1963 Red Book Error Value

frnklnlvr

I was reading an article on Red Books in the Nov. 28, 2011 edition of Coin World on pg. 22. It mentions a few of the error RBs so I decided to go check my copies. The first book I pulled out was the 1963 16th edition for which an error exists of page 237 missing and two pages of 239. I was surprised to see that I had one of the errors since the article mentions it's one of the rarest RB errors.

The book is in great shape. The binding, pages, and cover look almost new. The only markings are the Stack's logo stamped in the front and $2.00 written in pencil from the thrift shop I bought it from.

I'm trying to find out the value if anyone could be of any help. I checked Ebay and did a google search but couldn't find much info.

MFH

I haven't looked at my 1963 Red Book in ages
however, my Very Well Used Copy has
the same printing error.

That issue came out when I was 16 and I
was collecting quite a few coins and had't
concentrated on any particular series.

STONE

While I could be WAYYYYY wrong, I wouldn't think there's all that much interest,
demand, value in an error red book. But I'm not a biblio-nut!

frnklnlvr

<< <i>I haven't looked at my 1963 Red Book in ages
however, my Very Well Used Copy has
the same printing error.

That issue came out when I was 16 and I
was collecting quite a few coins and had't
concentrated on any particular series. >>



They may not be as rare as the article makes it sound.

You're probably right, Stone. It's probably a very small market.

Priest

In the late 1980's I don't know what exact year, the binding's print was oppisite to the contents. It was like a 180 degree rotation.

291fifth

A very, very thin market and an extremely common date Red Book as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the "premium" is zero.

nutmeg

I also read the article and years ago discovered I have that Redbook. When I offered it to a buyer/collector of Redbooks he priced it very low. So I decided to just keep it. I doubt if the value went up any.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

WinLoseWin

I used to dabble in buying and selling Red Books in the 1990's and accumulated several of the 1963 error editions.

For me I was more often able to find the error one instead of the regular one. Was never able to get much premium and dumped several remaining to a collector for $1.50 each. But since then have seen some sell on Ebay and mail bid sales for anywhere from a few dollars to over $20.00. I would agree it is a thin market. Check a recent Redbook, I think they may have it listed in the price guide in the back. Don't have it handy right now. Seems it was priced more than I thought they would bring.

Dentuck

Frank Colletti's Guide Book of the Official Red Book of United States Coins has quite a bit of information about
the 16th edition errors, including an account of them in R.S. Yeoman's own words.

BillJones

I got "stuck" with one of those back when I was kid collector. I didn't like the thing because it was imperfect. When I got older and was putting together a "reader's set" of Red Books, I blew the thing off a couple dollars.

COALPORTER

<< <i>While I could be WAYYYYY wrong, I wouldn't think there's all that much interest,
demand, value in an error red book. But I'm not a biblio-nut! >>



You are probably on to some good ideas thought!!

I can't beleive the things people are trying to extract value from - has the dollar really became so worthless??

rays

I don't know what value, if any, a red book error holds.
I still have my 1975 RB from High school.

steveben

according to the 2010 red book, a 1963 red book in vf condition is worth $5. it doesn't mention the error variety

denga

I checked my copy of the 1963 edition and it is the error variety mentioned by the OP.

19Lyds

<< <i>I checked my copy of the 1963 edition and it is the error variety mentioned by the OP. >>

It's starting to look like that particular RB is not all the rare.

Copperguy

I would love to pay those prices for Oregon gold

frnklnlvr

<< <i>

<< <i>I checked my copy of the 1963 edition and it is the error variety mentioned by the OP. >>

It's starting to look like that particular RB is not all the rare. >>



Sounds like the rare one may be the non-error version