are PCGS:
TPG Populations
NGC population - large date: 423 in all grades, 237 in MS63 or higher
NGC population - small date: 63 in all grades, 39 in MS63 or higher
PCGS population - large date: 379 in all grades, 165 in MS63 or higher
PCGS population - small date: 122 in all grades, 34 in MS63 or higher
Price Guides
There seems to be somewhat of a disconnect between the above populations and the price guides.
Greysheet only lists the large date (not sure why).
Both Coin World and Numismaster have the large date as being more expensive of the two varieties.
The 2006 Red Book has the small date being slightly more expensive than the large date.
Numismedia only lists one price and does not indicate which variety it is for.
PCGS Price guide puts the small date somewhat more expensive than the large date.
Of course, I'm basing conclusions on what I see online, which doesn't take into account EAC and/or raw coins. It's possible that in those circles, the script is flipped and there are far more small date examples than large dates, but I find that unlikely.
So what's the deal on large date versus small date? Just how scarce is the small date compared to the large date?
0
Comments
merse
<< <i>From what I've seen, and read, the Large date, was always a bit more higher in value. But as I have been trying to find a nice Small date at a reasonable price, I am almost forced to believe that the Small date is a little more scarce. >>
At the high end (MS63+) the difference in availability seems to be more than just a little, especially over the last 5 years. I wonder why that is.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
As for why the difference in populations -- my only guess would be the higher value large date variety has drawn people to have them slabbed to sell. I do not believe that the populations at PCGS/NGC are a good guide to the relative availability of this issue.
FWIW, here's the example from my date set, having just been purchased last month (PCGS MS 64 RB), and I spent significantly more than the price guide numbers to acquire it:
I just purchased a small date PCGS 64BN (en route) that I anguished long and hard over purchasing, simply because the price was well above what I see in the price guides. At the end of the day though, I just don't see that many high-grade small dates being offered...
P.S. if the photo is accurate, that's gotta be DARNED close to a full RD.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<< <i>I just purchased a small date PCGS 64BN (en route) that I anguished long and hard over purchasing, simply because the price was well above what I see in the price guides. At the end of the day though, I just don't see that many high-grade small dates being offered...
Same here on my large date -- and both varieties are tough to find in 64 and above grades.
<< <i>P.S. if the photo is accurate, that's gotta be DARNED close to a full RD. >>
The photo is fairly accurate, and that's precisely why I liked the coin (and had to pay a healthy premium as well).
K S
<< <i>your data seems to be based on slab pops & such. w/out any question whatsoever most 1857 cents are not & never have been slabed
K S >>
That's fine and dandy, but unfortunately unhelpful. If someone has any data regarding EAC/raw coins that points in one direction or the other, or establishes price ranges, I would love to see it. Otherwise, the TPG pops and auction results are what is available. Simply saying "your information is useless because most 1857 large cents aren't slabbed" doesn't help at all.
Could not the same argument be used for other sectors of U.S. coinage? "The TPG reports and auction results are worthless because they don't include raw coins."
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<< <i>
<< <i>your data seems to be based on slab pops & such. w/out any question whatsoever most 1857 cents are not & never have been slabed
K S >>
That's fine and dandy, but unfortunately unhelpful. If someone has any data regarding EAC/raw coins that points in one direction or the other, or establishes price ranges, I would love to see it. Otherwise, the TPG pops and auction results are what is available. Simply saying "your information is useless because most 1857 large cents aren't slabbed" doesn't help at all.
Could not the same argument be used for other sectors of U.S. coinage? "The TPG reports and auction results are worthless because they don't include raw coins." >>
Actually, it does help. It just invalidates much of the research that you've done on slabbed examples and suggests you have to look elsewhere for the information you are seeking.
And by the way, the argument can't be made for other types of coinage because early copper is alone in that the vast majority of coins, even conditional census coins, are unslabbed (think EAC-ers love for raw coins).
Hope this helps...Mike
K S
PCGS population - small date: xxx in all grades, xx in MS63 or higher
p.s. good research job.
<< <i>The photo is fairly accurate, and that's precisely why I liked the coin (and had to pay a healthy premium as well). >>
Those fields look extremely mark-free. I assume the reason it's a 64 rather than a 65 (or even 66) is the heavy hit at the back of the neck? Otherwise it looks incredibly clean for the grade.
I'm hoping that the one I bought is as nice in hand as the seller's pics below imply. On the upside, it's a seller I've dealt with before. We got to chatting a little bit after the sale, and he says he bought the piece from Joe Kaminski in 2006, for about $450 more than what I paid; I have no reason to doubt him.
Nowhere as nice as yours, but I'm happy to make do.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps