Interesting results/data for the Capped Bust Dime series
STONE
Posts: 15,275 ✭
Do you know what the Key Date is for the Capped Bust Dime series?
Most would probably say either the 1822 or 1809 are the most difficult dates to acquire!
And yes, from surviving population data, compiled through the John Reich Collectors Society, both these dates share quite similar Rarity levels (both are R4's as per the Vol. 19, Issue 3 JRJ)
The 1822 Dime had an initial mintage of just 100,000 pieces (as per the 2009 Red Book)
While the 1809 had almost half that mintage at 51,065 pieces (as per the 2009 Red Book)
If you apply the R4 rarity (76-200 surviving examples) to each of these Dates' mintages, you get a current survival percentage which is twice as high for the 1809 than the 1822.
1809 survival percentage: .1488 - .3917%
1822 survival percentage: .0760 - .2000%
Essentially 2x's more 1809 Dimes survive to today than 1822 dimes do!
Why? I don't know, but it's an interesting statistic.
BUT, if we look at the entire 1809-1837 Series of Capped Bust Dimes, and compare initial mintage with that of known survival rarities (R2 through R8 varieties), data are further differentiated from the above 1809 and 1822 examples.
(The dates 1827, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1837 all have at least one R1 variety which makes understanding the known, limited, survival population of the entire date invalid to measure since an R1 has an essentially limitless surviving population from 1,251 and beyond; whereas R2 through R8's have known, well established, ranges)
Thus we are left with only 12 dates (1809, 1811, 1814, 1820, 1821, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1828, 1832 and 1836) which can be measured to accurately forsee what percent of the initial mintage still survives today. (The mintages for the dates 1824 and 1825 are combined as mint records were unclear as to separating how many of each date were produced for a given year, and thus I have had to combine the known rarities of both these dates)
The following are the approximate results of my findings:
Date/ Mintage/ Low %/ High%
1809 / 51,065 / 0.1488 - 0.3917%
1811 / 65,180 / 0.3084 - 0.7671%
1814 / 421,500 / 0.3808 - 0.9490%
1820 / 942,587 / 0.1540 - 0.3878%
1821 / 1,186,512 / 0.2842 - 0.7105%
1822 / 100,000 / 0.0760 - 0.2000%
1823 / 440,000 / 0.1664 - 0.4148%
1824 / 510,000 / 0.2190 - 0.5490%
1825 (see above)
1828 / 125,000 / 0.5616 - 1.4000%
1832 / 522,500 / 0.4176 - 0.8517%
1836 / 1,190,000 / 0.0759 - 0.1891%
Traditionally the results of the 1824 and 1825 combination are skewed so that the surviving population of 1824, and likely the subsequent initial mintage of 1824, was much less than that of 1825.
1824 has two varieties for this date, with an R3 and an R5 rarities for each, respectively. A range of suriving specimens at 232 - 575 coins remaining
1825 has five varieties for this date, with one R2, one R3, two R4's, and an R5 rarities for each, respectively. A range of suriving specimens at 889 - 2,225 coins remaining.
This then puts the likely mintage of 1824 between 48,144 - 200,328, and the 1825 mintage between 309,672 - 461,856.
If one then applies these "new" mintage figures to their subsequent Varieties with known Rarities you end up with suvival populations closer to the following figures:
1824 / 48,144 / 0.0048 - 0.0119%
1824 / 200,328 / 0.0012 - 0.0029%
1825 / 309,672 / 0.0029 - 0.0072%
1825 / 461,856 / 0.0019 - 0.0048%
(approximately)
*(It's likely that the actual mintage of 1824 Dimes is somewhere around 110,000 +/- 25,000, and the 1825 mintage is likely around 400,000 +/- 50,000; based upon the data above)
Thus, my new findings find that both the dates of 1824 and 1825 are sleepers in the series (although 1824 is known to receive a larger premium over its 1825 counterpart)
Noting that 1822 and 1809 are perceived rare dates in the Capped Bust Dime series, of which they legitimately are, when comparing the current surviving examples against that of their known initial mintages, the survival ratios are quite skewed. I've just hypothesized the likely mintages of both the 1824 and 1825 dimes, and even when noting the lowest (likely) mintages for each date (of which both correspond to highest survival percentages) I can see that their survival population to initial mintage ratio is MUCH lower than that of eith 1822 and 1809 dates.
But, before I finish, I would also like to look at one other date, 1836.
Looking back at my chart with all 12 dates of known survival ranges, one could note that 1836 actually has the smallest percentage range of any date in the Capped Bust Dime series (neglecting the hypothesized 1824 and 1825 data just relayed above). The survival percentage of 1836 is ever so slightly, almost without taking into consideration, smaller than that of 1822, the now 2nd lowest survival percentage. (1836 has a range of 0.0759 - 0.1891%, whereas 1822 ranges from 0.0760 - 0.2000%). This doesn't now, suddenly make the 1836 a key-date or even a semi-key, rather just an anomoly in the data; 1836 still has a population of 903 - 2,250 specimens, whereas 1822 and 1809 have between 76 and 200 (again neglecting 1824 and 1825).
Just through I'd share some information on Capped Bust Dimes
Most would probably say either the 1822 or 1809 are the most difficult dates to acquire!
And yes, from surviving population data, compiled through the John Reich Collectors Society, both these dates share quite similar Rarity levels (both are R4's as per the Vol. 19, Issue 3 JRJ)
The 1822 Dime had an initial mintage of just 100,000 pieces (as per the 2009 Red Book)
While the 1809 had almost half that mintage at 51,065 pieces (as per the 2009 Red Book)
If you apply the R4 rarity (76-200 surviving examples) to each of these Dates' mintages, you get a current survival percentage which is twice as high for the 1809 than the 1822.
1809 survival percentage: .1488 - .3917%
1822 survival percentage: .0760 - .2000%
Essentially 2x's more 1809 Dimes survive to today than 1822 dimes do!
Why? I don't know, but it's an interesting statistic.
BUT, if we look at the entire 1809-1837 Series of Capped Bust Dimes, and compare initial mintage with that of known survival rarities (R2 through R8 varieties), data are further differentiated from the above 1809 and 1822 examples.
(The dates 1827, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1837 all have at least one R1 variety which makes understanding the known, limited, survival population of the entire date invalid to measure since an R1 has an essentially limitless surviving population from 1,251 and beyond; whereas R2 through R8's have known, well established, ranges)
Thus we are left with only 12 dates (1809, 1811, 1814, 1820, 1821, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1828, 1832 and 1836) which can be measured to accurately forsee what percent of the initial mintage still survives today. (The mintages for the dates 1824 and 1825 are combined as mint records were unclear as to separating how many of each date were produced for a given year, and thus I have had to combine the known rarities of both these dates)
The following are the approximate results of my findings:
Date/ Mintage/ Low %/ High%
1809 / 51,065 / 0.1488 - 0.3917%
1811 / 65,180 / 0.3084 - 0.7671%
1814 / 421,500 / 0.3808 - 0.9490%
1820 / 942,587 / 0.1540 - 0.3878%
1821 / 1,186,512 / 0.2842 - 0.7105%
1822 / 100,000 / 0.0760 - 0.2000%
1823 / 440,000 / 0.1664 - 0.4148%
1824 / 510,000 / 0.2190 - 0.5490%
1825 (see above)
1828 / 125,000 / 0.5616 - 1.4000%
1832 / 522,500 / 0.4176 - 0.8517%
1836 / 1,190,000 / 0.0759 - 0.1891%
Traditionally the results of the 1824 and 1825 combination are skewed so that the surviving population of 1824, and likely the subsequent initial mintage of 1824, was much less than that of 1825.
1824 has two varieties for this date, with an R3 and an R5 rarities for each, respectively. A range of suriving specimens at 232 - 575 coins remaining
1825 has five varieties for this date, with one R2, one R3, two R4's, and an R5 rarities for each, respectively. A range of suriving specimens at 889 - 2,225 coins remaining.
This then puts the likely mintage of 1824 between 48,144 - 200,328, and the 1825 mintage between 309,672 - 461,856.
If one then applies these "new" mintage figures to their subsequent Varieties with known Rarities you end up with suvival populations closer to the following figures:
1824 / 48,144 / 0.0048 - 0.0119%
1824 / 200,328 / 0.0012 - 0.0029%
1825 / 309,672 / 0.0029 - 0.0072%
1825 / 461,856 / 0.0019 - 0.0048%
(approximately)
*(It's likely that the actual mintage of 1824 Dimes is somewhere around 110,000 +/- 25,000, and the 1825 mintage is likely around 400,000 +/- 50,000; based upon the data above)
Thus, my new findings find that both the dates of 1824 and 1825 are sleepers in the series (although 1824 is known to receive a larger premium over its 1825 counterpart)
Noting that 1822 and 1809 are perceived rare dates in the Capped Bust Dime series, of which they legitimately are, when comparing the current surviving examples against that of their known initial mintages, the survival ratios are quite skewed. I've just hypothesized the likely mintages of both the 1824 and 1825 dimes, and even when noting the lowest (likely) mintages for each date (of which both correspond to highest survival percentages) I can see that their survival population to initial mintage ratio is MUCH lower than that of eith 1822 and 1809 dates.
But, before I finish, I would also like to look at one other date, 1836.
Looking back at my chart with all 12 dates of known survival ranges, one could note that 1836 actually has the smallest percentage range of any date in the Capped Bust Dime series (neglecting the hypothesized 1824 and 1825 data just relayed above). The survival percentage of 1836 is ever so slightly, almost without taking into consideration, smaller than that of 1822, the now 2nd lowest survival percentage. (1836 has a range of 0.0759 - 0.1891%, whereas 1822 ranges from 0.0760 - 0.2000%). This doesn't now, suddenly make the 1836 a key-date or even a semi-key, rather just an anomoly in the data; 1836 still has a population of 903 - 2,250 specimens, whereas 1822 and 1809 have between 76 and 200 (again neglecting 1824 and 1825).
Just through I'd share some information on Capped Bust Dimes
0
Comments
Interesting read!
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
<< <i>Does this account for the raw ones? How could one know the real number, especially if some have been kept in collections for decades, or were never submitted for slabbing? >>
This data would account for all raw and slabbed examples; also problem coins would likely be included.
As for OneCent's assumption, No, you cannot assume that either 1809 or 1822 have the exact, or near exact same surviving population.
This is why I have given a percentage range to accomodate the R4 (76-200) rarity which extends two different extremes in populations.
Obviously, although not quite definitively, 1822 could have upwards of 200 examples and 1809 having closer to 76, thus flipping the data extremes.
The five authors of the dime book compiled a frequency chart of auction appearances over many years, indicating that 1809 dimes are more scarce than 1822, so it is possible the 1809 is an R-4+ and 1822 an R-4-.
From my experience, much more attention is given to the accuracy of R-4 to R-8 die marriages, since these will command varying premiums for rarity. Much less attention and analysis is given to the R-1 to R-3's, some of the R-2's should be R-1's, etc. Often times the more common rarities are left alone and not changed since an R-3 is the same value as an R-1. This can greatly distort survival analysis studies.
An example is the 1803 half dollar, which shows a disproportionately low survival if the current rarity ratings are used. The 1803 O-101 and O-103 are not R-3's, they are much more common and at least R-2's, with O-103 possibly an R-1.
Estimating mintages from the number extant can be futile, as there are too many factors that will never be known that can affect the survivorship percentage (the number exported, held by banks, released to circulation etc.).
edit - correction - the 1984 study by Davis, Logan, Lovejoy, McKloskey, and Subjack used 419 auctions, 1809 had 172 appearances, 1811 had 170, 1822 had 143. The real sleepers are the 1800-1804 dimes, ranging from 94 to 117 appearances, about as frequent as 1794 dollars and 1796/97 half dollars.
R1's through R3's are quite neglected in the Rarity Ratings since few people spend the time to analyze very accurate populations for these coins.
Taking 1836 (as postulated above) as a main example, one can see that of the three "JR" varieties, one may be able to assume that instead of the one R2 and two R3's, that the population is more likely one R1 and two R2's (or somewhere close to that number). Thus making 1836 closer to the normal frequency of surviving specimens.
1836 is by no means a scarce date, even relative to initial production totals, despite the results here-in.
1809 would make sense to have a lower survival frequency than 1822 both in terms of initial mintage and latter meltings of each date in similar proportions.
I would be interested to know how 1822 became such a strong key-date over the likes of 1809, 1811/09, 1824, and even the 1828 Large Date!