Question for CladKing. Why is it that pleasing, relatively mark free circulated clad quarters from..

SanctionII

1965, 1966 and 1967 can still be found in circulation yet later date circulated clads in the same condition are very hard if not impossible to find.

A few days ago I received a 1967 clad quarter and a 1982 clad quarter in change. The 1967 looks fantastic [probably Fine to Very Fine condition, with full rims, smooth even wear, few if any marks noticeable to the naked eye and a very appealing light gray color with the devices slightly lighter in color than the fields]. If the 1967 clad quarter was a Bust Half the coin would get rave reviews.

The 1982 clad quarter on the other hand looked very ugly. The wear on the coin was much less than on the 1967 quarter, but the surfaces of the coin looked as though it had been sitting on the sidewalk or street and had been stepped on or ran over many times. Nicks, dings, gouges, etc.

Thinking back I have noticed this same situation many times over. It seems that some of the earlier clad quarters from the 1960's into the 1970's have survived their time in circulation much better than some of the clads from the 1970s forward to today.

Do you have any idea as to why this is?

cladking

Well, yes and no.

In my experience if you plotted the average grade of the different dates
and mints two years ago there would be very few anomalies. There would
be a few dates that stand out as being higher than they "should" and there
is some question in my mind why these exist.

The most dramatic is the '65. This one is most easily explained because these
coins were released right up until 1975. They were being cranked out in large
numbers into 1966 and some ended up in the back of vaults and didn't get
cycled out until the mint switched to FIFO accounting in 1972. Unusually large
numbers of these were set aside up until 1975 by those who thought they
might become valuable. While most were released in the very early years
some continued to dribble into circulation until the premium went up a few years
back. An even bigger reason that these tend nice is that people save them pre-
ferentially to other dates because they are the oldest date.

The '72-D also tends very nice and this one is much harder to understand. I
suspect it has something to do with the way the metal was annealed but not
only does the luster seem to last longer but the detail as well. The '67 is not as
pronounced as these but also has held up well. I'm not including the '76 since
it's seen so little circulation.

The '66 has held up poorly but this is probably mostly reflective of the fact that
it was so poorly made that they appear more worn than they really are. The
worst might be the '84-P and this is probably the result of the very low and
very narrow rims allowing the design to take the brunt of circulation. The '82-P
is poorly made and the rims are a little low but this is partly counterbalanced by
collectors selectively removing them from circulation.

A few coins have even switched from one group to the other. Both the '73-P
and '73-D (especially the Denver) remained in very high grade through the '70's
when they seemed to suddenly just get ground away. Again this might have
something to do with the annealing. One has to be careful with these obser-
vations since the coins one sees at any given point vary over time. If you're in
an area that recieved the '73-D from the FED then these coins will flow away
from you as they get mixed in and the '73 will already have circulated somewhat
by the time most examples each you. I try to factor for this.

This was the state of affairs before 1999 and it seemed to continue right up into
this century. But as I pointed out many times over the years there has been a
growing disappearance of better dates and higher grades of clad quarters. This
is consistent with high sales of folders to hold these coins at book stores to the
general public as well as coin shop sales.

My guess is that all these nicer coins we're seeing in circulation are the mass re-
lease of many peoples' duplicates as well as a few peoples' entire collections.
Almost everything I've seen is material that could still be found in 1999 with a
little effort and this certainly includes nice VF and even XF 1967 quarters. Mean-
while high percentages of the coins that have always been in circulation are
still circulating and still getting banged up albeit at slower rate. This creates th
odd situation where you can get a very low grade and damaged '82-P and a very
nice, very attractive VF '67 quarter at the same time.

What I haven't seen is coins that weren't available in 1999 appear. I haven't seen
things like an attractive XF '66 or nice undamaged VF '69. It's also curious that the
economy hasn't really caused an increase in the numbers of AU '90's issues. It ap-
pears that these have fallen through the cracks. There will be a few in storage but
they are getting pretty tough in circulation.

In the future we may see all the older quarters (pre-statehood) an homogenous
worn out mess. Later dates have lower detail and will need less time to wear to
the lower grades. These will essentially catch up with the older quarters.

It'll be fun watching how the states issues wear since it will be so uneven and so
distinct from issue to issue and even coin to coin.

SanctionII

Thanks for the information CladKing. Most educational, as usual.

I have also noticed some nice looking 1965 quarters showing up in pocket change. Most 1966 quarters that show up are not very attractive, regardless of whether they are higher grade or lower grade circulated examples [even MS 1966 circulation strikes are ugly].

With regard to your personal collection of clad quarters and dimes, do you have any MS examples which are MS65 or better with strong crisp strikes, minimal marks, great luster and eye appeal? If so, which dates and mint marks?

I have a few very nice MS clad quarters from selected years in the 1960's, 1970's and early 1980's that would fit the above criteria, even a few with nice toning. They are some of my favorite coins.

cladking

<< <i>Thanks for the information CladKing. Most educational, as usual.

I have also noticed some nice looking 1965 quarters showing up in pocket change. Most 1966 quarters that show up are not very attractive, regardless of whether they are higher grade or lower grade circulated examples [even MS 1966 circulation strikes are ugly].

With regard to your personal collection of clad quarters and dimes, do you have any MS examples which are MS65 or better with strong crisp strikes, minimal marks, great luster and eye appeal? If so, which dates and mint marks?

I have a few very nice MS clad quarters from selected years in the 1960's, 1970's and early 1980's that would fit the above criteria, even a few with nice toning. They are some of my favorite coins. >>



Nice toning on clads is tough. They can be quite beautiful but it's
usually a nice golden color and others are seldom seen.

I have a significant (not large) number of such coins. It's been a lot
of effort over the years watching change and looking for rolls at the
bank. Most years I'd never see a single nice quarter but when I did
I'd try to find the source and get as many as possible. This didn't al-
ways work and even years where there were nice coins released in
my area (or in my travels) it was sometimes impossible to get more
than a couple "discovery" coins.

Most people would be surprised how elusive the gems are and how nice
they can be. There are even PL's for some years. Most gems have to
come from mint sets where they are like shooting fish in a barrel. About
2% of mint set coins will be well made gems. But most varieties don't
appear in these sets.

Swampboy

Bookmarked.

Great thread.