<< <i>Thank you for the insightful discussion. The PCGS forum is blessed to have some of the top dealers for moderns and ultramoderns, and two have responded to this thread. I find it refreshing that is not all rah-rah talk like some dealers might be tempted to like to paint in their areas of specialty.
Think back to the days before the Internet and how much time and effort it would take an average collector to get to: 1) know who the top dealers are for moderns and ultramoderns 2) pick their brains and get relatively straight forward commentary >>
Very well said.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
<< <i>As a rule collectors should always be wary of buying coins less than a few years old. It's a great idea to stash them away at face value even at this late date and that goes triple if you can find high quality. But paying large premiums for recent date coins has been exceedingly risky for a very long time now and the the definition of "recent" is getting longer.
Anyone interested in coins graded "70" should have a feel for both the market and the individual issue which they desire in 70. There are 70's that are virtually certain to plummet and there are some which can stand the test of time. >>
I think most of what you're saying boils down to why/how the coin was made. I can understand that an MS69 business strike quarter from...say...1989, is a very rare bird. But an MS69 version of a modern commemorative is not. Ultra high grade coins that were sold in that grade directly from the mint will be value traps unless they were minted in small numbers....and the small mintages will drive the value of the coin (not the condition).
So, I'm on board, CK...I'm going to keep an eye out for ultra high grade business strikes not generally available from the mint in high grade. But I won't be hunting MS69 or MS70 coins that started their lives in velvet cases or thick plastic holders.
<< <i>As a rule collectors should always be wary of buying coins less than a few years old.
... >>
An exception for buying new issues direct from the mint. I have witnessed more money being made by average collectors buying select new issues from the mint than average classic coin collectors have any realistic chance at making. The list of winners is impressive and include the 2006 silver and gold eagle anniversary sets, and the 2008 fractional buffalo gold coins. Sure there have been many losers and break even coins and sets as well, that's why selectivity is necessary, and forum expertise can be useful. The forum experts don't bat 1000, by any means, but listening to what they say does improve the odds.
<< The question is not one of MS70's being "value traps", but rather, if all modern coins are "value traps" and to that, I would answer yes. >>
Some Russian moderns increased 24000% this year. Try buying any of the late '60's/ early '70's Russian issues. A few of these still list for 50c or less but just try buying them.
People all over the world stopped saving moderns when silver and gold were removed from coinage. Now coins minted in the tens or hundreds of millions are almost impossible to find.
So exactly which coins are the value traps; The ones that list for thousands of dollars now or the scarcities that still list for 75c?
Some day people will be looking for all those "common" US coins too.
Perhaps these middle class societies like Russia and China are now entering the hobby causing the scarcity. What are the price increases for the Russian or Chinese classics in the last few years? Could be a huge market for these if these once poor societies are becoming wealthier and are now more interested in collecting their heritage and history in coinage.
<< <i> I think most of what you're saying boils down to why/how the coin was made. I can understand that an MS69 business strike quarter from...say...1989, is a very rare bird. But an MS69 version of a modern commemorative is not. Ultra high grade coins that were sold in that grade directly from the mint will be value traps unless they were minted in small numbers....and the small mintages will drive the value of the coin (not the condition).
So, I'm on board, CK...I'm going to keep an eye out for ultra high grade business strikes not generally available from the mint in high grade. But I won't be hunting MS69 or MS70 coins that started their lives in velvet cases or thick plastic holders.
>>
I am extremely partial to business strikes. There are many reasons that these are the coins collectors eventually seek. Perhaps the chief reason is as simple as the fact that these are the issues that people remember using when they were children; they are the issues that they watched wear out over many decades. A lot of collecting is caused by simple nostalgia and this is likely even stronger among those who collect more modern coins since they actually remember using the coins. For me there are many other reasons as well since coins make excellent economic indicators and have loads to say about human nature and statistics. I've also collected and set these aside since the mid-70's. Frankly one of my favorite reasons for collecting moderns has been the ability to buy rare coins for a mere pittance when I can find them. Like all collectors it's rarity that really fires the blood even if other considerations attract me to a series. I like all coins really and have older coins as well as modern NCLT issues.
In world coins it tends to be fairly easy to figure out which coins are rare; if you find one then it's not rare. If you find two then it's common. But it's much more complicated with US moderns because of the way these were produced, distributed, and set aside. For business strikes the sole source for many coins is the mint sets. But understanding these mint sets and the reasons they were made might take several lifetimes. It's hard to fathom why millions of something that was so unloved would even be made. People weren't collecting moderns with the excep- tion of oddities (coins) and crackpots (collectors) so why were millions of mint sets made each year? There was a tendency for the sets to do very well initially and people would sell a couple sets and keep the rest at no net cost. It's difficult to imagine why they would want them even free since they weren't collected. Why not just spend the coins which eventually happened to a lot of these coins anyway. I think collectors just kept buying them because there wasn't much else to buy from the mint in those days. Huge sales ensured a glut on the market and the glut ensured low prices and extremely high attrition.
While I'm so partial to business strikes I don't think there's any reason to avoid the other issues and the MS or PR-70's. Investing in coins isn't really a good idea. Sure, it feels good when you have spectacular gains but these are the exception rather than the rule. Most investors never even get modest gains and since they didn't enjoy collecting have nothing to show for their mon- ey or time. Collectors tend to have the best gains and these tend to be almost as much luck as skill.
I think my best advice for would be investors is; don't, and my best advice for collectors is to try to enjoy series with good potential for increases. Try not to enjoy series that are at highs and have had big gains. But collect what you like. If you enjoy collecting you'll probably do fairly well in any series at all.
<< <i> Perhaps these middle class societies like Russia and China are now entering the hobby causing the scarcity. What are the price increases for the Russian or Chinese classics in the last few years? Could be a huge market for these if these once poor societies are becoming wealthier and are now more interested in collecting their heritage and history in coinage. >>
The really old coins tend not to have done exceedingly well but most of these markets have firmed quite a bit and material is more difficult to find. Early 20th century coins are in some cases doing quite well too but this seems less wide spread than with moderns. A larger per- centage of early 20th century coins are up but the huge gains are mostly all in the moderns. Keep in mind, too, that 24,000% gains are mostly in very low value coins; they tend to be coins that went from $1 to $240. Some of the bigger increases are a much lower %age such as the 1991 20k that went from $300 to $2750, a mere 917% increase. Or my favorite since I act- ually own a couple, the 1969 5k that went from $10 to $850 or an 8500% increase.
These middle classes will continue to grow and the individuals who collect will become increas- ingly sophisticated collectors. This will certainly mean more demand for older coins as well but it will not necessarily mean decreasing demand for the moderns. There are many ways this can unfold and there's just no reason many of these collectors won't branch off into other world coins.
<< <i>Perhaps these middle class societies like Russia and China are now entering the hobby causing the scarcity. What are the price increases for the Russian or Chinese classics in the last few years? Could be a huge market for these if these once poor societies are becoming wealthier and are now more interested in collecting their heritage and history in coinage. >>
Some coins I've been following in those countries have gone from approximately $1,500 to $15,000 and from $50 to $1,000 in the past 5 years. What makes this more impressive is that these prices are for raw coins, not TPG condition rarities.
Some coins I've been following in those countries have gone from approximately $1,500 to $15,000 and from $50 to $1,000 in the past 5 years. What makes this more impressive is that these prices are for raw coins, not TPG condition rarities.
Here's one example.
I regret selling my Elaisberg Elizabeth 2 Gold Ruble two years ago even if I sold it for over 300% of what I paid for it. Russian Ruble
<< <i>Some coins I've been following in those countries have gone from approximately $1,500 to $15,000 and from $50 to $1,000 in the past 5 years. What makes this more impressive is that these prices are for raw coins, not TPG condition rarities.
Here's one example.
I regret selling my Elaisberg Elizabeth 2 Gold Ruble two years ago even if I sold it for over 300% of what I paid for it. Russian Ruble
WonderCoin: << Open invitation for YOU ONLY ... if you have a fair and open mind regarding "70" graded moderns …>>
Yes, please share this list with me. IIafoe said that my PM function was turned off. I never intended to turn it off. Everyone is welcome to PM me, or to e-mail at Insightful10 gmail.
It is perhaps my fault that WonderCoin and John Maben misunderstood my question in earlier posts to this thread: Are certified “MS-70” grade coins good values? I was NOT focusing on the investment potential of certified “MS-70” grade coins. I was referring to giving advice to collectors regarding logical and sensible collecting strategies, particularly those that are consistent with the values and traditions of coin collecting in the U.S.
I am concerned about Maben’s assertion that many certified “MS-70” coins exhibit notable imperfections when viewed with a glass of less than 5x magnification, including “flaws that occur after striking.” I suggest that there should be more discussion regarding the criteria employed to grade a coin as “MS-70.” I invite WonderCoin to also share his definition of “MS-70.”
Maben: << … my definition would be no post minting marks, abrasions, hairlines, or spots visible to the (20/20) naked eye under ideal (dark room, 100W bulb lamp) viewing conditions. Very minor defects created during the minting process such as tiny struck thru's as well as raised lines the result of die polishing would be acceptable..>>
Now, Maben is saying that the definition of “MS-70” incorporates “very minor defects created during the minting process” and is dependent upon not being able to discern any post-minting imperfections with the “naked eye under ideal viewing conditions.” So, is Maben asserting that there is no need for magnification for a coin to be graded “70”?
In the views of Maben and WonderCoin, does the eye appeal of coin matter in regard to a grade of 70?
With Barber Half Dollars, two coins could have, more or less, equivalent imperfections, yet one may grade 66 and the other may grade 67+ because the latter has much more eye appeal. Consider Dr. Duckor’s Barber Halves. Some of the highest graded coins had imperfections, or even relatively weak strikes, yet received grades of 67 or even 68 largely due to their respective eye appeal.
Maben: << I am avoiding {commenting on current market prices for “MS-70” graded coins.} There are plenty of dealers who will give advice on what to buy and what not to buy and what represents good value. … I have never tried to suggest or portray myself as an advisor of what to buy if the only goal is profit.>>
I never suggested that a collector’s “only goal is profit.” Please read more of my articles.
A modern coin that is graded “MS-70” may be priced at multiples of a 67 or 68 grade coin.
I perceive better values in classic coins. When I compare a true 68 grade Barber Half to a true 66 grade Barber Half, business strike or Proof, I see a tremendous difference. When I compare a “68” grade modern coin to a “70” grade modern coin, I do not perceive much of a difference and certified “70” grade modern coins do not seem to have the eye appeal of certified 68 or 67 grade classic coins, which are often spectacular. My comments in this thread concern value in terms of traditions of coin collecting or value from a logical perspective, not necessarily in an investment sense.
Maben: << I believe coin collecting is all about the experience. As I said before, if profits come along that's wonderful.>>
We are in agreement on this point. As most collectors cannot afford to acquire all of the coins that they desire, there is a need for collectors to choose coins that represent good values. While prices are a consequence of demand and supply, demand is influenced by education and advice. Educated buyers are more likely to maintain an interest in coin collecting over a long period of time.
Analyst: I read llafoe's comment as a joke (i.e. to post my pics here).
Re: eye appeal. Remember Analyst that a PR70DCAM has a second element to that grade... namely the DCAM part. All DCAM's are not created equal. There are mild DCAM coins and monster DCAM coins. The differences can be night and day. I will try to post an example of what I am talking about later this weekend if my photographer is available. I will use PR69DC coins as I have them here, but the same point applies to PR70DC as well. Since the grading services make no distinction between the mild DCAM and the monster DCAM, can we assume the monster DCAM has sensational "eye appeal" for the grade (as compared to the mild DCAM)? If so, then eye appeal would very important to every grade including 70 IMHO. But, again, wait to see my pics to fully appreciate the point I am making here.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
"Now, Maben is saying that the definition of “MS-70” incorporates “very minor defects created during the minting process” and is dependent upon not being able to discern any post-minting imperfections with the “naked eye under ideal viewing conditions.” So, is Maben asserting that there is no need for magnification for a coin to be graded “70”? In the views of Maben and WonderCoin, does the eye appeal of coin matter in regard to a grade of 70?"
Maben is saying that "HIS" definition, not "THE" definition....
Yes, in addition to the word "perfect", I am suggesting that 5X magnification should not be part of the definition for a 70. This is my opinion. To be clear, I am not saying a grader should not use 5X magnification if they choose or feel it is needed to make a determination, simply that it not be part of the criteria for the grade. I believe magnification is applied on an "as needed, when needed basis" when grading coins, not universally across the board.
As for eye appeal, I think the assumption most would make is that a coin should NOT be a 70 if it doesn't have exceptional eye appeal. I agree with Mitch that the degree of cameo is something that varies widely and could be used to make a determination as to an eye appeal rating in 70's, though I am not sure we want to go down that road of rating "how ultra or deep" an ultra actually is or rating degree of eye appeal on a 70.
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<< <i>Analyst - Since moderns are a specialty area to me and I assist PCGS with both valuation of and insight on modern coins on a weekly (if not nearly daily) basis while serving on their Board of Experts, may I comment on your various postings please.
I can show you "70" graded coins that are UTTERLY AMAZING values at current levels; values that would blow your mind! Coins you would want to own without question if you had an open mind to diversifying into modern coins with super potential along with classic coins. I can also show you "69" grade coins that are PATHETIC values at current levels. And, of course, I can also show you "70" graded coins that are "AVOID AT ALL COSTS" coins in my book.
Open invitation for YOU ONLY ... if you have a fair and open mind regarding "70" graded moderns, I would be happy to confidentially share with you a few of my very top picks for you to either consider purchasing or simply to follow in the months and years ahead. You could easily track the performance of these 70 graded coins and could report on your financial success (or failure) with these 70's over time. Warning... you may be SHOCKED by what happens. Fair warning.
Wondercoin >>
Wondercoin, can you give us some hints publicly here? Perhaps what you look for in a "value" 70 vs. a "AVOID AT ALL COSTS" 70 or 69? EricJ has some in his book, Modern Commemorative Coins.
BTW If you have already made you buys on the screaming value 70's no reason to not disclose them here!
Analyst: If you look at the (2) scans of the Ikes, you will see a mild DCAM coin and a very strong DCAM coin. Both the same grade. Some dates of Ikes are exceedingly scarce with very strong DCAM surfaces. So, what do we call this obvious difference between the 2 coins? Is this the "eye appeal" you are asking about? If serious collectors agree that the killer DCAM coin has better "eye appeal" than the mild DCAM coin, then it becomes clear IMHO that one 70DCAM can have much better "eye appeal" than another 70DCAM when this same situation presents itself with (2) 70DCAM coins side by side. Of course, I am not suggesting a true PR69DCAM coin can ever get a "bump up" in grade to 70DCAM if it possesses amazing DCAM surfaces. Instead, I am pointing out that a 70DCAM coin can have better "eye appeal" than another 70DCAM (vis a vis the depth of cameo factor) since the degree of the depth of cameo is not a factor in that 70DCAM grade right now with the grading services. It is that killer frosted "snow white" DCAM that serious modern collectors seek out.
Side note ... 1971(s) proof Ike Dollars cost about $12 right now and have $11 worth of silver in them!! For you serious classic (or modern) collectors out there who have kids you want to bring to the coin shows with you and try to get interested in coin collecting (as I did with my kids) ... set your kids loose at the show with a bank roll of $120. Tell them to spend the entire day hunting out monster DCAM proof 1971(s) or 1972(s) Ikes at the show and buy them up for the exact same price as the coins with little or no cameo frost. Based upon todays' spot price of silver (which will change of course), tell them to make sure they only pay $12 each for the coins (tell the kids to negotiate down to $12 if they are quoted more). If they are very lucky, they will find (10) of them for the $120 bankroll searching the show that day. Tell your kids to tuck them away. One day, IMHO, these (40) year old coins will start getting appreciated for their mega depth of DCAM and coins that can be gobbled up for $12 with $11 in silver in them might become the sought after collectibles of tomorrow. Or, perhaps silver will rise sharply and the coin will increase in value simply due to the rising silver price (even if no one ever cares about any of this). Or, perhaps silver will crash in value and no one will ever care about these special mega DCAM pieces (and your kids will lose a portion of their money... but, a great learning experience to share with your kids there too if the price of silver crashes from here and they lose money on their $12 purchase). My kids did just fine hunting these out a few years back. The coins cost $5/coin a couple years back when the coins had about $4.50 in silver in them. My son Justin has a drawer full of these hand picked mega DCAM Ikes he bought for nearly silver melt. On his scale, he refers to his very best as "monster DCAM" coins (he loved monsters as a kid). These are his pride and joy ... when he came home from college a few weeks back he went right to his coins to look at them. I remember the special times we had as he showed me his deepest, and deepest and deepest cameo find in order of DCAM greatness, saving the deepest one for last of couse. If the coins he picked at $5/coin had gone to $0, I know he could have cared less. It was the "hunt" that was exciting for him and he would love them at any price. If money is tight, only give your kid $12 at the show and tell him to find the (1) deepest cameo proof Ike he can find at the show and buy it instead of buying him ice cream and candy that day. You both will have the same fun at the show and I suspect he will be coming back to you with (2) equally amazing finds after hours of searching and you may end up deciding to buy them both!
These proof Ikes also have tons of varieties ... something Justin is now enjoying as well and finding potential hidden value in some of the pieces he tucked away for other reasons.
This is what I call HAVING FUN with your modern coins AND building a great collection for truly next to nothing in the process. So, to those who call this post "advice", I guess I need to also say that this is my opinion only and you should never buy a coin with any money you can not afford to lose and that even though Justin did well with his monster DCAM proof Ikes purchases over the years, I can not guarantee your kid will do very well at all. Your kid might lose every cent he spent at the show on these coins (and would have also lost his ice cream and candy on top of that). Do your homework (and lots of it) before spending a cent on coins. Do not fight with your kid at the show if he wants to stay longer to hunt out more modern coins and you want to go home after seeing enough classics. Do not buy a single coin at the coin show if spending those funds would not be compatible with your current needs, goals etc., etc., etc.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
AngryTurtle: Why anger those dealers peddling the coins on my personal avoid list (or the collectors that already bought them)? Next time you are in So Cal, let's meet for an iced tea and a sandwich and we can discuss some of our favorite and least favorite modern(and classic) coins.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
ZCoins - Without question, the + grade should be used for 69 graded coins. After all, consider that 1976-S Ike in the Heritage sale that just sold this week for $25,300. I sell the same coin in 69 grade for about $30 wholesale in lots of (20) coins. That is an 843x jump in price for a single grade point! For a coin with at least a $25 value ... can anyone think of another example (classic or modern) where one point is worth an 843x jump in price? This true life illustration crys out for the 69+ grade. I believe I know who purchased the Heritage coin (he contacted me about it well ahead of the auction) and he is as sharp a (classic) coin collector as you will ever meet. Do not assume for a second that Ike sold to a "newbie" or a "fool". That said, come on ... 843x jump for a single point? My son Justin has a MONSTER DEEP, DEEP, DEEP CAMEO PR69DCAM of that date that I would pit against that PR70DCAM $25,300 coin or any other 1976-S Ty 1 any day of the week (and it cost Justin about $15). In the style of Stewart Blay, Justin would come to a showdown anywhere, anytime to show off his $15 1976-S Ty 1 specimen in a PCGS-PR69DCAM holder side by side with the $25,300 PR70DCAM coin (and I am not suggesting at all that the 70DCAM coin is a problem coin, which it is not). Of course, the "Ike Dollar" showdowns are still years (decades?) away ... but, one day...
But back to the question, I would also have no problem considering the depth of cameo as a component of the + grade for 69's (or any other numerical grade) as I consider that to be part of "eye appeal" which is considered in grading coins. Of course, it is only one factor of many for considering a + grade.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Referring to U.S. coins minted from 1793 to 1933 as classic coin issues is not arbitrary and it is not an accidental tradition. When polling dealers and collectors, I became aware that everyone seemed to remember the tradition of referring to 1933 or 1934 as a dividing line, but no one recollected the origins or meaning of the tradition. The true reason is that pre-1934 coins (with few exceptions) are much scarcer than post-1934 coins.
I am not referring to mintages; I am referring to the number of coins that survive. Of course, no one can know precisely how many survive. It makes sense, however, to rely upon the forces of supply and demand and resulting price levels to demonstrate this point, which I will prove herein. Indeed, one leading dealer informs me that demand is actually greater for post-1934 coins than for pre-1934 coins. Furthermore, for Lincoln Cents, Buffalo Nickels, Mercury Dimes, and Walkers, I am assuming that a substantial percentage of the collectors who demand coins in these series are seeking to complete sets and would thus demand both pre-1934 and post-1934 coins of the same respective series. Therefore, showing that prices are substantially higher for pre-1934 coins clearly proves that many more post-1934 coins survive and are in the marketplace. I aim to carefully select pre-1934 and post-134 issues to provide fair and meaningful comparisons. >>
Here in a nutshell is why your argument fails.
It is traditional and has been since 1965 to not collect and not to save any coins made after 1965. The reason that a 1972-D type b reverse quarter won't draw a large price is simply that there is almost no demand. The reason it is rare is that it was never set aside in 1972 nor any time since. If you desire this coin your best bet is to seek it in circulation since one will appear in every twenty or thirty boxes. Of course it will be VG probably. If you want a nice gem and well struck 1982-P quarter then you'll find it far more difficult since such a coin hasn't been in circulation since 1987 or so and looking through raw coins will prove extremely difficult and time consuming. Hell, try finding a nice gemmy 1983-P type d reverse!!! This one is at least doable but will cost some money.
Post-1964 coinage was not saved. The same thing happened everywhere all over the world.
This was never even widely known until recently because traditionally no one collects modern junk but in all these emerging markets in Russia, India, China etc they weren't told about the tradition of ignoring modern junk. When they went out to find it they discovered it wasn't there because it was never saved. Keep in mind that even in the emerging markets much of the de- mand is focused on old coins. Collectors do prefer the old to the new quite naturally. But a few collectors are causing explosive price moves because the coins are even scarcer than the number of collectors.
The same thing applies to US moderns; they were not saved and even rarities bring weak prices because demand is even weaker than for Russian moderns.
This won't always be the case. The day will come that US citizens will want to collect moderns and many more scarcities will emerge. Even if I'm wrong and US collectors don't get serious about US moderns it might not matter because Russian, Indian and other collectors will branch out into world coins (including US) in the longer run.
1934 to 1964 coins were heavily saved but post-1964 coinage was not. Just because there are 20,000,000 bicentennial quarters sitting in safety deposit boxes it doesn't mean a 2006-D diime is easy to find. And it certainly doesn't mean you can just go down to the corner shop and buy a nice choice '69 quarter.
What really makes 1965 the dividing line between classics and moderns is that people quit saving new coin in 1965. The government did everything they could to discourage coin collecting and succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. It nearly killed coin collecting as a mass hobby. Those of us who were around in 1995 were extremely discouraged because almost no new collectors had been made since 1965 and the hobby seemed to be dying. Most less expensive coins were almost difficult to give away and the markets for rarities were weak and weakening.
It was moderns that perked up first and the older coins started improving before the end of 1996. The states quarters program infused a great deal of new blood but many of the new collectors were driven off by the attitudes of traditional collectors who thought moderns were mere junk.
Yes, I do agree that the '34 to '64 coinage isn't a clean fit with the older coinage and can understand why there is a legitimate case to be made that these are separate. But, they are even more different than the true moderns. Call them late classics or proto modern but they sure have nothing at all ibn common with moderns. Millions and millions of new collectors started with these coins while no one collected the moderns.
<< <i>Maben is saying that "HIS" definition, not "THE" definition....
Yes, in addition to the word "perfect", I am suggesting that 5X magnification should not be part of the definition for a 70. This is my opinion. To be clear, I am not saying a grader should not use 5X magnification if they choose or feel it is needed to make a determination, simply that it not be part of the criteria for the grade. I believe magnification is applied on an "as needed, when needed basis" when grading coins, not universally across the board.
As for eye appeal, I think the assumption most would make is that a coin should NOT be a 70 if it doesn't have exceptional eye appeal. I agree with Mitch that the degree of cameo is something that varies widely and could be used to make a determination as to an eye appeal rating in 70's, though I am not sure we want to go down that road of rating "how ultra or deep" an ultra actually is or rating degree of eye appeal on a 70. >>
I often think most of the percieved problem with PR-70 would evaporate if they just changed to a 71 point scale with 71 being "perfect" but never assigned it.
We all know that no two coins are the same so it follows no coin is "really" perfect.
<< <i>I think perception of future value is a trap, not an MS-70 coin. >>
Yes! Exactly!
So long as a collector is buying for fun he can even collect coins in extremely dangerous areas like some of the MS-70's or some of the classic series that will have the mother of all forces working against them; demographics. If you're collecting for fun and little regard to future prices then you'll tend to make much wiser decisions even in poor, overvalued, or shrinking markets.
Even buying coins as a store of value is risky since all collectibles are valued at the whim of collectors. Investors have very little lasting impact on valuations in collectible markets.
<< <i>I think perception of future value is a trap, not an MS-70 coin. >>
Yes! Exactly!
So long as a collector is buying for fun he can even collect coins in extremely dangerous areas like some of the MS-70's or some of the classic series that will have the mother of all forces working against them; demographics. If you're collecting for fun and little regard to future prices then you'll tend to make much wiser decisions even in poor, overvalued, or shrinking markets.
Even buying coins as a store of value is risky since all collectibles are valued at the whim of collectors. Investors have very little lasting impact on valuations in collectible markets. >>
At the same time, could you say perception of future value is a trap for many coins purchased at retail and sold at wholesale?
I like using demographics and other megatrends to make purchasing decisions. It's fun when predictions come true.
I agree the 1964-1965 cutoff is a good dividing line for classics and moderns. Run a survey across many collectors and I bet that will be a common answer. Precious metals, has been and still is a driver for many people. It's interesting that there is a demand for collecting base metal coins in some foreign countries where coin collecting is getting more popular.
Out of curiosity, how significant is the changeover between 1807 and 1808? I tend to think this is a good dividing line for classic coins and "Industrial Age" coins because the capped bust design reminds me of the Industrial Revolution while the draped bust design seems pre-industrial and more colonial-like to me.
<< <i>At the same time, could you say perception of future value is a trap for many coins purchased at retail and sold at wholesale? >>
I'm not certain of your meaning but it is true that many sour investments are bought at retail but the market will be too weak to sell above wholesale when they are sold. Many coins rarely sell except at wholesale. Retail sales of coins are mostly in strong markets where buyers are more common than sellers.
<< <i>I like using demographics and other megatrends to make purchasing decisions. It's fun when predictions come true. >>
People should pay far more attention to demographics. Many things are highly predictable because the core of the market or process is concetrated among people of specific age ranges.
It's very difficult to find coins that are rare but cheap and it is fun when they quit being cheap. Identifying rare coins is easy; they're the ones you can't find. Buying them is tough since you can't find them. There are lots of coins I've sought for 35 years and have yet to find.
With moderns you should stick with no question uncs and preferably chUnc. Pick up most gems when you see them. Stay away from truly common coins even in gem. Get one of ev- erything for a collection and you'll have the toughie too.
<< We all know that no two coins are the same so it follows no coin is "really" perfect. >>
No, it means that at least one of the two coins is not perfect. For example, if we each have an MS70 specimen of the same coin, mine is perfect and yours isn't!
Regarding the grading of 70's without a 5x (and no particular grading company is being identified here ... just some random thoughts):
Reality is many coins in 70 holders have issues when applying 5x power. Is this because volumes (submissions) have skyrocketed beyond belief and coins need to get out of the building(s) fast? Is this because volumes have skyrocketed beyond belief and the new hire graders are simply not as strong as the veterans who were able to handle all of the submissions years ago before the swelled volumes? I can probably list five more potential reasons, but here are the points:
1. This is why, today, many serious modern collectors carefully screen their 70's and select only the most perfect coins for their collections. I loved the notion (mentioned on this thread) of adding a "71" to the grading scale which would NEVER be used but would then illuminate the reality that all 70's are not created equal. They are not. Just the issue of light DCAM vs. "monster' DCAM shows differences within the 70DCAM grade. And, then, of course, counting the number of tiny imperfections on the coin (pre-strike and post-strike) also separates the 70.99 coins vs. the 70.01 coins in my book. For those "purists" would insist that the grading scale only goes up to 70.00000, then obviously 69.9 - 69.99 is often "rounded up"?
2. Since 5x power is revealing "issues" with coins in 70 holders, then there are at least 2 possible courses of action: (1) throw away the 5x as it relates to the definition of the 70 grade; (2) tighten up the grading to correct the issues to be able to use the 5x and still meet the 70 definition.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>At the same time, could you say perception of future value is a trap for many coins purchased at retail and sold at wholesale? >>
I'm not certain of your meaning but it is true that many sour investments are bought at retail but the market will be too weak to sell above wholesale when they are sold. Many coins rarely sell except at wholesale. Retail sales of coins are mostly in strong markets where buyers are more common than sellers. >>
My main point here is there are many areas where perception of future value can limit ones returns. While it is important to reduce risk in certain areas such as MS-70s, it makes sense to be vigilant and similar issues in other areas as well. I mentioned it as a reminder because the retail and wholesale issue is one that has been brought up on these boards many times recently by others.
<< <i>
<< <i>I like using demographics and other megatrends to make purchasing decisions. It's fun when predictions come true. >>
People should pay far more attention to demographics. Many things are highly predictable because the core of the market or process is concetrated among people of specific age ranges. >>
An added benefit of using demographics for numismatic purchases is that it can lead to better decision making in other areas such as equity investments and others where good decisions can also be made, in part, from using demographic trends.
<< <i>Yes, in addition to the word "perfect", I am suggesting that 5X magnification should not be part of the definition for a 70. This is my opinion. To be clear, I am not saying a grader should not use 5X magnification if they choose or feel it is needed to make a determination, simply that it not be part of the criteria for the grade. I believe magnification is applied on an "as needed, when needed basis" when grading coins, not universally across the board. >>
I think the folks at the ANA and PCGS would disagree with respect to grading coins vying for the 70 grade. In fact the ANA grading guide for 70 coins requires there be no imperfections when viewed under magnification.
Having said this it comes down to what value you place on the very slight differences that exist between a 69 and 70. I have never and probably never will understand how someone can view those differences as justification for paying a 20x ~ 100x grade point premiums especially given the differences between accurate grade coins in the 69 and 70 grades.
If you want to talk about doing it (paying huge grade point premiums) from the perspective of investment, and who will pay an even higher price in the future, that is a separate discussion in my opinion, really disconnected from anything tangible as far as the condition of the coin is concerned.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
I have much to say about WonderCoin’s and JohnMaben’s posts. I did say, though, that I would respond soon to CladKing and I am glad to have the opportunity to do so. Before addressing CladKing’s follow-up posts, please consider my response to his post of Thursday July 07, at 10:03 PM, in which CladKing puts forth points that seem to be at the core of his thinking about clad coins and post-1964 cents.
CladKing: << People quit saving new coins in 1965. … Some of the clad wasn't really saved at all >>
I wish to strongly challenge this statement. Folders for collecting coins were popular before and after 1965 and remain so today. Many people still collect coins out of change, and many others buy post-1964 coins for small premiums to put in such folders or other albums. Of course, people can and should enjoy collecting modern coins. An ongoing theme of mine is that people should not pay a lot of money for coins that are very common. What constitutes “a lot” depends upon the budget of the individual collector. A collector should not spend an amount that is ‘a lot’ to him or her, on a common coin.
I cannot accept CladKing’s notions that 1969 quarters, 1983 quarters or 2006-D dimes are somehow rare. Many of the people who have them probably do not even look carefully at them, and CladKing is assuming that there are not many choice uncirculated representatives of such issues. Logic suggests that there could be a substantial number. Besides, if many millions of a coin issue survive in grades below 63, it is very common. In my articles, I refer to the commonality of business strikes dating from 1935 to the present. I acknowledge that there are a few exceptions.
CladKing: << … post-1964 rolls like 1965 cents tend to be less than 5% as common as the earlier issues.>>
CladKing could be right, but my guess is that there are many rolls of 1965 cents in existence. Kids (and plenty of adults) have been assembling sets of pennies since the 19th century, especially since the 1930s. There was a boom in collecting (then) contemporary coins in the 1960s. There are probably numerous folders, which are mostly filled, in attics and basements. It is relevant that, since the 1960s, there have been folders for Memorial Cents. People like to fill them, often with uncirculated coins.
CladKing: << You will not find an original roll of 1969 quarters for instance. You can buy bags of any of the 1955 quarters but you won't find a roll of 1969. Indeed, you probably can't find even a single {uncirculated 1969 quarter} that didn't come from a mint set.”
I admit that I am not an expert in the condition rarity of high grade 1969 quarters. There were 176,212,000 minted and many are still in circulation Does it really make sense to spend a lot of money for a 1969 quarter? It is curious that CladKing is certain that no one has a few dozen rolls of choice to gem Unc. 1969 quarters? It seems to me that coin stores, small show dealers, would have been selling them to beginning collectors and kids from the 1970s to the present. Even if there are few gems, there are literally millions of 1969 quarters in existence.
CladKing: << You can buy bags of any of the 1955 quarters …>>
I am glad that CladKing and I agree on something. If auction records for 1955 quarters are researched, it would be clear that many people are spending thousands of dollars for common coins.
CladKing: << Modern coins simply should not be lumped in the same category as 1934 to '65 coinage.>>
I contend that these should and we are talking past each other. CladKing is pointing to a few condition rarities and ignoring the many millions of 1969 and 1983 quarters that exist in all grades. More than 670 MILLION 1983-P quarters were minted. Surely, more than one hundred million still exist, which is a large population.
For many Liberty Seated coin issues, less than one thousand exist in all grades! I just mentioned a few of them in my preview of the Summer FUN Auction. Moreover, given the respective mintages, it is likely that there are people who have uncirculated 1969 or 1983 quarters without realizing that these have significant value above twenty five cents each. Even if CladKing is correct about the condition rarity of a few clad issues, a few anomalies should not deflect attention from my overall theorems. There are exceptions to rules.
CladKing: << There are not hoards of most clad coins waiting to hit the market and the few that were set aside are poor quality and there will be few gems much less pop tops.>>
Given the literally billions of clad coins that were minted, why are you sure that you know how many gem quality clad coins are in existence? In the 1960s and especially in the 1970s, there were a large number of coin stores all across the nation and hundreds of thousands of people collecting from change or getting rolls from banks.
CladKing and I are talking past each other in that my primary point in the cited articles relate to the overall numbers of coins, not condition rarities. I often refer to the total number of a respective coin issue in existence not just the number that grade 6X or higher! A secondary point related to the large sums that people pay for condition rarities of vary common coins. Could a MS-64 grade 1983 quarter tone in an album and later be PCGS graded MS-66 or higher?
Suppose that there survive five million coins of a given issue that grade less than 63, and twenty thousand that grade MS-64, how much should be spent for one that grades MS-67 or even 69?
"Could a MS-64 grade 1983 quarter tone in an album and later be PCGS graded MS-66 or higher?"
Funny that particular coin is being spoken about (again). Six or eight years ago (give or take), I was at a PCGS invitation and sitting at a table full of "classic guys". The subject of moderns came up and I mentioned just how scarce some of these business strike coins can be in high grade. I mentioned the 1983-P quarter as an example and that I would pay $1,000 for a PCGS-MS67 graded coin. I got the attention of a number of people at the table and in particular Mike DeFalco (and his partner). Mike seemed to recall that he had a number of fresh 1983-P quarter rolls in his safe, but it simply would not be worth his time to go to the effort for me to buy just (1) coin. If memory serves me right, I agreed to purchase up to (5) coins at $1,000 per coin and gave everyone at the table plenty of time to deliver to me. Mike told me he was heading back to the office right after the invitational dinner to screen the coins and get them submitted ASAP. He doubled checked that I was locked in for up to (5) units at $1,000 per coin and I told him it was a "go".
It was our standing joke at a number of invitational dinners thereafter. Of course, no dealer was able to slab even a single piece in the months and years ahead. The pop has remained at 5 for years. I have many "pop 1"and "pop 2" clad quarters in my#1 Registry set, but not the pop 5 1983-P at this time. The last coin I had, I gave to a very special customer for a collection he asked me to build for him for his child born in 1983. The one before that ... I liked my MS66 coin slightly better and sold off the MS67 to a dealer who had been asking me for one for a while. While I still really like my MS66 coin (and hopefully it will at least + when I submit it one day for + grading), I would like to fill that slot again with an MS67 coin. Maybe at the next invitational I attend I can challenge that table of classic dealers with an offer of $2,000/coin for it!! Or, even $2,500 for that matter!
I really enjoyed the few dealings I had with Mike (our paths really did not cross all that much with his love for DMPL Morgans, etc.) and I know he always enjoyed this 1983-P quarter story which is why I am repeating it here. Rest in Peace Mikey.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
"Does it really make sense to spend a lot of money for a 1969 quarter?"
Analyst - I have the top registry set of MS clad quarters at PCGS ... a collection I started more than 30 years ago. In that time, I have found 2 (-3- at best) MS67 quality 1969-P quarters. I started hunting for them seriously around 1982. In the time I have spent searching for 1969-P high grade business strike quarters, I probably could have writen (5) books as long as War & Peace. With all due respect, you are commenting about this particular coin with virtually no hands on experience (you say as much). Truly, your assumptions are way off ... but that is not surprising as most coin dealers have no clue just how scarce a 1969-P quarter really is in MS67 grade. Cladking knows, AllCoinsRule (who just commented) knows, I obviously know.
Would you like to have a serious discussion about business strike clad quarters from the mid 1960's and early 1970's? If the topic really does not interest you, I understand. If you would like to do an article on them, I am sure experts like CladKing etc. would love to contribute to such an article. I can also share with you in detail just what my hunt has consisted of spanning the past (30) years.
I acknowledge you are merely suggesting that it makes no sense to YOU to spend a lot of money for a 1969 quarter, but, you might feel slightly different if you heard from the "hunters" who have come up empty for decades in their pursuit of a single superb gem specimen.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
"Some of the highest graded coins had imperfections, or even relatively weak strikes, yet received grades of 67 or even 68 largely due to their respective eye appeal. " They are misgraded then.
<< <i>I wish to strongly challenge this statement. Folders for collecting coins were popular before and after 1965 and remain so today. >>
This might seem logical but it simply is not true. Many of the early folders and albums for circulatinfg moderns included spots for the '65-D, '66-D etc. These were all made in the days before the Coinage Act of 1965 upset everything. There are a few penny and nickel albums from the early '70's but sales were abysmal. I am aware of no folders or albums whatsoever for circulating clad before 1984. I bought a clad quarter folder made by Whitman in 1984 and believe it was the first one made since 1964. You could see hun- dreds of silver quarter collections come into coin shops for every clad quarter collection even into the 1990's. Most such clad collections went straight into circulation. Even as late as 1999 most dealers would spend the rare BU clad roll that appeared in the shop. They learned that a few of these had large premiums only recently. The reason they don't all have far higher premiums is two fold; there is virtually no demand at all and quality tends to be extremely poor.
It was about 2003 that albums for clads reappeared. I started a thread on this subject. It got little response which isn't very surprising really;
There were virtually no collectors of moderns whatsoever before the states coins in 1998 and the number is still tiny compared to the numbers of classic collectors. There are millions of newbies though and many of them have started in this area.
<< <i>Many people still collect coins out of change, and many others buy post-1964 coins for small premiums to put in such folders or other albums. >>
Not exactly. People aren't still collecting out of change, they are again collecting from change.
<< <i>I cannot accept CladKing’s notions that 1969 quarters, 1983 quarters or 2006-D dimes are somehow rare. Many of the people who have them probably do not even look carefully at them, and CladKing is assuming that there are not many choice uncirculated representatives of such issues. Logic suggests that there could be a substantial number. Besides, if many millions of a coin issue survive in grades below 63, it is very common. In my articles, I refer to the commonality of business strikes dating from 1935 to the present. I acknowledge that there are a few exceptions. >>
Fewer than about 80,000 Unc 1982-P quarters survive!!! This is few enough to get people pretty excited if it were an indian cent or Morgan dollar. But as a clad quarter it doesn't exactly stir the blood of many collectors. What makes this coin a standout however is that the vast majority of them are junk. It is entirely possible that fewer than a dozen well made gems exist. I'm not talk- ing pop tops here; just nice gems. It's not as though truly choice Uncs are very common since there may be no more than a few hundred of them which are well made.
<< <i> CladKing could be right, but my guess is that there are many rolls of 1965 cents in existence. Kids (and plenty of adults) have been assembling sets of pennies since the 19th century, especially since the 1930s. There was a boom in collecting (then) contemporary coins in the 1960s. There are probably numerous folders, which are mostly filled, in attics and basements. It is relevant that, since the 1960s, there have been folders for Memorial Cents. People like to fill them, often with uncirculated coins. >>
1965 cents are hardly scarce coins by any definition. Rolls are not uncommon. But people did quit collecting cents and nickels in 1965 just like the clad coins but to a lesser extent. About 30 wheat cent collections will come in for each set including cents after 1969. Many collectors of moderns do like Unc coins and this especially applies to cents. The modern cents are all common but not nearly to the degree most people assume. They are also common in gem but there are several dates where "common" means that they will require some effort to locate. Very few are common in superb gem and some are highly elusive. The '88-D and '89-D are common in very high grade but that's about it.
<< <i>I admit that I am not an expert in the condition rarity of high grade 1969 quarters. There were 176,212,000 minted and many are still in circulation Does it really make sense to spend a lot of money for a 1969 quarter? It is curious that CladKing is certain that no one has a few dozen rolls of choice to gem Unc. 1969 quarters? It seems to me that coin stores, small show dealers, would have been selling them to beginning collectors and kids from the 1970s to the present. Even if there are few gems, there are literally millions of 1969 quarters in existence. >>
I understand this seems like the way it must be but this is not the way it really is. There are virtually no rolls of 1969 quarters at all. I've never seen one since 1969. The '69-D is a tough roll but the '69 is nearly nonexistent. This coin came terrible and they were not saved. It's been too long to expect these rolls to appear now. One would have to assume that owning a '69 quarter roll confirmed immortality to explain their absense. For years I hunted the simi- lar 1959 Greek 2D (same size and composition and face value) and couldn't find it. Everyone told me with the huge mintage that it was common and it didn't matter if I could find it or not since it would never be sought. It goes for $650 now.
<< <i>I contend that these should and we are talking past each other. CladKing is pointing to a few condition rarities and ignoring the many millions of 1969 and 1983 quarters that exist in all grades. More than 670 MILLION 1983-P quarters were minted. Surely, more than one hundred million still exist, which is a large population. >>
It's not so much that I'm ignoring them as suggesting they don't matter. Look for a few months and you can find an attractive well worn 1969 quarter. There are about 25,000,000 nice Fines and Fine plusses in circulation. (the rest are highly worn or culls). But relatively few modern collectors seek worn coins. Very few moderns are actually rare in worn condition but this hap- pens too because of mass melting. About 450 million of the '83-P survive and this one is eas- ily located in grades as high as a nice attractive AU-.
It goes far beyond condition rarities. I'm talking about all sorts of coins collectors desire and mod- erns can be almost unavailable because they weren't intentionally set aside, weren't discovered, had poor sales, or didn't appear in mint sets.
<< <i>For many Liberty Seated coin issues, less than one thousand exist in all grades! I just mentioned a few of them in my preview of the Summer FUN Auction. Moreover, given the respective mintages, it is likely that there are people who have uncirculated 1969 or 1983 quarters without realizing that these have significant value above twenty five cents each. >>
I very much doubt it. There's so little demand for the '69 that gems might trade hands at $1.25 wholesale but the odds of this occurriung are extremely low because these coins are too scarce to actually trade hands. People just didn't set aside clad or most world moderns.
<< <i>Even if CladKing is correct about the condition rarity of a few clad issues, a few anomalies should not deflect attention from my overall theorems. There are exceptions to rules. >>
But again there are the numerous very rare varieties. And there are a whole lot more "condition rarities" if you look at higher grades. A '70 quarter is fairly "common" in gem but in superb con- dition it's as tough as most from the era. A '70-S can be found in superb condition with extreme effort but gems are even tougher!
I can understand why moderns aren't many peoples' cup of tea. But the low prices are indicative of very low demand and not because they are common. Even many of the "common" modern nic- kels have fewer surviving examples than the '50-D nickel but these sell for a few dollars a roll rat- her than $15 each.
<< <i>Given the literally billions of clad coins that were minted, why are you sure that you know how many gem quality clad coins are in existence? In the 1960s and especially in the 1970s, there were a large number of coin stores all across the nation and hundreds of thousands of people collecting from change or getting rolls from banks. >>
There are almost no clad rolls in existence. I've still looked at hundreds of them over the decades and can assure you they are mostly junk. The mint made very few gems for circulation and almost everyone they made was scratched up before it left the mint. People weren't even looking at clads so the mint didn't need any quality control. Clad is very difficult to strike anyway and dies wear very quickly.
For most US moderns one must turn to the mint sets. But the coins in mint sets aren't necessarily nice and the attrition on these has been staggering.
<< <i>CladKing and I are talking past each other in that my primary point in the cited articles relate to the overall numbers of coins, not condition rarities. I often refer to the total number of a respective coin issue in existence not just the number that grade 6X or higher! >>
Quite true but this is simply a different perspective. Obviously there is almost no chance that a '69 quarter is ever going to be tougher than an 1807 draped bust half. But no one collects bust halfs in gem and very few in Unc. It really doesn't matter how many standing liberty quarters exist to the clad quarter market. Supply and demand determine price just like the 1807 half.
<< <i>Suppose that there survive five million coins of a given issue that grade less than 63, and twenty thousand that grade MS-64, how much should be spent for one that grades MS-67 or even 69? >>
There isn't one single eagle reverse quarter that even approaches being so common. Most col- lectors like nice attractive coins and this tends to mean nice MS-63's and MS-64. Most US moderns are not scarce at this level but most are probably much scarcer than non-modern collectors believe. Something like an '81-P nickel with nice attractive surfaces can cause a picky collector a headache.
People should keep in mind that the lack of demand results in many more coins being available. When people start collecting these they are going to get a great deal tougher.
Comments
<< <i>Thank you for the insightful discussion. The PCGS forum is blessed to have some of the top dealers for moderns and ultramoderns, and two have responded to this thread. I find it refreshing that is not all rah-rah talk like some dealers might be tempted to like to paint in their areas of specialty.
Think back to the days before the Internet and how much time and effort it would take an average collector to get to:
1) know who the top dealers are for moderns and ultramoderns
2) pick their brains and get relatively straight forward commentary >>
Very well said.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
<< <i>As a rule collectors should always be wary of buying coins less than a few years old. It's a great
idea to stash them away at face value even at this late date and that goes triple if you can find
high quality. But paying large premiums for recent date coins has been exceedingly risky for a very
long time now and the the definition of "recent" is getting longer.
Anyone interested in coins graded "70" should have a feel for both the market and the individual
issue which they desire in 70. There are 70's that are virtually certain to plummet and there are
some which can stand the test of time. >>
I think most of what you're saying boils down to why/how the coin was made. I can understand that an MS69 business strike quarter from...say...1989, is a very rare bird. But an MS69 version of a modern commemorative is not. Ultra high grade coins that were sold in that grade directly from the mint will be value traps unless they were minted in small numbers....and the small mintages will drive the value of the coin (not the condition).
So, I'm on board, CK...I'm going to keep an eye out for ultra high grade business strikes not generally available from the mint in high grade. But I won't be hunting MS69 or MS70 coins that started their lives in velvet cases or thick plastic holders.
Steve
<< <i>As a rule collectors should always be wary of buying coins less than a few years old.
... >>
An exception for buying new issues direct from the mint. I have witnessed more money being made by average collectors buying select new issues from the mint than average classic coin collectors have any realistic chance at making. The list of winners is impressive and include the 2006 silver and gold eagle anniversary sets, and the 2008 fractional buffalo gold coins. Sure there have been many losers and break even coins and sets as well, that's why selectivity is necessary, and forum expertise can be useful. The forum experts don't bat 1000, by any means, but listening to what they say does improve the odds.
Some Russian moderns increased 24000% this year. Try buying any of the
late '60's/ early '70's Russian issues. A few of these still list for 50c or less but
just try buying them.
People all over the world stopped saving moderns when silver and gold were
removed from coinage. Now coins minted in the tens or hundreds of millions
are almost impossible to find.
So exactly which coins are the value traps; The ones that list for thousands
of dollars now or the scarcities that still list for 75c?
Some day people will be looking for all those "common" US coins too.
Perhaps these middle class societies like Russia and China are now entering the hobby causing the scarcity. What are the price increases for the Russian or Chinese classics in the last few years? Could be a huge market for these if these once poor societies are becoming wealthier and are now more interested in collecting their heritage and history in coinage.
Box of 20
<< <i>
I think most of what you're saying boils down to why/how the coin was made. I can understand that an MS69 business strike quarter from...say...1989, is a very rare bird. But an MS69 version of a modern commemorative is not. Ultra high grade coins that were sold in that grade directly from the mint will be value traps unless they were minted in small numbers....and the small mintages will drive the value of the coin (not the condition).
So, I'm on board, CK...I'm going to keep an eye out for ultra high grade business strikes not generally available from the mint in high grade. But I won't be hunting MS69 or MS70 coins that started their lives in velvet cases or thick plastic holders.
>>
I am extremely partial to business strikes. There are many reasons that these are the coins
collectors eventually seek. Perhaps the chief reason is as simple as the fact that these are the
issues that people remember using when they were children; they are the issues that they
watched wear out over many decades. A lot of collecting is caused by simple nostalgia and
this is likely even stronger among those who collect more modern coins since they actually
remember using the coins. For me there are many other reasons as well since coins make
excellent economic indicators and have loads to say about human nature and statistics. I've
also collected and set these aside since the mid-70's. Frankly one of my favorite reasons for
collecting moderns has been the ability to buy rare coins for a mere pittance when I can find
them. Like all collectors it's rarity that really fires the blood even if other considerations attract
me to a series. I like all coins really and have older coins as well as modern NCLT issues.
In world coins it tends to be fairly easy to figure out which coins are rare; if you find one then
it's not rare. If you find two then it's common. But it's much more complicated with US moderns
because of the way these were produced, distributed, and set aside. For business strikes the
sole source for many coins is the mint sets. But understanding these mint sets and the reasons
they were made might take several lifetimes. It's hard to fathom why millions of something
that was so unloved would even be made. People weren't collecting moderns with the excep-
tion of oddities (coins) and crackpots (collectors) so why were millions of mint sets made each
year? There was a tendency for the sets to do very well initially and people would sell a couple
sets and keep the rest at no net cost. It's difficult to imagine why they would want them even
free since they weren't collected. Why not just spend the coins which eventually happened to
a lot of these coins anyway. I think collectors just kept buying them because there wasn't much
else to buy from the mint in those days. Huge sales ensured a glut on the market and the glut
ensured low prices and extremely high attrition.
While I'm so partial to business strikes I don't think there's any reason to avoid the other issues
and the MS or PR-70's. Investing in coins isn't really a good idea. Sure, it feels good when you
have spectacular gains but these are the exception rather than the rule. Most investors never
even get modest gains and since they didn't enjoy collecting have nothing to show for their mon-
ey or time. Collectors tend to have the best gains and these tend to be almost as much luck as
skill.
I think my best advice for would be investors is; don't, and my best advice for collectors is to try
to enjoy series with good potential for increases. Try not to enjoy series that are at highs and
have had big gains. But collect what you like. If you enjoy collecting you'll probably do fairly
well in any series at all.
<< <i>
Perhaps these middle class societies like Russia and China are now entering the hobby causing the scarcity. What are the price increases for the Russian or Chinese classics in the last few years? Could be a huge market for these if these once poor societies are becoming wealthier and are now more interested in collecting their heritage and history in coinage. >>
The really old coins tend not to have done exceedingly well but most of these markets have
firmed quite a bit and material is more difficult to find. Early 20th century coins are in some
cases doing quite well too but this seems less wide spread than with moderns. A larger per-
centage of early 20th century coins are up but the huge gains are mostly all in the moderns.
Keep in mind, too, that 24,000% gains are mostly in very low value coins; they tend to be coins
that went from $1 to $240. Some of the bigger increases are a much lower %age such as the
1991 20k that went from $300 to $2750, a mere 917% increase. Or my favorite since I act-
ually own a couple, the 1969 5k that went from $10 to $850 or an 8500% increase.
These middle classes will continue to grow and the individuals who collect will become increas-
ingly sophisticated collectors. This will certainly mean more demand for older coins as well but
it will not necessarily mean decreasing demand for the moderns. There are many ways this
can unfold and there's just no reason many of these collectors won't branch off into other world
coins.
<< <i>Perhaps these middle class societies like Russia and China are now entering the hobby causing the scarcity. What are the price increases for the Russian or Chinese classics in the last few years? Could be a huge market for these if these once poor societies are becoming wealthier and are now more interested in collecting their heritage and history in coinage. >>
Some coins I've been following in those countries have gone from approximately $1,500 to $15,000 and from $50 to $1,000 in the past 5 years. What makes this more impressive is that these prices are for raw coins, not TPG condition rarities.
Here's one example.
I regret selling my Elaisberg Elizabeth 2 Gold Ruble two years ago even if I sold it for over 300% of what I paid for it. Russian Ruble
Link is not working
https://ssl.stacksbowers.com/auctions/AuctionLegacyLot.aspx?LegacyLotID=43612
Box of 20
<< <i>Some coins I've been following in those countries have gone from approximately $1,500 to $15,000 and from $50 to $1,000 in the past 5 years. What makes this more impressive is that these prices are for raw coins, not TPG condition rarities.
Here's one example.
I regret selling my Elaisberg Elizabeth 2 Gold Ruble two years ago even if I sold it for over 300% of what I paid for it. Russian Ruble
Link is not working
https://ssl.stacksbowers.com/auctions/AuctionLegacyLot.aspx?LegacyLotID=43612 >>
I think the forums may not like SSL.
Here's your link without SSL: 1756 Eliasberg Elizabeth 2 Gold Ruble (change https:// to http:// - but this may not work with all sites).
Looks like a nice, historic coin!
Yes, please share this list with me. IIafoe said that my PM function was turned off. I never intended to turn it off. Everyone is welcome to PM me, or to e-mail at Insightful10 gmail.
It is perhaps my fault that WonderCoin and John Maben misunderstood my question in earlier posts to this thread: Are certified “MS-70” grade coins good values? I was NOT focusing on the investment potential of certified “MS-70” grade coins. I was referring to giving advice to collectors regarding logical and sensible collecting strategies, particularly those that are consistent with the values and traditions of coin collecting in the U.S.
I am concerned about Maben’s assertion that many certified “MS-70” coins exhibit notable imperfections when viewed with a glass of less than 5x magnification, including “flaws that occur after striking.” I suggest that there should be more discussion regarding the criteria employed to grade a coin as “MS-70.” I invite WonderCoin to also share his definition of “MS-70.”
Maben: << … my definition would be no post minting marks, abrasions, hairlines, or spots visible to the (20/20) naked eye under ideal (dark room, 100W bulb lamp) viewing conditions. Very minor defects created during the minting process such as tiny struck thru's as well as raised lines the result of die polishing would be acceptable..>>
Now, Maben is saying that the definition of “MS-70” incorporates “very minor defects created during the minting process” and is dependent upon not being able to discern any post-minting imperfections with the “naked eye under ideal viewing conditions.” So, is Maben asserting that there is no need for magnification for a coin to be graded “70”?
In the views of Maben and WonderCoin, does the eye appeal of coin matter in regard to a grade of 70?
With Barber Half Dollars, two coins could have, more or less, equivalent imperfections, yet one may grade 66 and the other may grade 67+ because the latter has much more eye appeal. Consider Dr. Duckor’s Barber Halves. Some of the highest graded coins had imperfections, or even relatively weak strikes, yet received grades of 67 or even 68 largely due to their respective eye appeal.
Maben: << I am avoiding {commenting on current market prices for “MS-70” graded coins.} There are plenty of dealers who will give advice on what to buy and what not to buy and what represents good value. … I have never tried to suggest or portray myself as an advisor of what to buy if the only goal is profit.>>
I never suggested that a collector’s “only goal is profit.” Please read more of my articles.
A modern coin that is graded “MS-70” may be priced at multiples of a 67 or 68 grade coin.
I perceive better values in classic coins. When I compare a true 68 grade Barber Half to a true 66 grade Barber Half, business strike or Proof, I see a tremendous difference. When I compare a “68” grade modern coin to a “70” grade modern coin, I do not perceive much of a difference and certified “70” grade modern coins do not seem to have the eye appeal of certified 68 or 67 grade classic coins, which are often spectacular. My comments in this thread concern value in terms of traditions of coin collecting or value from a logical perspective, not necessarily in an investment sense.
Maben: << I believe coin collecting is all about the experience. As I said before, if profits come along that's wonderful.>>
We are in agreement on this point. As most collectors cannot afford to acquire all of the coins that they desire, there is a need for collectors to choose coins that represent good values. While prices are a consequence of demand and supply, demand is influenced by education and advice. Educated buyers are more likely to maintain an interest in coin collecting over a long period of time.
Collecting Modern Coins
Why 1933/34 is the true dividing line between classic and modern coinage, Part 1
Why 1933/34 is the true dividing line between classic and modern coinage, Part 2
Advice for beginning and intermediate collectors of U.S. coins
All-Time Greatest Collection of Barber Half Dollars, Part 2
Also, I will soon respond to CladKing’s points.
Re: eye appeal. Remember Analyst that a PR70DCAM has a second element to that grade... namely the DCAM part. All DCAM's are not created equal. There are mild DCAM coins and monster DCAM coins. The differences can be night and day. I will try to post an example of what I am talking about later this weekend if my photographer is available. I will use PR69DC coins as I have them here, but the same point applies to PR70DC as well. Since the grading services make no distinction between the mild DCAM and the monster DCAM, can we assume the monster DCAM has sensational "eye appeal" for the grade (as compared to the mild DCAM)? If so, then eye appeal would very important to every grade including 70 IMHO. But, again, wait to see my pics to fully appreciate the point I am making here.
Wondercoin
Maben is saying that "HIS" definition, not "THE" definition....
Yes, in addition to the word "perfect", I am suggesting that 5X magnification should not be part of the definition for a 70. This is my opinion. To be clear, I am not saying a grader should not use 5X magnification if they choose or feel it is needed to make a determination, simply that it not be part of the criteria for the grade. I believe magnification is applied on an "as needed, when needed basis" when grading coins, not universally across the board.
As for eye appeal, I think the assumption most would make is that a coin should NOT be a 70 if it doesn't have exceptional eye appeal. I agree with Mitch that the degree of cameo is something that varies widely and could be used to make a determination as to an eye appeal rating in 70's, though I am not sure we want to go down that road of rating "how ultra or deep" an ultra actually is or rating degree of eye appeal on a 70.
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<< <i>Analyst - Since moderns are a specialty area to me and I assist PCGS with both valuation of and insight on modern coins on a weekly (if not nearly daily) basis while serving on their Board of Experts, may I comment on your various postings please.
I can show you "70" graded coins that are UTTERLY AMAZING values at current levels; values that would blow your mind! Coins you would want to own without question if you had an open mind to diversifying into modern coins with super potential along with classic coins. I can also show you "69" grade coins that are PATHETIC values at current levels. And, of course, I can also show you "70" graded coins that are "AVOID AT ALL COSTS" coins in my book.
Open invitation for YOU ONLY ... if you have a fair and open mind regarding "70" graded moderns, I would be happy to confidentially share with you a few of my very top picks for you to either consider purchasing or simply to follow in the months and years ahead. You could easily track the performance of these 70 graded coins and could report on your financial success (or failure) with these 70's over time. Warning... you may be SHOCKED by what happens. Fair warning.
Wondercoin >>
Wondercoin, can you give us some hints publicly here? Perhaps what you look for in a "value" 70 vs. a "AVOID AT ALL COSTS" 70 or 69? EricJ has some in his book, Modern Commemorative Coins.
BTW If you have already made you buys on the screaming value 70's no reason to not disclose them here!
Side note ... 1971(s) proof Ike Dollars cost about $12 right now and have $11 worth of silver in them!! For you serious classic (or modern) collectors out there who have kids you want to bring to the coin shows with you and try to get interested in coin collecting (as I did with my kids) ... set your kids loose at the show with a bank roll of $120. Tell them to spend the entire day hunting out monster DCAM proof 1971(s) or 1972(s) Ikes at the show and buy them up for the exact same price as the coins with little or no cameo frost. Based upon todays' spot price of silver (which will change of course), tell them to make sure they only pay $12 each for the coins (tell the kids to negotiate down to $12 if they are quoted more). If they are very lucky, they will find (10) of them for the $120 bankroll searching the show that day. Tell your kids to tuck them away. One day, IMHO, these (40) year old coins will start getting appreciated for their mega depth of DCAM and coins that can be gobbled up for $12 with $11 in silver in them might become the sought after collectibles of tomorrow. Or, perhaps silver will rise sharply and the coin will increase in value simply due to the rising silver price (even if no one ever cares about any of this). Or, perhaps silver will crash in value and no one will ever care about these special mega DCAM pieces (and your kids will lose a portion of their money... but, a great learning experience to share with your kids there too if the price of silver crashes from here and they lose money on their $12 purchase). My kids did just fine hunting these out a few years back. The coins cost $5/coin a couple years back when the coins had about $4.50 in silver in them. My son Justin has a drawer full of these hand picked mega DCAM Ikes he bought for nearly silver melt. On his scale, he refers to his very best as "monster DCAM" coins (he loved monsters as a kid). These are his pride and joy ... when he came home from college a few weeks back he went right to his coins to look at them. I remember the special times we had as he showed me his deepest, and deepest and deepest cameo find in order of DCAM greatness, saving the deepest one for last of couse. If the coins he picked at $5/coin had gone to $0, I know he could have cared less. It was the "hunt" that was exciting for him and he would love them at any price. If money is tight, only give your kid $12 at the show and tell him to find the (1) deepest cameo proof Ike he can find at the show and buy it instead of buying him ice cream and candy that day. You both will have the same fun at the show and I suspect he will be coming back to you with (2) equally amazing finds after hours of searching and you may end up deciding to buy them both!
These proof Ikes also have tons of varieties ... something Justin is now enjoying as well and finding potential hidden value in some of the pieces he tucked away for other reasons.
This is what I call HAVING FUN with your modern coins AND building a great collection for truly next to nothing in the process. So, to those who call this post "advice", I guess I need to also say that this is my opinion only and you should never buy a coin with any money you can not afford to lose and that even though Justin did well with his monster DCAM proof Ikes purchases over the years, I can not guarantee your kid will do very well at all. Your kid might lose every cent he spent at the show on these coins (and would have also lost his ice cream and candy on top of that). Do your homework (and lots of it) before spending a cent on coins. Do not fight with your kid at the show if he wants to stay longer to hunt out more modern coins and you want to go home after seeing enough classics. Do not buy a single coin at the coin show if spending those funds would not be compatible with your current needs, goals etc., etc., etc.
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
Given the range of quality in the 69 and 70 grades, do you think PCGS should consider providing the + service for 69s and 70s?
But back to the question, I would also have no problem considering the depth of cameo as a component of the + grade for 69's (or any other numerical grade) as I consider that to be part of "eye appeal" which is considered in grading coins. Of course, it is only one factor of many for considering a + grade.
Wondercoin
<< <i>Why 1933/34 is the true dividing line between classic and modern coinage, Part 1
Why 1933/34 is the true dividing line between classic and modern coinage, Part 2. >>
From the first link;
<< <i>Referring to U.S. coins minted from 1793 to 1933 as classic coin issues is not arbitrary and it is not an accidental tradition. When polling dealers and collectors, I became aware that everyone seemed to remember the tradition of referring to 1933 or 1934 as a dividing line, but no one recollected the origins or meaning of the tradition. The true reason is that pre-1934 coins (with few exceptions) are much scarcer than post-1934 coins.
I am not referring to mintages; I am referring to the number of coins that survive. Of course, no one can know precisely how many survive. It makes sense, however, to rely upon the forces of supply and demand and resulting price levels to demonstrate this point, which I will prove herein. Indeed, one leading dealer informs me that demand is actually greater for post-1934 coins than for pre-1934 coins. Furthermore, for Lincoln Cents, Buffalo Nickels, Mercury Dimes, and Walkers, I am assuming that a substantial percentage of the collectors who demand coins in these series are seeking to complete sets and would thus demand both pre-1934 and post-1934 coins of the same respective series. Therefore, showing that prices are substantially higher for pre-1934 coins clearly proves that many more post-1934 coins survive and are in the marketplace. I aim to carefully select pre-1934 and post-134 issues to provide fair and meaningful comparisons. >>
Here in a nutshell is why your argument fails.
It is traditional and has been since 1965 to not collect and not to save any coins made after
1965. The reason that a 1972-D type b reverse quarter won't draw a large price is simply that
there is almost no demand. The reason it is rare is that it was never set aside in 1972 nor any
time since. If you desire this coin your best bet is to seek it in circulation since one will appear
in every twenty or thirty boxes. Of course it will be VG probably. If you want a nice gem and
well struck 1982-P quarter then you'll find it far more difficult since such a coin hasn't been in
circulation since 1987 or so and looking through raw coins will prove extremely difficult and time
consuming. Hell, try finding a nice gemmy 1983-P type d reverse!!! This one is at least doable
but will cost some money.
Post-1964 coinage was not saved. The same thing happened everywhere all over the world.
This was never even widely known until recently because traditionally no one collects modern
junk but in all these emerging markets in Russia, India, China etc they weren't told about the
tradition of ignoring modern junk. When they went out to find it they discovered it wasn't there
because it was never saved. Keep in mind that even in the emerging markets much of the de-
mand is focused on old coins. Collectors do prefer the old to the new quite naturally. But a few
collectors are causing explosive price moves because the coins are even scarcer than the number
of collectors.
The same thing applies to US moderns; they were not saved and even rarities bring weak prices
because demand is even weaker than for Russian moderns.
This won't always be the case. The day will come that US citizens will want to collect moderns
and many more scarcities will emerge. Even if I'm wrong and US collectors don't get serious about
US moderns it might not matter because Russian, Indian and other collectors will branch out into
world coins (including US) in the longer run.
1934 to 1964 coins were heavily saved but post-1964 coinage was not. Just because there are
20,000,000 bicentennial quarters sitting in safety deposit boxes it doesn't mean a 2006-D diime
is easy to find. And it certainly doesn't mean you can just go down to the corner shop and buy a
nice choice '69 quarter.
quit saving new coin in 1965. The government did everything they could to discourage
coin collecting and succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. It nearly killed coin collecting
as a mass hobby. Those of us who were around in 1995 were extremely discouraged
because almost no new collectors had been made since 1965 and the hobby seemed to
be dying. Most less expensive coins were almost difficult to give away and the markets
for rarities were weak and weakening.
It was moderns that perked up first and the older coins started improving before the end
of 1996. The states quarters program infused a great deal of new blood but many of the
new collectors were driven off by the attitudes of traditional collectors who thought moderns
were mere junk.
Yes, I do agree that the '34 to '64 coinage isn't a clean fit with the older coinage and can
understand why there is a legitimate case to be made that these are separate. But, they
are even more different than the true moderns. Call them late classics or proto modern
but they sure have nothing at all ibn common with moderns. Millions and millions of new
collectors started with these coins while no one collected the moderns.
<< <i>Maben is saying that "HIS" definition, not "THE" definition....
Yes, in addition to the word "perfect", I am suggesting that 5X magnification should not be part of the definition for a 70. This is my opinion. To be clear, I am not saying a grader should not use 5X magnification if they choose or feel it is needed to make a determination, simply that it not be part of the criteria for the grade. I believe magnification is applied on an "as needed, when needed basis" when grading coins, not universally across the board.
As for eye appeal, I think the assumption most would make is that a coin should NOT be a 70 if it doesn't have exceptional eye appeal. I agree with Mitch that the degree of cameo is something that varies widely and could be used to make a determination as to an eye appeal rating in 70's, though I am not sure we want to go down that road of rating "how ultra or deep" an ultra actually is or rating degree of eye appeal on a 70.
>>
I often think most of the percieved problem with PR-70 would evaporate if they just
changed to a 71 point scale with 71 being "perfect" but never assigned it.
We all know that no two coins are the same so it follows no coin is "really" perfect.
<< <i>I think perception of future value is a trap, not an MS-70 coin. >>
Yes! Exactly!
So long as a collector is buying for fun he can even collect coins in extremely dangerous areas
like some of the MS-70's or some of the classic series that will have the mother of all forces working
against them; demographics. If you're collecting for fun and little regard to future prices then you'll
tend to make much wiser decisions even in poor, overvalued, or shrinking markets.
Even buying coins as a store of value is risky since all collectibles are valued at the whim of collectors.
Investors have very little lasting impact on valuations in collectible markets.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think perception of future value is a trap, not an MS-70 coin. >>
Yes! Exactly!
So long as a collector is buying for fun he can even collect coins in extremely dangerous areas
like some of the MS-70's or some of the classic series that will have the mother of all forces working
against them; demographics. If you're collecting for fun and little regard to future prices then you'll
tend to make much wiser decisions even in poor, overvalued, or shrinking markets.
Even buying coins as a store of value is risky since all collectibles are valued at the whim of collectors.
Investors have very little lasting impact on valuations in collectible markets. >>
At the same time, could you say perception of future value is a trap for many coins purchased at retail and sold at wholesale?
I like using demographics and other megatrends to make purchasing decisions. It's fun when predictions come true.
Out of curiosity, how significant is the changeover between 1807 and 1808? I tend to think this is a good dividing line for classic coins and "Industrial Age" coins because the capped bust design reminds me of the Industrial Revolution while the draped bust design seems pre-industrial and more colonial-like to me.
I like to think of it as:
Classic
Industrial
Art Deco
Modern
<< <i>At the same time, could you say perception of future value is a trap for many coins purchased at retail and sold at wholesale? >>
I'm not certain of your meaning but it is true that many sour investments are bought at
retail but the market will be too weak to sell above wholesale when they are sold. Many
coins rarely sell except at wholesale. Retail sales of coins are mostly in strong markets
where buyers are more common than sellers.
<< <i>I like using demographics and other megatrends to make purchasing decisions. It's fun when predictions come true. >>
People should pay far more attention to demographics. Many things are highly predictable
because the core of the market or process is concetrated among people of specific age
ranges.
It's very difficult to find coins that are rare but cheap and it is fun when they quit being
cheap. Identifying rare coins is easy; they're the ones you can't find. Buying them is tough
since you can't find them. There are lots of coins I've sought for 35 years and have yet to
find.
With moderns you should stick with no question uncs and preferably chUnc. Pick up most
gems when you see them. Stay away from truly common coins even in gem. Get one of ev-
erything for a collection and you'll have the toughie too.
No, it means that at least one of the two coins is not perfect. For example, if we each have an MS70 specimen of the same coin, mine is perfect and yours isn't!
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Wondercoin
Regarding the grading of 70's without a 5x (and no particular grading company is being identified here ... just some random thoughts):
Reality is many coins in 70 holders have issues when applying 5x power. Is this because volumes (submissions) have skyrocketed beyond belief and coins need to get out of the building(s) fast? Is this because volumes have skyrocketed beyond belief and the new hire graders are simply not as strong as the veterans who were able to handle all of the submissions years ago before the swelled volumes? I can probably list five more potential reasons, but here are the points:
1. This is why, today, many serious modern collectors carefully screen their 70's and select only the most perfect coins for their collections. I loved the notion (mentioned on this thread) of adding a "71" to the grading scale which would NEVER be used but would then illuminate the reality that all 70's are not created equal. They are not. Just the issue of light DCAM vs. "monster' DCAM shows differences within the 70DCAM grade. And, then, of course, counting the number of tiny imperfections on the coin (pre-strike and post-strike) also separates the 70.99 coins vs. the 70.01 coins in my book. For those "purists" would insist that the grading scale only goes up to 70.00000, then obviously 69.9 - 69.99 is often "rounded up"?
2. Since 5x power is revealing "issues" with coins in 70 holders, then there are at least 2 possible courses of action: (1) throw away the 5x as it relates to the definition of the 70 grade; (2) tighten up the grading to correct the issues to be able to use the 5x and still meet the 70 definition.
Wondercoin
<< <i>
<< <i>At the same time, could you say perception of future value is a trap for many coins purchased at retail and sold at wholesale? >>
I'm not certain of your meaning but it is true that many sour investments are bought at
retail but the market will be too weak to sell above wholesale when they are sold. Many
coins rarely sell except at wholesale. Retail sales of coins are mostly in strong markets
where buyers are more common than sellers. >>
My main point here is there are many areas where perception of future value can limit ones returns. While it is important to reduce risk in certain areas such as MS-70s, it makes sense to be vigilant and similar issues in other areas as well. I mentioned it as a reminder because the retail and wholesale issue is one that has been brought up on these boards many times recently by others.
<< <i>
<< <i>I like using demographics and other megatrends to make purchasing decisions. It's fun when predictions come true. >>
People should pay far more attention to demographics. Many things are highly predictable
because the core of the market or process is concetrated among people of specific age
ranges. >>
An added benefit of using demographics for numismatic purchases is that it can lead to better decision making in other areas such as equity investments and others where good decisions can also be made, in part, from using demographic trends.
<< <i>Yes, in addition to the word "perfect", I am suggesting that 5X magnification should not be part of the definition for a 70. This is my opinion. To be clear, I am not saying a grader should not use 5X magnification if they choose or feel it is needed to make a determination, simply that it not be part of the criteria for the grade. I believe magnification is applied on an "as needed, when needed basis" when grading coins, not universally across the board. >>
I think the folks at the ANA and PCGS would disagree with respect to grading coins vying for the 70 grade. In fact the ANA grading guide for 70 coins requires there be no imperfections when viewed under magnification.
Having said this it comes down to what value you place on the very slight differences that exist between a 69 and 70. I have never and probably never will understand how someone can view those differences as justification for paying a 20x ~ 100x grade point premiums especially given the differences between accurate grade coins in the 69 and 70 grades.
If you want to talk about doing it (paying huge grade point premiums) from the perspective of investment, and who will pay an even higher price in the future, that is a separate discussion in my opinion, really disconnected from anything tangible as far as the condition of the coin is concerned.
CladKing: << People quit saving new coins in 1965. … Some of the clad wasn't really saved at all >>
I wish to strongly challenge this statement. Folders for collecting coins were popular before and after 1965 and remain so today. Many people still collect coins out of change, and many others buy post-1964 coins for small premiums to put in such folders or other albums. Of course, people can and should enjoy collecting modern coins. An ongoing theme of mine is that people should not pay a lot of money for coins that are very common. What constitutes “a lot” depends upon the budget of the individual collector. A collector should not spend an amount that is ‘a lot’ to him or her, on a common coin.
I cannot accept CladKing’s notions that 1969 quarters, 1983 quarters or 2006-D dimes are somehow rare. Many of the people who have them probably do not even look carefully at them, and CladKing is assuming that there are not many choice uncirculated representatives of such issues. Logic suggests that there could be a substantial number. Besides, if many millions of a coin issue survive in grades below 63, it is very common. In my articles, I refer to the commonality of business strikes dating from 1935 to the present. I acknowledge that there are a few exceptions.
CladKing: << … post-1964 rolls like 1965 cents tend to be less than 5% as common as the earlier issues.>>
CladKing could be right, but my guess is that there are many rolls of 1965 cents in existence. Kids (and plenty of adults) have been assembling sets of pennies since the 19th century, especially since the 1930s. There was a boom in collecting (then) contemporary coins in the 1960s. There are probably numerous folders, which are mostly filled, in attics and basements. It is relevant that, since the 1960s, there have been folders for Memorial Cents. People like to fill them, often with uncirculated coins.
CladKing: << You will not find an original roll of 1969 quarters for instance. You can buy bags of any of the 1955 quarters but you won't find a roll of 1969. Indeed, you probably can't find even a single {uncirculated 1969 quarter} that didn't come from a mint set.”
I admit that I am not an expert in the condition rarity of high grade 1969 quarters. There were 176,212,000 minted and many are still in circulation Does it really make sense to spend a lot of money for a 1969 quarter? It is curious that CladKing is certain that no one has a few dozen rolls of choice to gem Unc. 1969 quarters? It seems to me that coin stores, small show dealers, would have been selling them to beginning collectors and kids from the 1970s to the present. Even if there are few gems, there are literally millions of 1969 quarters in existence.
CladKing: << You can buy bags of any of the 1955 quarters …>>
I am glad that CladKing and I agree on something. If auction records for 1955 quarters are researched, it would be clear that many people are spending thousands of dollars for common coins.
CladKing: << Modern coins simply should not be lumped in the same category as 1934 to '65 coinage.>>
I contend that these should and we are talking past each other. CladKing is pointing to a few condition rarities and ignoring the many millions of 1969 and 1983 quarters that exist in all grades. More than 670 MILLION 1983-P quarters were minted. Surely, more than one hundred million still exist, which is a large population.
For many Liberty Seated coin issues, less than one thousand exist in all grades! I just mentioned a few of them in my preview of the Summer FUN Auction. Moreover, given the respective mintages, it is likely that there are people who have uncirculated 1969 or 1983 quarters without realizing that these have significant value above twenty five cents each. Even if CladKing is correct about the condition rarity of a few clad issues, a few anomalies should not deflect attention from my overall theorems. There are exceptions to rules.
CladKing: << There are not hoards of most clad coins waiting to hit the market and the few that were set aside are poor quality and there will be few gems much less pop tops.>>
Given the literally billions of clad coins that were minted, why are you sure that you know how many gem quality clad coins are in existence? In the 1960s and especially in the 1970s, there were a large number of coin stores all across the nation and hundreds of thousands of people collecting from change or getting rolls from banks.
CladKing and I are talking past each other in that my primary point in the cited articles relate to the overall numbers of coins, not condition rarities. I often refer to the total number of a respective coin issue in existence not just the number that grade 6X or higher! A secondary point related to the large sums that people pay for condition rarities of vary common coins. Could a MS-64 grade 1983 quarter tone in an album and later be PCGS graded MS-66 or higher?
Suppose that there survive five million coins of a given issue that grade less than 63, and twenty thousand that grade MS-64, how much should be spent for one that grades MS-67 or even 69?
Preview of the Summer FUN Auction, with emphasis upon dimes and quarters
Collecting Modern Coins
Why 1933/34 is the true dividing line between classic and modern coinage, Part 1
Why 1933/34 is the true dividing line between classic and modern coinage, Part 2
Advice for beginning and intermediate collectors of U.S. coins
Funny that particular coin is being spoken about (again). Six or eight years ago (give or take), I was at a PCGS invitation and sitting at a table full of "classic guys". The subject of moderns came up and I mentioned just how scarce some of these business strike coins can be in high grade. I mentioned the 1983-P quarter as an example and that I would pay $1,000 for a PCGS-MS67 graded coin. I got the attention of a number of people at the table and in particular Mike DeFalco (and his partner). Mike seemed to recall that he had a number of fresh 1983-P quarter rolls in his safe, but it simply would not be worth his time to go to the effort for me to buy just (1) coin. If memory serves me right, I agreed to purchase up to (5) coins at $1,000 per coin and gave everyone at the table plenty of time to deliver to me. Mike told me he was heading back to the office right after the invitational dinner to screen the coins and get them submitted ASAP. He doubled checked that I was locked in for up to (5) units at $1,000 per coin and I told him it was a "go".
It was our standing joke at a number of invitational dinners thereafter. Of course, no dealer was able to slab even a single piece in the months and years ahead. The pop has remained at 5 for years. I have many "pop 1"and "pop 2" clad quarters in my#1 Registry set, but not the pop 5 1983-P at this time. The last coin I had, I gave to a very special customer for a collection he asked me to build for him for his child born in 1983. The one before that ... I liked my MS66 coin slightly better and sold off the MS67 to a dealer who had been asking me for one for a while. While I still really like my MS66 coin (and hopefully it will at least + when I submit it one day for + grading), I would like to fill that slot again with an MS67 coin. Maybe at the next invitational I attend I can challenge that table of classic dealers with an offer of $2,000/coin for it!! Or, even $2,500 for that matter!
I really enjoyed the few dealings I had with Mike (our paths really did not cross all that much with his love for DMPL Morgans, etc.) and I know he always enjoyed this 1983-P quarter story which is why I am repeating it here. Rest in Peace Mikey.
Wondercoin
Analyst - I have the top registry set of MS clad quarters at PCGS ... a collection I started more than 30 years ago. In that time, I have found 2 (-3- at best) MS67 quality 1969-P quarters. I started hunting for them seriously around 1982. In the time I have spent searching for 1969-P high grade business strike quarters, I probably could have writen (5) books as long as War & Peace. With all due respect, you are commenting about this particular coin with virtually no hands on experience (you say as much). Truly, your assumptions are way off ... but that is not surprising as most coin dealers have no clue just how scarce a 1969-P quarter really is in MS67 grade. Cladking knows, AllCoinsRule (who just commented) knows, I obviously know.
Would you like to have a serious discussion about business strike clad quarters from the mid 1960's and early 1970's? If the topic really does not interest you, I understand. If you would like to do an article on them, I am sure experts like CladKing etc. would love to contribute to such an article. I can also share with you in detail just what my hunt has consisted of spanning the past (30) years.
I acknowledge you are merely suggesting that it makes no sense to YOU to spend a lot of money for a 1969 quarter, but, you might feel slightly different if you heard from the "hunters" who have come up empty for decades in their pursuit of a single superb gem specimen.
Wondercoin
<< <i>I wish to strongly challenge this statement. Folders for collecting coins were popular before and after 1965 and remain so today. >>
This might seem logical but it simply is not true. Many of the early folders and albums
for circulatinfg moderns included spots for the '65-D, '66-D etc. These were all made in
the days before the Coinage Act of 1965 upset everything. There are a few penny and
nickel albums from the early '70's but sales were abysmal. I am aware of no folders or
albums whatsoever for circulating clad before 1984. I bought a clad quarter folder made
by Whitman in 1984 and believe it was the first one made since 1964. You could see hun-
dreds of silver quarter collections come into coin shops for every clad quarter collection
even into the 1990's. Most such clad collections went straight into circulation. Even as
late as 1999 most dealers would spend the rare BU clad roll that appeared in the shop.
They learned that a few of these had large premiums only recently. The reason they don't
all have far higher premiums is two fold; there is virtually no demand at all and quality tends
to be extremely poor.
It was about 2003 that albums for clads reappeared. I started a thread on this subject.
It got little response which isn't very surprising really;
12-4-03
There were virtually no collectors of moderns whatsoever before the states coins in 1998
and the number is still tiny compared to the numbers of classic collectors. There are millions
of newbies though and many of them have started in this area.
<< <i>Many people still collect coins out of change, and many others buy post-1964 coins for small premiums to put in such folders or other albums. >>
Not exactly. People aren't still collecting out of change, they are again collecting from change.
<< <i>I cannot accept CladKing’s notions that 1969 quarters, 1983 quarters or 2006-D dimes are somehow rare. Many of the people who have them probably do not even look carefully at them, and CladKing is assuming that there are not many choice uncirculated representatives of such issues. Logic suggests that there could be a substantial number. Besides, if many millions of a coin issue survive in grades below 63, it is very common. In my articles, I refer to the commonality of business strikes dating from 1935 to the present. I acknowledge that there are a few exceptions. >>
Fewer than about 80,000 Unc 1982-P quarters survive!!! This is few enough to get people pretty
excited if it were an indian cent or Morgan dollar. But as a clad quarter it doesn't exactly stir the
blood of many collectors. What makes this coin a standout however is that the vast majority of
them are junk. It is entirely possible that fewer than a dozen well made gems exist. I'm not talk-
ing pop tops here; just nice gems. It's not as though truly choice Uncs are very common since there
may be no more than a few hundred of them which are well made.
cont...
<< <i>
CladKing could be right, but my guess is that there are many rolls of 1965 cents in existence. Kids (and plenty of adults) have been assembling sets of pennies since the 19th century, especially since the 1930s. There was a boom in collecting (then) contemporary coins in the 1960s. There are probably numerous folders, which are mostly filled, in attics and basements. It is relevant that, since the 1960s, there have been folders for Memorial Cents. People like to fill them, often with uncirculated coins. >>
1965 cents are hardly scarce coins by any definition. Rolls are not uncommon. But people
did quit collecting cents and nickels in 1965 just like the clad coins but to a lesser extent.
About 30 wheat cent collections will come in for each set including cents after 1969. Many
collectors of moderns do like Unc coins and this especially applies to cents. The modern cents
are all common but not nearly to the degree most people assume. They are also common in
gem but there are several dates where "common" means that they will require some effort
to locate. Very few are common in superb gem and some are highly elusive. The '88-D and
'89-D are common in very high grade but that's about it.
<< <i>I admit that I am not an expert in the condition rarity of high grade 1969 quarters. There were 176,212,000 minted and many are still in circulation Does it really make sense to spend a lot of money for a 1969 quarter? It is curious that CladKing is certain that no one has a few dozen rolls of choice to gem Unc. 1969 quarters? It seems to me that coin stores, small show dealers, would have been selling them to beginning collectors and kids from the 1970s to the present. Even if there are few gems, there are literally millions of 1969 quarters in existence. >>
I understand this seems like the way it must be but this is not the way it really is. There are
virtually no rolls of 1969 quarters at all. I've never seen one since 1969. The '69-D is a tough
roll but the '69 is nearly nonexistent. This coin came terrible and they were not saved. It's
been too long to expect these rolls to appear now. One would have to assume that owning
a '69 quarter roll confirmed immortality to explain their absense. For years I hunted the simi-
lar 1959 Greek 2D (same size and composition and face value) and couldn't find it. Everyone
told me with the huge mintage that it was common and it didn't matter if I could find it or not
since it would never be sought. It goes for $650 now.
<< <i>I contend that these should and we are talking past each other. CladKing is pointing to a few condition rarities and ignoring the many millions of 1969 and 1983 quarters that exist in all grades. More than 670 MILLION 1983-P quarters were minted. Surely, more than one hundred million still exist, which is a large population. >>
It's not so much that I'm ignoring them as suggesting they don't matter. Look for a few months
and you can find an attractive well worn 1969 quarter. There are about 25,000,000 nice Fines
and Fine plusses in circulation. (the rest are highly worn or culls). But relatively few modern
collectors seek worn coins. Very few moderns are actually rare in worn condition but this hap-
pens too because of mass melting. About 450 million of the '83-P survive and this one is eas-
ily located in grades as high as a nice attractive AU-.
It goes far beyond condition rarities. I'm talking about all sorts of coins collectors desire and mod-
erns can be almost unavailable because they weren't intentionally set aside, weren't discovered,
had poor sales, or didn't appear in mint sets.
<< <i>For many Liberty Seated coin issues, less than one thousand exist in all grades! I just mentioned a few of them in my preview of the Summer FUN Auction. Moreover, given the respective mintages, it is likely that there are people who have uncirculated 1969 or 1983 quarters without realizing that these have significant value above twenty five cents each. >>
I very much doubt it. There's so little demand for the '69 that gems might trade hands at $1.25
wholesale but the odds of this occurriung are extremely low because these coins are too scarce
to actually trade hands. People just didn't set aside clad or most world moderns.
<< <i>Even if CladKing is correct about the condition rarity of a few clad issues, a few anomalies should not deflect attention from my overall theorems. There are exceptions to rules. >>
But again there are the numerous very rare varieties. And there are a whole lot more "condition
rarities" if you look at higher grades. A '70 quarter is fairly "common" in gem but in superb con-
dition it's as tough as most from the era. A '70-S can be found in superb condition with extreme
effort but gems are even tougher!
I can understand why moderns aren't many peoples' cup of tea. But the low prices are indicative
of very low demand and not because they are common. Even many of the "common" modern nic-
kels have fewer surviving examples than the '50-D nickel but these sell for a few dollars a roll rat-
her than $15 each.
<< <i>Given the literally billions of clad coins that were minted, why are you sure that you know how many gem quality clad coins are in existence? In the 1960s and especially in the 1970s, there were a large number of coin stores all across the nation and hundreds of thousands of people collecting from change or getting rolls from banks. >>
There are almost no clad rolls in existence. I've still looked at hundreds of them over the decades
and can assure you they are mostly junk. The mint made very few gems for circulation and almost
everyone they made was scratched up before it left the mint. People weren't even looking at clads
so the mint didn't need any quality control. Clad is very difficult to strike anyway and dies wear very
quickly.
For most US moderns one must turn to the mint sets. But the coins in mint sets aren't necessarily
nice and the attrition on these has been staggering.
<< <i>CladKing and I are talking past each other in that my primary point in the cited articles relate to the overall numbers of coins, not condition rarities. I often refer to the total number of a respective coin issue in existence not just the number that grade 6X or higher! >>
Quite true but this is simply a different perspective. Obviously there is almost no chance that a '69
quarter is ever going to be tougher than an 1807 draped bust half. But no one collects bust halfs
in gem and very few in Unc. It really doesn't matter how many standing liberty quarters exist to
the clad quarter market. Supply and demand determine price just like the 1807 half.
<< <i>Suppose that there survive five million coins of a given issue that grade less than 63, and twenty thousand that grade MS-64, how much should be spent for one that grades MS-67 or even 69? >>
There isn't one single eagle reverse quarter that even approaches being so common. Most col-
lectors like nice attractive coins and this tends to mean nice MS-63's and MS-64. Most US moderns
are not scarce at this level but most are probably much scarcer than non-modern collectors believe.
Something like an '81-P nickel with nice attractive surfaces can cause a picky collector a headache.
People should keep in mind that the lack of demand results in many more coins being available.
When people start collecting these they are going to get a great deal tougher.