Thanks everyone for the kind comments on the 64 quarter. One has to understand that PCGS has yet to award any silver quarter from 1932-64 with an MS68+ grade. In fact, it was easier for me to grade an SLQ in MS68+ (Which I did) than it was a Washinton quarter! As the grading services start to utilize the full grading scale over decades and decades of seeing more Washington silver quarters, the best coins will continue to rise to the top. So, yes, my 1964 quarter has "kept up" with "gradeflation" by being the very best coin for that slot. It was the nicest finest known MS67 I had ever seen, it is the nicest finest known MS67+ I have ever seen and, one day, may be the nicest MS68 I have ever seen if I can get the coin upgraded to MS68 (where I believe it belongs). There is really not much more a true collector of a series can do who wants the best other than buy the very best quality coin for the grade he can afford and hope it continues to be "ranked" there over time - no?
As always, just my two cents. Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
"Are you going to get all the coins TrueView'd eventually?"
Winged Liberty 1957 ... I will. I have not yet, because many of the coins in my set were put there 15, 20 and even 30 years ago. I believe there are many coins that will eventually upgrade and when I am finished with the upgrading that would be the perfect time to get the coins pictured. Thanks again for your kind words on my coins.
Your monster toned Cent collection is amazing!
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@KellenCoin said:
Yes, there are those collectors unfortunately. However, I wouldn't care about the difference between a 66 and 67; i would buy that 1799 dollar
@KellenCoin said:
Yes, there are those collectors unfortunately. However, I wouldn't care about the difference between a 66 and 67; i would buy that 1799 dollar
Why "unfortunately"?
It is unfortunate from my perspective of a collector of non-modern coins. In my eyes, those expensive amounts paid for modern coins could well be used to buy some nice older ones. Obviously, to each his own, just my opinion.
YN Member of the ANA, ANS, NBS, EAC, C4, MCA, PNNA, CSNS, ILNA, TEC, and more!
Always buying numismatic literature and sample slabs.
I actually bought this coin, and was willing to pay more then that for it. Wondercoin, I'll take your ms67+ for $4,000 if you'd like...lol.
The Heritage coin looks color bumped to me, and I don't find it super impressive for a 67. It is hard to see through the toning, but Wondercoin's coin looks miles and miles better than the Heritage piece IMHO.
@wondercoin said:
Thanks everyone for the kind comments on the 64 quarter. One has to understand that PCGS has yet to award any silver quarter from 1932-64 with an MS68+ grade. In fact, it was easier for me to grade an SLQ in MS68+ (Which I did) than it was a Washinton quarter! As the grading services start to utilize the full grading scale over decades and decades of seeing more Washington silver quarters, the best coins will continue to rise to the top. So, yes, my 1964 quarter has "kept up" with "gradeflation" by being the very best coin for that slot. It was the nicest finest known MS67 I had ever seen, it is the nicest finest known MS67+ I have ever seen and, one day, may be the nicest MS68 I have ever seen if I can get the coin upgraded to MS68 (where I believe it belongs). There is really not much more a true collector of a series can do who wants the best other than buy the very best quality coin for the grade he can afford and hope it continues to be "ranked" there over time - no?
As always, just my two cents. Wondercoin.
What happens when the coins max out at MS69 and MS70? Will the services give up on the 1-70 scale and add new numbers? The change in grading standards is terrifying to me. You buy a coin expecting it to hold its value, and it will only do so if the grading services continually bump it up to a higher grade. There is a limit to everything, and to me it seems akin to Russian Roulette. That said, I could say the same about classic coins. At least most moderns (Washington silver quarters and Franklin half dollars excepted), don't have the added CAC wrinkle.
Cameonut2011 .... Yes, the same could be said for Classics or moderns. And, thank you for acknowledging that two coins of the very same grade can be "miles and miles" different from each other (I agree wholeheartedly). And, Macge1 (a very skilled young numismatist) knows that as well. Look ... he paid 25 cents on the dollar of the Guide Price to buy the coin that he did. And, he was willing to pay a little more. Let's say he was willing to pay even as much as 33 1/3 cents on the dollar ($5,000). What you see is what you get for $4,000 or $5,000. That coin might be ideal for a customer that only has a budget of $4,000 or $5,000 for this slot. My 64 quarter is not for sale for $10,000 or even $15,000. It is the nicest business strike 64-P quarter out there as far as I know from 33 years of hunting for them.
Having such a quality coin has greatly assisted me with the reality that the Price Guide on typical MS67 Washington quarters for this date have dropped from $5,000 to $800 over the last roughly 10 years. Had I purchased a typical MS67 coin for the slot 10 years ago, I would likely be well "under water" on this date. BUT, and I repeat, BUT, PCGS has never graded a single MS68+ silver quarter (1932-64) in my series -EVER! Over the next few years and decades I know this will change as PCGS gets to see tens of thousands of additional MS silver quarters. And, if some of my current MS68 specimens that took me 3-4 decades to locate prove to be the nicest known examples of those dates a decade or two from now, why shouldn't they eventually be deemed MS68+ coins (or even an MS69)? Is this "gradeflation" or a natural evolution of the grading of a particular series?
Either way, I believe the goal (to build a world class set) is to buy the very finest quality one can afford for the grade they are comfortable with. I know there are collectors out there that are more comfortable with "quantity over quality". And, I respect their right to build such a collection.
Just my 2 cents. Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
WC, certainly "hats off" to your expertise and drive on these high grade monsters!
So one thing ...on my initial question of "are there really collectors of ... " ... the answer is clearly YES.
Two things that really struck me when I poked over to WC's gorgeous Washington Quarter registry set:
1.) the number of award badges WC had -- dominating from 2012 through 2016. Clearly WC is one of the top collectors in this field! Very impressive.
2.) how 3 relative newcomers have passed WC's set in the past year. This shows there IS active interest in these expensive high grade moderns. Actually, I am not sure if 1964 is even considered a modern? That is after all 50+ years old.
I fully expect WC to re-take the lead this year.
WC you're up for the challenge, right?
Looks like you are missing 1 coin any chance of finding that missing piece?
Certainly kudos are in order!
Two little side bars: 1.) D.Pooles set is retired. I am not sure why All Time Finest is given top billing over Current Finest. To me Current FInest is more relevant. I wonder why PCGS shows all time finest at the top of the ranking page? 2.) It's bizzare to me that the current top set is "hidden" ... why do all that work and make that investment to have a hidden set listed (I dont get it). I've seen this too many times to count. Someone going to the bother of a Registry Set but then making it a "hidden" -- especially bothersome when it's a a top ranked set.
It is unfortunate from my perspective of a collector of non-modern coins. In my eyes, those expensive amounts paid for modern coins could well be used to buy some nice older ones. Obviously, to each his own, just my opinion.
Someone collecting moderns doesn't take away from money spent on bust half dollars or the importance of them any more than collecting Morgans detracts from them. Each collector evolves over his career and most will collect in many areas. Having "dead zones" is bad for bad for the hobby because it eliminates entry points for newbies.
No dead zone can be more detrimental than the modern field because this is the traditional entry point. It was the widespread belief that coins minted after 1965 were "uncollectable" that had nearly killed the hobby by 1996. It was the recognition and emergence of moderns that brought it back from the brink.
If the hobby isn't big enough to include all collectors then it might not really be a hobby at all. What would automobile collecting be if everyone only wanted the first Model T's? Or stamp collectors only desired the inverted jenny?
WL1957... I recently submitted (2) coins from my silver set for upgrade and PCGS changed serial numbers on those coins creating two "holes" in my set. I need to add the new serial numbers to the set. Also, my Mint State Hall of Fame Washington quarter collection is not simply the (83) coins in the silver set you are looking at. My set is 1932-Date and closing in on 600 total coins. I have put a great deal of effort into the Mint State 1965-1998 clad series as those are greatly under appreciated (just ask Cladking). A coin such as a 1969-P and 1971-P are just as scarce in top grade as many coins from the 1930's I believe. Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
And, if some of my current MS68 specimens that took me 3-4 decades to locate prove to be the nicest known examples of those dates a decade or two from now, why shouldn't they eventually be deemed MS68+ coins (or even an MS69)? Is this "gradeflation" or a natural evolution of the grading of a particular series?
Either way, I believe the goal (to build a world class set) is to buy the very finest quality one can afford for the grade they are comfortable with. I know there are collectors out there that are more comfortable with "quantity over quality". And, I respect their right to build such a collection.
Just my 2 cents. Wondercoin
Thank you for taking the time to put forth a thoughtful response. My concern is that the very best coins might not always upgrade as they should, and in order to keep up and retain their value, you must spend hundreds in TPG submissions and hope that the numismatic stars align. Constantly changing grading standards and lower price guide values only seem to confuse the market. Wouldn't it be preferable to hold standards constant if the goal here is to accurately grade the coins and protect collectors (as opposed to generating funds for the grading services)? To me, the constantly evolving grading standards add a lot of uncertainty. From an investment standpoint, typically the more risk, the more return that is expected on the investment. Where am I going wrong in my thinking?
I'm certainly not a Washington expert and my opinion matters little, but if the other coin is representative of MS67+ or even MS67 quality, it is absurd that your coin isn't already in a 68 holder. It makes no sense to me whatsoever that both would be priced similarly except to an elite few who track the latest TPG grading trends and understand that yesterday's MS66s are today's MS67s and MS67+ and the old 67s are spreading their wings and landing in 68 holders.
Just some personal perspective --- The quantities of post-1934 US coins overhanging the hobby are very large, and few have been sent to authentication companies. The risk of someone's "$15,000" POP 1/1 becoming 200/1,000 is very great. Thus, this entire idea of "condition rarity" is a red herring for increasing sales and profit - until someone makes fish tacos.
I'm certainly not a Washington expert and my opinion matters little, but if the other coin is representative of MS67+ or even MS67 quality, it is absurd that your coin isn't already in a 68 holder."
I don't believe you are going wrong at all with your thinking. But, to coin a football saying: "The best offense is a good defense". I buy the best I can in the hopes that my coins are rated at the top of the chart for what they are - today, tomorrow and years from now. Yes, I agree that my coin should be in an MS68 holder. But, the coin just came back today from grading still in the MS67+ holder, while two other Washington Quarters in my collection (tough dates - 1972-P and 1981-P) upgraded to pop 1/0's for the date, So, another day on the 1964-P for that MS68 grade, but two nice pop 1/0's added to the collection today at least. Things could be worse.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Here is the 49-P MS68 quarter I bought when David Poole sold his collection through Heritage. It was the pop 1/0 MS68 coin for years and years. Until just recently when ...
This coin knocked my coin out of pop 1/0 status and became the pop 2/0 1949-P quarter. It sold at Heritage for about 1/4 of what my coin sold at as the pop 1. I bought mine for $17,625 and the pop 2 coin just sold at $4,935. The Price Guide editor moved the Price Guide down to $7,000 (when it was around $17,500 before the pop 2 coin was slabbed).
One day, hopefully, my coin gets elevated to MS68+. What else can a collector do but buy the best in the first place (besides not collect at all)?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Assuming that someone has solid for the grade ultra pop top silver Washington quarters or full step Jefferson nickel, where would that person best sell the coins?
This coin knocked my coin out of pop 1/0 status and became the pop 2/0 1949-P quarter. It sold at Heritage for about 1/4 of what my coin sold at as the pop 1. I bought mine for $17,625 and the pop 2 coin just sold at $4,935. The Price Guide editor moved the Price Guide down to $7,000 (when it was around $17,500 before the pop 2 coin was slabbed).
One day, hopefully, my coin gets elevated to MS68+. What else can a collector do but buy the best in the first place (besides not collect at all)?
Wondercoin
If they sold side by side in a future auction your coin would still sell for a major premium over the other for the color. You just need two people that want it.
While my 64-P silver did not upgrade this week, here is a clad Washington Quarter that did ... a 1981-P that is now the Pop 1/0 MS67+. I've probably been through the better part of 5,000 - 7,500 of the 1981 Mint Sets looking for high end coins starting back in 1982 and most of the quarters in those sets are roughly MS62 or MS63 quality. It's not easy to find a true MS65 or MS66 coin. This is the nicest 81-P quarter I have come across in the past 33 years of hunting. Again, a coin that probably has a shot to MS68 down the road I believe.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Heck fire, I went through the first page without realizing that this an old thread, but a good topic. Some people have more money than sense, but I have been guilty for paying over for AU58 coins for my Everyman Type Set. Live and let live, and don't criticize others for dong the something out of the ordinary...that is what makes someone unique...just like everybody else (oxymoron?).
oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's
Is there a reason for poor quality of mint set coins? Bad blanks? Do they come off the press that bad for some reason? Are the coins knocked around alot before getting cello'd. I always though if you cut a coin out if a pristine cello mint set it would be 66/67 at least. Clearly not true. I would be curious to see what happens to these coins between rolling off the press and getting cello'd. I wonder what the source is for most super high grades: mint sets, original bankrolls?
I don't think that Mint set coins are any different than business/regular strike coins. The pressure for the presses is just enough to get the job done. Proofs are just the opposite - special planchets, more pressure, individual handling, etc...
oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's
Mitch, that 49P dances circles around the other. Small consolation, though, since it's the grading services' opinions, and not mine, that counts for all this.
The discoveries that changed expensive 1/0 pops into 2/0 and 3/0 did much to induce me to sell out when I did, before they became 4/0s and 5/0s. Your alternative of plowing through rolls of Washingtons with the practiced eyes of your and your formidable and well-trained familial "disciples" is admirable and astoundingly impressive, a winner strategy for sure, but one only a very few in this hobby can hope to match, for the time, energy, resources and, particularly, skill involved.
Sincere congratulations for your talent and tenacity! Your sets stand as testimony and, ultimately and hopefully, your well-earned reward.
@WingedLiberty1957 said:
Is there a reason for poor quality of mint set coins? Bad blanks? Do they come off the press that bad for some reason? Are the coins knocked around alot before getting cello'd. I always though if you cut a coin out if a pristine cello mint set it would be 66/67 at least. Clearly not true. I would be curious to see what happens to these coins between rolling off the press and getting cello'd. I wonder what the source is for most super high grades: mint sets, original bankrolls?
Mint set coins are just regular issues that were made with new dies under higher pressure and struck at a lower speed. Most of them are about as good a strike as you'll see on copper nickel clad but there are no guarantees it will be clean or in any way perfect. Mint set '81 quarters typically have very bad surfaces. They are grainy, unattractive, and frequently have shallow scrapes.
Only a few are even what I'd call "attractive".
Ironically this is the year before people saved out quarters because of the discontinuance of mint sets yet most of the coins in the set have problems.
@oih82w8 said:
I don't think that Mint set coins are any different than business/regular strike coins. The pressure for the presses is just enough to get the job done. Proofs are just the opposite - special planchets, more pressure, individual handling, etc...
The real problem with mint set coins is that tens of thousands of superb well struck Gems are made for them but most will be scraped up in the mint handling equipment that washes, dries, and places them in the sets.
People who don't watch coins in circulation don't realize just how bad most of these coins are. In some dates almost all of them are struck by poorly adjusted, worn dies set at far too low pressure. The coins are poorly struck, poorly centered, and weakly struck before they get banged around in distribution. You can look at two or three bags of them before you'll find a single one as nicely made as the typical mint set coin.
Yes, circulation issues do come as nice as mint sets but they are nearly impossible to find and no one saved any anyway. Snagging mint set Gems is like shooting fish in a barrel. You get the needed number of sets to find a Gem (between 20 and 100 for most coins) and there will be a Gem almost every time. The number needed to find a nice '81 quarter, '80-D half or '76 tI Ike is far higher.
Things I have learned in the past 7 years, the plus system has cost many many collectors a lot of money. Most of those folks who bought MS 67 are now buried in there purchases. Not all coins in MS 67 + are the same and that is one major reason I am holding off buying most of the regular coins.
The Best advice I got when I met David at the Fun Show when I first started building the WQ's Set. He told me to not get Buried in the coins I buy. Just like the Varieties when the first ones come out I am in no hurry to buy these as most I can find RAW.
There are many unsearched rolls out there and the pops for the varieties show this. Now for all those folks who payed up for a 67 a few years ago there only hope is to send the coins back in and hope for a + but if the coin is a dog its a dog. I refuse to buy a 67 with hits all over the face and neck and as you can see from auctions these coins do not get close to selling for the price guide.
If you love a series enough you will learn what coins are suppose to look like. I am always amazed to see some of these coins at the grade given, but Mitch told me a while back just because a coin is in a 67 or 67 + holder does not mean it really is. This is another reason I have become so picky in my purchases and now in no hurry to buy a coin because of the Label.
I am truly happy with building my sets as cheap as possible without giving up the quality of the coin. I would rather buy a 66 that looks like a 66 than a 67 that looks like a 65. There are folks out there who will pay up for the label but there are more collectors out there that know better now.
Thank you very much David. That means a lot to me. As we reflect back to the time of your decision to sell, we now see just how wise a move it was on your part. You received record price after record price on your top coins and, in some cases, prices that may never been seen again or not for a long, long time. That said, I have no regrets owning your old 49-D or a few of the other coins I bought out of your set. They are special coins. Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Comments
Thanks everyone for the kind comments on the 64 quarter. One has to understand that PCGS has yet to award any silver quarter from 1932-64 with an MS68+ grade. In fact, it was easier for me to grade an SLQ in MS68+ (Which I did) than it was a Washinton quarter! As the grading services start to utilize the full grading scale over decades and decades of seeing more Washington silver quarters, the best coins will continue to rise to the top. So, yes, my 1964 quarter has "kept up" with "gradeflation" by being the very best coin for that slot. It was the nicest finest known MS67 I had ever seen, it is the nicest finest known MS67+ I have ever seen and, one day, may be the nicest MS68 I have ever seen if I can get the coin upgraded to MS68 (where I believe it belongs). There is really not much more a true collector of a series can do who wants the best other than buy the very best quality coin for the grade he can afford and hope it continues to be "ranked" there over time - no?
As always, just my two cents. Wondercoin.
Yes, there are those collectors unfortunately. However, I wouldn't care about the difference between a 66 and 67; i would buy that 1799 dollar
YN Member of the ANA, ANS, NBS, EAC, C4, MCA, PNNA, CSNS, ILNA, TEC, and more!
Always buying numismatic literature and sample slabs.
https://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/rainbowroosie/imagegallery/999
Try this link and you will see why I collect high grade moderns. Note that my highest graded coins are not yet imaged.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
Rainbow - The 55-S is AT. What would you sell it for?
Wondercoin
"Are you going to get all the coins TrueView'd eventually?"
Winged Liberty 1957 ... I will. I have not yet, because many of the coins in my set were put there 15, 20 and even 30 years ago. I believe there are many coins that will eventually upgrade and when I am finished with the upgrading that would be the perfect time to get the coins pictured. Thanks again for your kind words on my coins.
Your monster toned Cent collection is amazing!
Wondercoin
Why "unfortunately"?
It is unfortunate from my perspective of a collector of non-modern coins. In my eyes, those expensive amounts paid for modern coins could well be used to buy some nice older ones. Obviously, to each his own, just my opinion.
YN Member of the ANA, ANS, NBS, EAC, C4, MCA, PNNA, CSNS, ILNA, TEC, and more!
Always buying numismatic literature and sample slabs.
I have enjoyed reading this thread. Love the quarter @wondercoin
Wondercoin,
Wait till you see the 51s, 61d, and 49s...
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
The Heritage coin looks color bumped to me, and I don't find it super impressive for a 67. It is hard to see through the toning, but Wondercoin's coin looks miles and miles better than the Heritage piece IMHO.
What happens when the coins max out at MS69 and MS70? Will the services give up on the 1-70 scale and add new numbers? The change in grading standards is terrifying to me. You buy a coin expecting it to hold its value, and it will only do so if the grading services continually bump it up to a higher grade. There is a limit to everything, and to me it seems akin to Russian Roulette. That said, I could say the same about classic coins. At least most moderns (Washington silver quarters and Franklin half dollars excepted), don't have the added CAC wrinkle.
Cameonut2011 .... Yes, the same could be said for Classics or moderns. And, thank you for acknowledging that two coins of the very same grade can be "miles and miles" different from each other (I agree wholeheartedly). And, Macge1 (a very skilled young numismatist) knows that as well. Look ... he paid 25 cents on the dollar of the Guide Price to buy the coin that he did. And, he was willing to pay a little more. Let's say he was willing to pay even as much as 33 1/3 cents on the dollar ($5,000). What you see is what you get for $4,000 or $5,000. That coin might be ideal for a customer that only has a budget of $4,000 or $5,000 for this slot. My 64 quarter is not for sale for $10,000 or even $15,000. It is the nicest business strike 64-P quarter out there as far as I know from 33 years of hunting for them.
Having such a quality coin has greatly assisted me with the reality that the Price Guide on typical MS67 Washington quarters for this date have dropped from $5,000 to $800 over the last roughly 10 years. Had I purchased a typical MS67 coin for the slot 10 years ago, I would likely be well "under water" on this date. BUT, and I repeat, BUT, PCGS has never graded a single MS68+ silver quarter (1932-64) in my series -EVER! Over the next few years and decades I know this will change as PCGS gets to see tens of thousands of additional MS silver quarters. And, if some of my current MS68 specimens that took me 3-4 decades to locate prove to be the nicest known examples of those dates a decade or two from now, why shouldn't they eventually be deemed MS68+ coins (or even an MS69)? Is this "gradeflation" or a natural evolution of the grading of a particular series?
Either way, I believe the goal (to build a world class set) is to buy the very finest quality one can afford for the grade they are comfortable with. I know there are collectors out there that are more comfortable with "quantity over quality". And, I respect their right to build such a collection.
Just my 2 cents. Wondercoin
WC, certainly "hats off" to your expertise and drive on these high grade monsters!
So one thing ...on my initial question of "are there really collectors of ... " ... the answer is clearly YES.
Two things that really struck me when I poked over to WC's gorgeous Washington Quarter registry set:
1.) the number of award badges WC had -- dominating from 2012 through 2016. Clearly WC is one of the top collectors in this field! Very impressive.
2.) how 3 relative newcomers have passed WC's set in the past year. This shows there IS active interest in these expensive high grade moderns. Actually, I am not sure if 1964 is even considered a modern? That is after all 50+ years old.
I fully expect WC to re-take the lead this year.
WC you're up for the challenge, right?
Looks like you are missing 1 coin any chance of finding that missing piece?
Certainly kudos are in order!
Two little side bars: 1.) D.Pooles set is retired. I am not sure why All Time Finest is given top billing over Current Finest. To me Current FInest is more relevant. I wonder why PCGS shows all time finest at the top of the ranking page? 2.) It's bizzare to me that the current top set is "hidden" ... why do all that work and make that investment to have a hidden set listed (I dont get it). I've seen this too many times to count. Someone going to the bother of a Registry Set but then making it a "hidden" -- especially bothersome when it's a a top ranked set.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
Someone collecting moderns doesn't take away from money spent on bust half dollars or the importance of them any more than collecting Morgans detracts from them. Each collector evolves over his career and most will collect in many areas. Having "dead zones" is bad for bad for the hobby because it eliminates entry points for newbies.
No dead zone can be more detrimental than the modern field because this is the traditional entry point. It was the widespread belief that coins minted after 1965 were "uncollectable" that had nearly killed the hobby by 1996. It was the recognition and emergence of moderns that brought it back from the brink.
If the hobby isn't big enough to include all collectors then it might not really be a hobby at all. What would automobile collecting be if everyone only wanted the first Model T's? Or stamp collectors only desired the inverted jenny?
WL1957... I recently submitted (2) coins from my silver set for upgrade and PCGS changed serial numbers on those coins creating two "holes" in my set. I need to add the new serial numbers to the set. Also, my Mint State Hall of Fame Washington quarter collection is not simply the (83) coins in the silver set you are looking at. My set is 1932-Date and closing in on 600 total coins. I have put a great deal of effort into the Mint State 1965-1998 clad series as those are greatly under appreciated (just ask Cladking). A coin such as a 1969-P and 1971-P are just as scarce in top grade as many coins from the 1930's I believe. Wondercoin.
Thank you for taking the time to put forth a thoughtful response. My concern is that the very best coins might not always upgrade as they should, and in order to keep up and retain their value, you must spend hundreds in TPG submissions and hope that the numismatic stars align. Constantly changing grading standards and lower price guide values only seem to confuse the market. Wouldn't it be preferable to hold standards constant if the goal here is to accurately grade the coins and protect collectors (as opposed to generating funds for the grading services)? To me, the constantly evolving grading standards add a lot of uncertainty. From an investment standpoint, typically the more risk, the more return that is expected on the investment. Where am I going wrong in my thinking?
I'm certainly not a Washington expert and my opinion matters little, but if the other coin is representative of MS67+ or even MS67 quality, it is absurd that your coin isn't already in a 68 holder. It makes no sense to me whatsoever that both would be priced similarly except to an elite few who track the latest TPG grading trends and understand that yesterday's MS66s are today's MS67s and MS67+ and the old 67s are spreading their wings and landing in 68 holders.
Just some personal perspective --- The quantities of post-1934 US coins overhanging the hobby are very large, and few have been sent to authentication companies. The risk of someone's "$15,000" POP 1/1 becoming 200/1,000 is very great. Thus, this entire idea of "condition rarity" is a red herring for increasing sales and profit - until someone makes fish tacos.
"Where am I going wrong in my thinking?
I'm certainly not a Washington expert and my opinion matters little, but if the other coin is representative of MS67+ or even MS67 quality, it is absurd that your coin isn't already in a 68 holder."
I don't believe you are going wrong at all with your thinking. But, to coin a football saying: "The best offense is a good defense". I buy the best I can in the hopes that my coins are rated at the top of the chart for what they are - today, tomorrow and years from now. Yes, I agree that my coin should be in an MS68 holder. But, the coin just came back today from grading still in the MS67+ holder, while two other Washington Quarters in my collection (tough dates - 1972-P and 1981-P) upgraded to pop 1/0's for the date, So, another day on the 1964-P for that MS68 grade, but two nice pop 1/0's added to the collection today at least. Things could be worse.
Wondercoin
If the grade don't fit...you must resubmit!
Here is the 49-P MS68 quarter I bought when David Poole sold his collection through Heritage. It was the pop 1/0 MS68 coin for years and years. Until just recently when ...
http://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/16537858_33309126_2200.jpg
This coin knocked my coin out of pop 1/0 status and became the pop 2/0 1949-P quarter. It sold at Heritage for about 1/4 of what my coin sold at as the pop 1. I bought mine for $17,625 and the pop 2 coin just sold at $4,935. The Price Guide editor moved the Price Guide down to $7,000 (when it was around $17,500 before the pop 2 coin was slabbed).
One day, hopefully, my coin gets elevated to MS68+. What else can a collector do but buy the best in the first place (besides not collect at all)?
Wondercoin
Assuming that someone has solid for the grade ultra pop top silver Washington quarters or full step Jefferson nickel, where would that person best sell the coins?
If they sold side by side in a future auction your coin would still sell for a major premium over the other for the color. You just need two people that want it.
The pop on the 1964 in 67+ is now 6. Is that your resubmission Wondercoin, or did someone else obtain an upgrade?
Are there REALLY collectors out there of astronomically priced (modern) grade rarities?
I only glanced through the responses, but based on the multitude of posts, pics, and discussions, I take it the answer is a resounding YES.
Cameonut2011 ... I am certainly one fish. LOL.
Wondercoin
"The pop on the 1964 in 67+ is now 6. Is that your resubmission Wondercoin, or did someone else obtain an upgrade?"
Good chance it is just my coin not changing grades this week and they will retire the old serial number down the road (hopefully).
Wondercoin
Wondercoin,
Cmon man. That second 49p has way more eye appeal than yours.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
While my 64-P silver did not upgrade this week, here is a clad Washington Quarter that did ... a 1981-P that is now the Pop 1/0 MS67+. I've probably been through the better part of 5,000 - 7,500 of the 1981 Mint Sets looking for high end coins starting back in 1982 and most of the quarters in those sets are roughly MS62 or MS63 quality. It's not easy to find a true MS65 or MS66 coin. This is the nicest 81-P quarter I have come across in the past 33 years of hunting. Again, a coin that probably has a shot to MS68 down the road I believe.
Wondercoin
Heck fire, I went through the first page without realizing that this an old thread, but a good topic. Some people have more money than sense, but I have been guilty for paying over for AU58 coins for my Everyman Type Set. Live and let live, and don't criticize others for dong the something out of the ordinary...that is what makes someone unique...just like everybody else (oxymoron?).
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
Is there a reason for poor quality of mint set coins? Bad blanks? Do they come off the press that bad for some reason? Are the coins knocked around alot before getting cello'd. I always though if you cut a coin out if a pristine cello mint set it would be 66/67 at least. Clearly not true. I would be curious to see what happens to these coins between rolling off the press and getting cello'd. I wonder what the source is for most super high grades: mint sets, original bankrolls?
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
I don't think that Mint set coins are any different than business/regular strike coins. The pressure for the presses is just enough to get the job done. Proofs are just the opposite - special planchets, more pressure, individual handling, etc...
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
Mitch, that 49P dances circles around the other. Small consolation, though, since it's the grading services' opinions, and not mine, that counts for all this.
The discoveries that changed expensive 1/0 pops into 2/0 and 3/0 did much to induce me to sell out when I did, before they became 4/0s and 5/0s. Your alternative of plowing through rolls of Washingtons with the practiced eyes of your and your formidable and well-trained familial "disciples" is admirable and astoundingly impressive, a winner strategy for sure, but one only a very few in this hobby can hope to match, for the time, energy, resources and, particularly, skill involved.
Sincere congratulations for your talent and tenacity! Your sets stand as testimony and, ultimately and hopefully, your well-earned reward.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Mint set coins are just regular issues that were made with new dies under higher pressure and struck at a lower speed. Most of them are about as good a strike as you'll see on copper nickel clad but there are no guarantees it will be clean or in any way perfect. Mint set '81 quarters typically have very bad surfaces. They are grainy, unattractive, and frequently have shallow scrapes.
Only a few are even what I'd call "attractive".
Ironically this is the year before people saved out quarters because of the discontinuance of mint sets yet most of the coins in the set have problems.
The real problem with mint set coins is that tens of thousands of superb well struck Gems are made for them but most will be scraped up in the mint handling equipment that washes, dries, and places them in the sets.
People who don't watch coins in circulation don't realize just how bad most of these coins are. In some dates almost all of them are struck by poorly adjusted, worn dies set at far too low pressure. The coins are poorly struck, poorly centered, and weakly struck before they get banged around in distribution. You can look at two or three bags of them before you'll find a single one as nicely made as the typical mint set coin.
Yes, circulation issues do come as nice as mint sets but they are nearly impossible to find and no one saved any anyway. Snagging mint set Gems is like shooting fish in a barrel. You get the needed number of sets to find a Gem (between 20 and 100 for most coins) and there will be a Gem almost every time. The number needed to find a nice '81 quarter, '80-D half or '76 tI Ike is far higher.
Things I have learned in the past 7 years, the plus system has cost many many collectors a lot of money. Most of those folks who bought MS 67 are now buried in there purchases. Not all coins in MS 67 + are the same and that is one major reason I am holding off buying most of the regular coins.
The Best advice I got when I met David at the Fun Show when I first started building the WQ's Set. He told me to not get Buried in the coins I buy. Just like the Varieties when the first ones come out I am in no hurry to buy these as most I can find RAW.
There are many unsearched rolls out there and the pops for the varieties show this. Now for all those folks who payed up for a 67 a few years ago there only hope is to send the coins back in and hope for a + but if the coin is a dog its a dog. I refuse to buy a 67 with hits all over the face and neck and as you can see from auctions these coins do not get close to selling for the price guide.
If you love a series enough you will learn what coins are suppose to look like. I am always amazed to see some of these coins at the grade given, but Mitch told me a while back just because a coin is in a 67 or 67 + holder does not mean it really is. This is another reason I have become so picky in my purchases and now in no hurry to buy a coin because of the Label.
I am truly happy with building my sets as cheap as possible without giving up the quality of the coin. I would rather buy a 66 that looks like a 66 than a 67 that looks like a 65. There are folks out there who will pay up for the label but there are more collectors out there that know better now.
Enjoy Tom
https://pcgs.com/SetRegistry/mysetregistry/set/78469
I used to be famous now I just collect coins.
Link to My Registry Set.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-specialty-sets/washington-quarters-complete-variety-set-circulation-strikes-1932-1964/publishedset/78469
Varieties Are The Spice Of LIFE and Thanks to Those who teach us what to search For.
Thank you very much David. That means a lot to me. As we reflect back to the time of your decision to sell, we now see just how wise a move it was on your part. You received record price after record price on your top coins and, in some cases, prices that may never been seen again or not for a long, long time. That said, I have no regrets owning your old 49-D or a few of the other coins I bought out of your set. They are special coins. Wondercoin.
Wondercoin.
Your 1981 quarter is stunning. What a gorgeous clad coin.