Seated Quarter Experts...
Coin Finder
Posts: 7,218 ✭✭✭✭✭
Is the 1871 P with motto no arrows considered a better date at a low mintage of 118,000 even though it is the 3rd highest mintage motto no arrows quarter?
Are they hard to find in EF or higher?
Thanks in advance for the info..
Are they hard to find in EF or higher?
Thanks in advance for the info..
0
Comments
<< <i>Is the 1871 P with motto no arrows considered a better date at a low mintage of 118,000 even though it is the 3rd highest mintage motto no arrows quarter?
Are they hard to find in EF or higher?
Thanks in advance for the info.. >>
I'm no expert by any means, but the '71 is tough in unc, and has been recognized as such for years. The Philly issues from the year before and the year after are very tough in unc. too.
<< <i>The 1871 is very scarce in any grade. It's not easy to find a nice XF or AU. I would say it is tougher than 1872, but a little more common than 1868, if that helps. None of the P-mints between 1863 and 1873 (No Arrows) are easy to find in XF or better, regardless of mintage. >>
The 1871 and 1872 are pretty comparable in circ condition. I may give the edge to the 1871 in unc but the 1872 in full gem. The S mints of these 2 dates are impossible.
The 71 and 72 are sleepers compared to the usually preferred 1863-1870 Philly run. Yet only the 66 and 69 are much tougher. The 71 and 72 can stand up well to the others.
And the lower mintage 1870 is imo easier to find. So you can't always hang your hat on mintages. The lowly mintage of 30,000 on the '68 is not indicative its rarity. Other
coins with 2X to 5X the mintages are tougher, especially the mint marks. Problem free anything from VF-AU is a challenging task for any of these. Almost easier to find
one in unc as there so few people building unc sets. I'd probably put the 71 and 72 in the 300-500 known category. The 63 and 65 are the most common dates of that Philly run.
The 1847-0 with a large mintage of 368,000 is in the same league as of any these mid-tier Philly dates. And in higher grades the like XF or higher it starts to distance itself. And there
are no proofs to worry about that sometimes confuse the issue.
roadrunner
<< <i>
<< <i>The 1871 is very scarce in any grade. It's not easy to find a nice XF or AU. I would say it is tougher than 1872, but a little more common than 1868, if that helps. None of the P-mints between 1863 and 1873 (No Arrows) are easy to find in XF or better, regardless of mintage. >>
The 1871 and 1872 are pretty comparable in circ condition. I may give the edge to the 1871 in unc but the 1872 in full gem. The S mints of these 2 dates are impossible.
The 71 and 72 are sleepers compared to the usually preferred 1863-1870 Philly run. Yet only the 66 and 69 are much tougher. The 71 and 72 can stand up well to the others.
And the lower mintage 1870 is imo easier to find. So you can't always hang your hat on mintages. The lowly mintage of 30,000 on the '68 is not indicative its rarity. Other
coins with 2X to 5X the mintages are tougher, especially the mint marks. Problem free anything from VF-AU is a challenging task for any of these. Almost easier to find
one in unc as there so few people building unc sets. I'd probably put the 71 and 72 in the 300-500 known category.
roadrunner >>
I've come in recent years to consider the '70 as tougher than the '71 in unc.
There is a monster '71 in a PCGS 68 holder that was made fairly recently I believe, I'd love to hear from someone who has seen the coin as I have not. 1871 PC 68
Edited to add the link to the superb 1871 in a 68 holder
coin. Has the often seen weak "BER" on the shield as well. If one didn't see the date you'd swear it was from the hoards of 1979-1890 quarters. Pre-1873 seated quarters
with lower mintages aren't supposed to look like this. I don't see any high grade PCGS coins in my last pop report but I do note a MS67 in my 2001 NGC census. If that coin
were grade a few years earlier than that it could be the same coin. If the NGC 67 goes off the grid then we have a match.
I've usually found that the 1870's in unc always seem to have some "issues." Finding a problem free MS65 with orig surfaces (ie not dipped) is pretty hard. But the pop reports
seem to support your thoughts that the 71 and 72 are tougher. I have a lot of memories of inspecting many 1870 quarters over the years only to hand them back to the dealer
because they had problems. I never ran across an unc that I liked enough to buy. Actually found a raw choice MS63 1872 in a junk box of coins at my local dealer. I bought the
"junk" box for $500 and sold the box (less the 1872) for $500. Later sold the 1872 after it slabbed for $1250. This was back in the 1990's. But how unusual to find such a date
in unc jostling around in a box of circ coins. There was also a trade dollar and 20c piece in that group so it wasn't really junk. Had the 72 not picked up some light wipes and scrapes
from that box, it would have been MS64. Had my local dealer not graded that 71 as AU it's unlikely I would have been able to buy it. But that guy graded any coin with luster as
AU if there was any defect whatsoever on it. If a coin had any strike weakness, he would assume it was wear. Nice to have dealers like that around....lol.
roadrunner
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
1871 liberty seated quarters in PCGS and NGC holders it is 81 coins.
1870 total is 83 coins.
1868 total is 87 coins while
1864-S is 86 coins.
If you go by surviving examples these coins should be similar in price but the 1864-S is much higher because of the mint-mark and the lower mintage. There are still quite a few raw examples of these dates around-however percentage wise to each other i do not think changes much. I like all the dates from 1863-1872 also. My favorite is 1867-many of these were struck poorly and the "liberty" even on higher grade examples is not too great. JMO. Bob
But definitely go to the link for the zoom-option image. Astounding coin.
<< <i>That image in the link jhdfla posted is so awesome, here's a direct reference to accompany what's being discussed above:
But definitely go to the link for the zoom-option image. Astounding coin. >>
nice quarter, i like
<< <i>The Philadelphia dates (In almost any series) have never gotten the respect as the mint-marked coins. If you check the total populations for:
1871 liberty seated quarters in PCGS and NGC holders it is 81 coins.
1870 total is 83 coins.
1868 total is 87 coins while
1864-S is 86 coins.
If you go by surviving examples these coins should be similar in price but the 1864-S is much higher because of the mint-mark and the lower mintage. There are still quite a few raw
examples of these dates around-however percentage wise to each other i do not think changes much. I like all the dates from 1863-1872 also. My favorite is 1867-many of these were
struck poorly and the "liberty" even on higher grade examples is not too great. JMO. Bob >>
Your numbers represent "surviving" specimens entombed in PCGS and NGC slabs. That doesn't necessarily reflect actual surviving coins in and out of holders. As the date becomes
more key and more expensive it tends to "have to be" slabbed to get all the money for it. 1871 quarters in XF don't need slab to get a great price. But 1864-s quarters in almost any
grade, and especially in Fine or better benefit much more by being slabbed as "problem-free." In general I would say that the 64-s is at least twice as scarce as the 1871. And there are
no proofs available with the S mints to give relief. Figure about 125-200 1864-s quarters in existence. But my best estimate would be on the lower half of that range. There are a lot of
semi-scarce seated quarters with fairly low pops because most owners of these coins see no need to send them in. They are happy keeping their sets/mini-hoards raw. A high % of
1870-cc's have probably been submitted because they are worth a ton and the risk of a fake could bury you. Not too many people are faking 1871 XF quarters. What the PCGS pops
above are really saying to me is that twice as many 64-S quarters have been slabbed because of the various reasons already mentioned above. The price of a Fine-AU 1871 quarter is
not going to sky rocket until there are several hundred of seated quarter set collectors out there. If there are only 100-200 set/key date collectors that's not enough to soak up all the
Philly coins. It is however probably enough to soak up nearly all the better date mm coins.
The Philly coins haven't gotten the respect that the mint marked coins have received is because most fall behind. Only the 1842 LD, 1851, 1853 na, 1866, 1869, and 1886 imo may
compare favorably to most in this group of rarest MM coins when all grades are considered among the non-rarities (listed below):
40-0 wd lg o, 42-0 sd, 49-0, 51-0, 52-0, 54-0 huge O, 60-s, 64-s, 66-s, 67-s, 70-cc, 71-s, 71-cc, 72-s, 72-cc, 73-cc wa.
It's interesting that some of the highest mintages of this group are the rarest in the group.
I'm not saying the scarcer Philly coins aren't tough or underrated because 75% of all seated quarter dates are rarer than a 1901-s Barber quarter. It's just that the mm pieces have
earned their worthiness over the years. And one cannot go by mintages when deciding that. I love the 42 LD and 51 quarters as being pretty scarce and quite underrated. Those
early P-mints tend to go unrecognized. And there aren't saved uncs or proofs to bail them out like low mintage Philly dates in the 1860's-1880's. They came at a time when little
got saved and major silver melts followed. Philly collectors of the 1860's and 1870's ensured that an abnormally high % of those coins survived vs. New Orleans and San Francisco.
Fine-XF circ examples of 66, 69, 86, etc. are incredibly scarce, probably rare. But there are uncs (and proofs) to help fill that void. You don't have that luxury with mm coins or early Philly dates.
roadrunner