Whats going on with Indian head cents?

cohodk

Hey, come on, its Sunday morning.

In 1901 an Indian Head cent was worth 1c, now close to a buck---90 to 100x.
In 1901 an ounce of gold was $20, now $1850---92x. Lets call it even.

So are/were IHCs a store of value?

Julio

Cododk, what grade, MM and date? What price source? Inquiring minds want to know. I know you really know your coins and how to grade. jws

roadrunner

So are/were IHCs a store of value?

This is the price of a low grade Good Indian cent.

Sure IHC's have been a decent value vs. inflation over the past 110 yrs, as many coins and collectibles have been. We'd probably find
that most of that appreciation has occurred over the past 40 yrs, and especially so over the past 20 yrs. But I'd also bet that gold
has kicked the good IHC's butt over the past 10 yrs. Good grade IC's made a nice price run during the inflationary years
of 2004-2008. I don't know what they've done since but it may not be much. Gold did nothing from 10-40 yrs ago. But as usual,
we're more interested about the last 10 yrs since it's what counts.....and the next 5 yrs as well.

I may be mistaken but I seem to recall that Indian cents were close to buck quite some time ago during a previous market run or promotion.
Might have been 1989-1990. Gold was in the $350-$525 range during that last market boom period of 1988-1990. It's never so much about
the last 50, 100, or 150 year performance as it is about the last 5-10 years. The fact that gold and silver did so poorly from 1980-2001 only ensured
that they would do extremely well from 2002 onward.

But if you put away a roll of fresh BU IHC's back in 1901 those would be worth quite a bit more than $1 each today. That was the play of the century.
10,000-1 return on average....much better than anything common date BU gold could have mustered. Of course the time to sell that roll would have
been in 1989-90 when it was worth much more than today. Gold has done much better than that over the past 20 yrs.

roadrunner

PerryHall

This thread doesn't belong here. You may get a lot more sponses on the U.S. Coin forum.

roadrunner

I don't think there are a lot of collectors in the open forum discussing "good" Indian cent deals for $1 each. At least I've never seen one.

Definitely an economic performance related thread So what has been the best performer since 1901 in the rare coin market place? One with $1 in your
pocket what would be worth the most today that you could have gotten from a local bank or the US mint cashier's window? I'd leave out
a coin dealer's shop because obviously you could have cherry picked anything over the years....like an 1870-s half dime for a few bucks.

Maybe a BU roll of 1908-s, 1909-s Indians? 1909-s VDB or 1914d Lincs? Those would be sweet in full brick RED.
I don't think the nickels and dimes can hold up to the leverage of the cent. Yeah, maybe a roll of 1916/16 nickels but the odds of getting one randomly
on a trip to the bank or mint would have been about zero. Those penny rolls were readily available at the time and a number of people put them away.
And if you did happen to snag a roll of 1916/16 nickels in BU, your purchase would have skewed the unc market (time warp continuum) such that they would
be worth half of today's values.

roadrunner

fivecents

IHC are only worth(sell for) 50 cents in my neck of the woods, but gold sells for spot price.

stevek

<< <i>Hey, come on, its Sunday morning.

In 1901 an Indian Head cent was worth 1c, now close to a buck---90 to 100x.
In 1901 an ounce of gold was $20, now $1850---92x. Lets call it even.

So are/were IHCs a store of value? >>



Considering this point, I'm presuming done tongue in cheek...the more interesting point in my view, is what will be a store of value one hundred years from now, or even say ten or twenty years from now. I'm sure those in 1901 looked back at some things from 1801 and wished their relatives would have saved those things. Maybe vintage wagon wheels were a highly prized collectable back then in 1901. But frankly, I think it's really just as hard now to look at the future as it was in 1901, perhaps even much harder because the world has certainly become more dynamic.

I know this may seem funny, but some unforeseen circumstance or change in human condition either good or bad, could make some types of collecting obsolete in a hundred years. I doubt it, but it could be possible that precious metals, for whatever reason become irrelevent in the early 22nd century...and something near worthless now, is actually of supreme value then.

Of course ya never can tell, one way or the other...but if I may be so bold, I am going to go out on a limb and predict that Beanie Babies will have no value by the 22nd century.

RedTiger

In one of the retrospective threads, I dug out records from my purchases in 1994, which included a rolls of common average circ Indian cents, Liberty nickels, and AU Morgan dollars. The cents and nickels are up a modest amount maybe 25% on a retail price basis, so a loss if sold wholesale today. The Morgans were $8 per coin so up about 300%, even though the $8 was a considerable premium over melt value for 1994. There was also a 1/10 ounce gold coin that is up a similar 300% to 400% even after factoring the significant retail premium over melt. So the person with the cents could have swapped out at some point to stay ahead of the game. Back in 1994, the cent hoarder was ahead of the gold and silver hoarders, now perhaps even on a retail basis for circulated coins. Someone with a few gem 1901 cents is still well ahead.

There was another thread about hoarding large quantities of gem Indian cents, but the hole in the idea, is that if a person saved a large quantity of them, they wouldn't be worth as much (like the 1909 Lincoln cents, or 1883 no-cent nickels). Yet another thread mentioned paper money, the conundrum is that gem quality paper money is worth as much if not more than gem $20 gold pieces from that era even with zero intrinsic value. On the other side, average circ folded notes with holes in the paper are not worth as much.

halfhunter

<< <i>

<< <i>Hey, come on, its Sunday morning.

In 1901 an Indian Head cent was worth 1c, now close to a buck---90 to 100x.
In 1901 an ounce of gold was $20, now $1850---92x. Lets call it even.

So are/were IHCs a store of value? >>



Considering this point, I'm presuming done tongue in cheek...the more interesting point in my view, is what will be a store of value one hundred years from now, or even say ten or twenty years from now. I'm sure those in 1901 looked back at some things from 1801 and wished their relatives would have saved those things. Maybe vintage wagon wheels were a highly prized collectable back then in 1901. But frankly, I think it's really just as hard now to look at the future as it was in 1901, perhaps even much harder because the world has certainly become more dynamic.

I know this may seem funny, but some unforeseen circumstance or change in human condition either good or bad, could make some types of collecting obsolete in a hundred years. I doubt it, but it could be possible that precious metals, for whatever reason become irrelevent in the early 22nd century...and something near worthless now, is actually of supreme value then.

Of course ya never can tell, one way or the other...but if I may be so bold, I am going to go out on a limb and predict that Beanie Babies will have no value by the 22nd century. >>



Hey . . . Maybe that closet full of Mint wrapped Lewis & Clark nickels I have will be worth more than the 9 bucks a box I paid for them by then ! ! !



HH

jmski52

Yeah, I bought a roll and a half of VG Indian Cents from someone not too long ago, and I feel that I got a pretty good deal. They don't make 'em like that anymore!

Jinx86

Sorry but back in 1901 my family was still using those wagon wheels on the farm daily. Who knows maybe enough wheat cents will be destroyed or who knows what and 100 years from now I can get more then 3C each.

roadrunner

There was basically no overall price inflation in the US from 1801 to 1901. Prices were actually slightly lower (ie price deflation).
But somehow the 19th century saw a massive growth and industrial boom with the "dreaded" deflation that bankers fear so much.

So those keepsakes passed down from 1801 to 1901 probably didn't gain that much value unless they were extraordinarily rare, esp. wagon wheels.

But...1901 to 2011 as the dollar lost >95% of it's value with 20X price inflation.....it made sense to save everything potentially collectible in 1901 to
weather the storm to follow over the next 100 yrs. We've been forced as a society to "collect" anything and everything over the past 50 yrs to try and
hide from the effects of continued and unavoidable monetary inflation. Bread, circus, and collecting.

roadrunner

goingbroke

<< <i>This thread doesn't belong here. You may get a lot more sponses on the U.S. Coin forum. >>

O- O its the thread police! better hide! LOL

stevek

<< <i>There was basically no overall price inflation in the US from 1801 to 1901. Prices were actually slightly lower (ie price deflation).
But somehow the 19th century saw a massive growth and industrial boom with the "dreaded" deflation that bankers fear so much.

So those keepsakes passed down from 1801 to 1901 probably didn't gain that much value unless they were extraordinarily rare, esp. wagon wheels.

But...1901 to 2011 as the dollar lost >95% of it's value with 20X price inflation.....it made sense to save everything potentially collectible in 1901 to
weather the storm to follow over the next 100 yrs. We've been forced as a society to "collect" anything and everything over the past 50 yrs to try and
hide from the effects of continued and unavoidable monetary inflation. Bread, circus, and collecting.

roadrunner >>



Sad isn't it what politicians have done to the dollar...progressive government at its finest.

Actually, deflation should be the norm in a healthy growing society whereby increased technology makes things easier and less labor intensive to build, and in quantity there are economies of scale. So believe it or not that 95% decrease in value would actually be worse if factoring in that there naturally should have been deflation during the 20th century...with the exception of the period during the two World Wars.

Baley

So believe it or not that 95% decrease in value is actually worse than it appears.

So why is everyone so much better off now than they were in 1901 or 1801?

All those with dystopian views of the present: name one thing that's worse for the average human being now than it was 110 or 210 years ago?

Back to the OP: Yes, on a percentage basis, the indian cents did fine, even the circulated ones. But what kind of quantity can you hold? it doesn't scale well as an investment idea. I have a couple rolls each of indian cents, buffalo nickels, barber coins, etc, but they're primarily for fun, not investment or even capital preservation

Steve27

<< <i>There was basically no overall price inflation in the US from 1801 to 1901. Prices were actually slightly lower (ie price deflation).
But somehow the 19th century saw a massive growth and industrial boom with the "dreaded" deflation that bankers fear so much.

So those keepsakes passed down from 1801 to 1901 probably didn't gain that much value unless they were extraordinarily rare, esp. wagon wheels.

But...1901 to 2011 as the dollar lost >95% of it's value with 20X price inflation.....it made sense to save everything potentially collectible in 1901 to
weather the storm to follow over the next 100 yrs. We've been forced as a society to "collect" anything and everything over the past 50 yrs to try and
hide from the effects of continued and unavoidable monetary inflation. Bread, circus, and collecting.

roadrunner >>



There was just as much economic turmoil in the 19th century as the 20th. As for inflation, just look at the switchover from the large cent to the small cent in 1857. A good example of deflation was the depression of 1869 caused by the gold standard (the economy couldn't expand due the lack of new gold), and then the depression of 1873.

stevek

<< <i> So believe it or not that 95% decrease in value is actually worse than it appears.

So why is everyone so much better off now than they were in 1901 or 1801?

All those with dystopian views of the present: name one thing that's worse for the average human being now than it was 110 or 210 years ago?

Back to the OP: Yes, on a percentage basis, the indian cents did fine, even the circulated ones. But what kind of quantity can you hold? it doesn't scale well as an investment idea. I have a couple rolls each of indian cents, buffalo nickels, barber coins, etc, but they're primarily for fun, not investment or even capital preservation >>



I expounded and clarified my point after you posted. Nobody said that basically everyone in America isn't better off than they were in 1901. Nobody is saying that certain things shouldn't cost more money mainly because there have been new inventions and such. A modern automobile would naturally cost more than a Model T because it's a bigger car with more features and assessories. What I am saying is simply that we are paying much more money for this modern car than we should be, even with inflation factored in.

57loaded

<< <i>

But if you put away a roll of fresh BU IHC's back in 1901 those would be worth quite a bit more than $1 each today. That was the play of the century.
10,000-1 return on average....much better than anything common date BU gold could have mustered. Of course the time to sell that roll would have
been in 1989-90 when it was worth much more than today. Gold has done much better than that over the past 20 yrs.

roadrunner >>



i knew there was something i should have done back then!

mkman123

Take your bag of indian heads to a foreign country and your screwed, I take the gold and they will give me something for it.

roadrunner

There was just as much economic turmoil in the 19th century as the 20th. As for inflation, just look at the switchover from the large cent to the small cent in 1857. A good example of deflation was the depression of 1869 caused by the gold standard (the economy couldn't expand due the lack of new gold), and then the depression of 1873.

The size/qty of silver dimes, quarters, halves, dollars plus gold coins dwarfed the value of the circulating pennies and remained essentially the same from the 1820's to 1964. I don't see how pennies were a big player or a sign of a major economic shift. When the penny was shrunk to slightly less than 50% in size/intrinsic value in 1857 did that mean that the nation just experienced 100% inflation in one year? Why weren't all the other denominations changed as well? When the greenbacks came out in 1861 it wasn't long before all silver and gold coin disappeared from circulation. That was a much more defining event for the middle of the 19th century and signified leaving the gold standard.

There has been turmoil in all centuries, and nearly of all it from bankers and govts fiddlin' with the money supply. First they over-expand it then they over-contract it. The bankers know this game and have been playing it for centuries. Bottom line, prices fell from 1801 to 1901. It is what is. Any turmoil inbetween was from our dear bankers either cheating on the gold system, paper money systems, or both. Panics resulted from the expansion of money supplies (such as from 1812-1816) to finance wars, followed by contractions (1819-1823). The depression of 1869 certainly had its roots in the cessation of the gold standard in 1861 upon which millions in greenbacks filtered into the economy to finance the Civil War. How can gold be a cause of anything in 1869 when a gold standard didn't even exist from 1861-1879? Any major economic disasters that came aftter the Civil War seem to be well-rooted in almost 20 yrs of green backs. Now there was a gold scheme hatched in 1869 where a pair of traders speculated the price of gold up to $165/oz during that year. I don't know the particulars but it was a scheme where it went up fast and came down faster. That seemed much more like a one off play lasting hours, days or weeks than a major economic event. Gold and silver get the blame for everything negatively affecting the economy in the 19th century. But in fact you can trace it all back to playing with the money supply. It always comes down to integrity and trust, difficult things for bankers to obtain. Even when the gold standard was in full effect you had bankers lending out more paper than they had gold to back it. They counted on the fact that people wouldn't show up looking for their gold until it was too late. There was always paper money right along side gold whether issued by the 1st or 2nd US Banks or by state/city banks. You might as well say paper implies cheating. Behind most economic panics and recessions in the 19th century you will find cheating bankers. Gold is not capable of cheating on its own. .

Since the start of the Civil War the only true gold standard existed from 1900-1913. The bankers initiated the panic of 1907 to begin the process of removing the gold standard. In Dec 1913 they got the next key step by getting the FRA through Congress. With the advent of WW1 in 1914 all major nations left the gold standard. And that was the last time we really had one. While a semi-functioning gold standard returned to the world in 1920-1925 it did not contain a real bills clause. Hence debts were never fully extinguished via gold. Call it a toothless gold standard. The Bretton-Woods agreement in 1944 basically gave the US the license to print money and say it was gold-backed, certainly not a true gold standard. It only took approx 25 yrs of abusing that privilege that the rest of the world had had enough. It's odd how much bad press the gold standard gets considering that over the past 150 yrs, it was only truly in effect for about 15-20 years.

A future gold-backed money system could still be cheated on. So having one is no guarantee of anything. The bankers created unregulated otc derivatives in 1998-2001 to get around the standard monetary system. Had we still had a gold system at that time it no doubt would have been blamed for the derivative's mess...lol. But bankers still would have created that scam and worked around both the standard US monetary system and the gold standard....just like they did in the 19th and 20th centuries. If bankers want to cheat, they will find a way. The Rothschilds knew that controlling money supplies meant controlling nations.

roadrunner

MoneyLA

There are many "stores of value" in the world of collectibles that can compete with gold or even surpass gold. Gold is not unique.