Lerner: <<1916-D (dime) might be good as next year will be its 100th anniversary>>
This is an interesting point. Will some of the firms that market coins to the general public promote Mercury Dimes next year?
Was there much of an increase in demand for Lincoln Cents circa 2009?
SilverGoldNut: <<For me , eye appeal is the new "key date"... Seems last show I was at I found a key date in every case, but it's getting harder to find the "eye appeal " coins.>>
There are many classic U.S. coins with eye appeal in major auctions. I suggest attending lot viewing sessions.
Although SilverGoldNut seems to be expressing a preference for type coins over key dates, beginning collectors who stumble across this thread might find his remarks to be confusing. Key dates are needed by colllectors who seek to complete sets. Indeed, a set of Mercury Dimes is not complete without a 1916-D and a set of copper ('bronze') Indian Cents is not complete without an 1877.
SilverGoldNut:<<I did a search for a 1909s vdb and was surprised how many there are for sale>>
Yes, I just noticed that there are more than a few in current Goldbergs, Heritage and Stack's-Bowers auctions.
What often goes unsaid about "key dates" and their availability is that coin dealers are in business to make money. Thus, it makes sense to stock a 1877 Indian if you believe that customers would want one. The more valuable the coin, often the more margin you have in it, on a gross dollar basis if not a percentage one. That is why you can find all the "key dates" from our youth in most any sizable coin show. Those will always have demand and due to the pricing structure, make the dealer more money than a nice coin that is not a key date in the same series.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
Lerner: <<1916-D (dime) might be good as next year will be its 100th anniversary>>
<< <i>This is an interesting point. Will some of the firms that market coins to the general public promote Mercury Dimes next year?
Was there much of an increase in demand for Lincoln Cents circa 2009? >>
I will be curious to see if the Mercs can be successfully promoted. Especially the proofs, since they are cheap. The MPLs were pushed in the run-up to 2009, and I bought a handful of red gem proofs as an investment. Prices shot up, and then began a retreat (classic pump and dump scenario).
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>I see more sets being sold than assembled. The commons get thrown in the silver bin and the keys are held back and marketed. So, you'll see more keys for sale, especially in lower grades. >>
<< <i>What often goes unsaid about "key dates" and their availability is that coin dealers are in business to make money. Thus, it makes sense to stock a 1877 Indian if you believe that customers would want one. The more valuable the coin, often the more margin you have in it, on a gross dollar basis if not a percentage one. That is why you can find all the "key dates" from our youth in most any sizable coin show. Those will always have demand and due to the pricing structure, make the dealer more money than a nice coin that is not a key date in the same series. >>
^ These are the correct answers.
Some 20th Century keys are really key dates like the 1901-S and 1913-S Barber quarters. The 1901-S is not common in any grade and a real challenge above vg and up to au. There's probably more uncs out there than mid-grade circs. There are also dozens of "secret key dates" at certain grade levels below superb gem that are otherwise common.
Key dates have to be plentiful enough so dealers/speculators can flip them back and forth. Occasionally a collector intervenes in that process and buys one. I don't consider the 1901-s all that scarce on an absolute sense. True, most exist in low grades below Fine. It's also probably true that 75% of the seated quarter series (1838-1891) is rarer than the 1901-s quarter. Key dates have sprung up their own cottage industry in the past 10-15 years, hence the rapid price movement in that period. There was plenty of information back in the mid-1970's to show that "key" dates were readily available.
<< <i>Key dates have to be plentiful enough so dealers/speculators can flip them back and forth. Occasionally a collector intervenes in that process and buys one. I don't consider the 1901-s all that scarce on an absolute sense. True, most exist in low grades below Fine. It's also probably true that 75% of the seated quarter series (1838-1891) is rarer than the 1901-s quarter. Key dates have sprung up their own cottage industry in the past 10-15 years, hence the rapid price movement in that period.
"" There was plenty of information back in the mid-1970's to show that "key" dates were readily available"". >>
This is how I see it, If some one can only find a $100 key and maybe it's not the best for some. But for some collectors that can only buy a $50 key it's a hard one to pick up so just becuse you see a lot of that date does'nt make it not a key, if the price is right pick it up they are not making any more of them and you will be happy you did.
That's what I'm doing with all of them hitting the market makes it look like there are more then there are so it will drive the price down and on the next go around you will do fine with your little hoard of key dates so try to get the best one's for the money...... That's just me dumb Type2 thinking
<< <i>I think you are spot on OP when you say the internet has revealed certain things about the hobby otherwise unknown 15 years ago and you lay out an excellent case for the true availability of key dates. I have only been in the market 9 years now, so my perception is skewed. I wasn't there to look for 38-D Halves in circulation back in the day. I did several years ago now assemble complete modern sets from circulation. I do know of the scarceness of some modern key dates like 1971-P Quarters, 1979-D Dimes and so forth. I have searched through many bags of Wheat Cents over the years, some were probably searched but I don't doubt many were truly unsearched. I can appreciate the rarity of a 1909-S VDB a bit more since I have had that experience. Best I ever found in a bag of Wheats was a 1913-S.
I will say that after the Baltimore 2006 big coin show I attended (my first national coin show), I noted that 1877 was one of the more common Indian Head Cents on the bourse! But I understood why: they are worth promoting since they are so valuable. But such promotion does skew perception of actual rarity of a coin.
I have a 1921 Peace Dollar in F with rim nicks but don't have a picture of it. That is an example of a very "common" key date in common condition and has been hit by price declines consistently for the 8 years I have been paying attention now. crypto, your 38-D Walker being AU is still truly scarce because of condition; not rare, but scarce. Scarce holder, too, which does matter.
Edit to add: winky makes the very legit broader point that I have noticed and remind my friends that are a bit younger than me and don't remember a time before the internet that the internet has made almost everything common. I do remember a time before the internet; not by much, but I do. Video games that were once rare to find in the mid to late 1990s like Mega Man X3, Dragon Warrior 4, and the like are now findable and buyable because the internet has connected so many people that couldn't have been before for distance. I collected baseball cards as a kid and the 1990 Topps NNOF Frank Thomas was a grail of sorts back then or the 1991 Donruss Elite rare insert card in 1 out of every 200 packs or something like that. I have since dropped that hobby, but I have no doubt those 2 cards would be quite easily findable on the internet (for a price still of course). >>
1990 topps nnof Thomas hasn't gotten more common with the years; it's as tough as it was then and will fetch strong prices, all the more so since his hof induction. In terms of comparison to coins, it's rather like the 1955 dd cent, owing its existence to a manufacturing error.
<< <i>Even 20 years ago you could buy rolls of 09-SVDBs 16-D dimes and even 93-S Morgans. They are more distributed now, but still not rare. Just for fun I walked a Baltimore bourse and counted 100 Isabella quarters in 63, that certainly seems as if it's not worth the price tag. >>
It might be fun to assemble a roll of a scarce 19th century Seated or Barber coin (budget permitting, of course). >>
Careful what you wish for, or, like the fellow who hoarded 1844 dimes for years, you find out that cornering the market means you are the market, to the exclusion of most others, which can suck when it comes time to sell.
Are key dates declining? The premise of this topic is that this is fact and we are trying to figure out why, but I'm still not sure this is an assumed fact.
What do new/modern collectors collect? Well, if a kid started asking how he should start collecting coins, what would most of you say? Probably something along the lines of "Stick with eye appealing coins certified by PCGS/NGC, approved by CAC when possible." Another pearl: "Buy the highest grade of a coin you can afford, but don't sacrifice eye appeal for technical numeric grade".
Maybe, just maybe, new collectors are actually taking this advice.
Key dates may decline, due to any number of the reasons already mentioned, but I bet the unappealing common dates are going to be hurt even more in a slow market.
Key dates may decline, due to any number of the reasons already mentioned, but I bet the unappealing common dates are going to be hurt even more in a slow market. >>
They have declined in price in bear market periods, but at the end of the day they are still key dates and will carry the day. As long as the fed fails to exhibit any propensity to manage the money supply, the price of goods and services will continue to inflate albeit with starts and stops along the way.
Lerner: <<1916-D (dime) might be good as next year will be its 100th anniversary>>
Analyst (above)<< This is an interesting point. Will some of the firms that market coins to the general public promote Mercury Dimes next year?
Was there much of an increase in demand for Lincoln Cents circa 2009? >>
DesertRat: <<I will be curious to see if the Mercs can be successfully promoted. Especially the proofs, since they are cheap.>>
Business strikes minted after 1934 are common and could easily be promoted. They are neat coins and more people could be encouraged to become coin collectors. A focus on Abraham Lincoln, however, would seem to be a way of reaching a larger audience. Mercs require more of an explanation:
DesertRat: << The MPLs were pushed in the run-up to 2009, ...
I figured, perhaps incorrectly, that Jon was referring to promotions to the general public. One would have to have a rather advanced understanding of early 20th century coins to appreciate Matte Proof Lincolns. As a kid, I bought a Proof 1916 Lincoln that was sold as a business strike. The dealer who sold it and most of my collecting friends at the time insisted that it was a business strike. Few people then knew the difference, and perhaps even fewer know now.
DesertRat: << ... and I bought a handful of red gem proofs as an investment. Prices shot up, and then began a retreat (classic pump and dump scenario).
Please further explain this statement. Markets for classic U.S. coins in general boomed from 2002 to early Aug. 2008, especially from 2005 to 2007. I am not aware of anyone attempting to heavily influence market prices of MPLs. Early 20th century series have not reached the peak levels that they, respectively, reached during points from 2005 to 2008. Did MPLs take more of a dive than Saints or "gem" Buffalo nickels? I have not tracked them.
Roadrunner: <<. I don't consider the 1901-s all that scarce on an absolute sense.
It is much scarcer than all other Barber Quarters. The 1896-S and the 1913-S are relatively very scarce as well.
Even so, many more people seek to complete sets of Barbers than of seated series. The demand is obviously much greater. Market prices for 1901-S quarters are sound in terms of economic theory.
Roadrunner: <<Key dates have sprung up their own cottage industry in the past 10-15 years, hence the rapid price movement in that period. >>
Not exactly, there has been a resurgence in the collecting of classic U.S. coins and people need the key dates to complete sets. Current market prices for key dates make sense. There is nothing peculiar, slimy or inefficient in this context.
Comments
Lerner: <<1916-D (dime) might be good as next year will be its 100th anniversary>>
This is an interesting point. Will some of the firms that market coins to the general public promote Mercury Dimes next year?
Was there much of an increase in demand for Lincoln Cents circa 2009?
SilverGoldNut: <<For me , eye appeal is the new "key date"... Seems last show I was at I found a key date in every case, but it's getting harder to find the "eye appeal " coins.>>
There are many classic U.S. coins with eye appeal in major auctions. I suggest attending lot viewing sessions.
Although SilverGoldNut seems to be expressing a preference for type coins over key dates, beginning collectors who stumble across this thread might find his remarks to be confusing. Key dates are needed by colllectors who seek to complete sets. Indeed, a set of Mercury Dimes is not complete without a 1916-D and a set of copper ('bronze') Indian Cents is not complete without an 1877.
SilverGoldNut:<<I did a search for a 1909s vdb and was surprised how many there are for sale>>
Yes, I just noticed that there are more than a few in current Goldbergs, Heritage and Stack's-Bowers auctions.
Copper and Bronze U.S. Coins in Mid-Winter Auctions
Are Many Classic U.S. Coins Common?
<< <i>This is an interesting point. Will some of the firms that market coins to the general public promote Mercury Dimes next year?
Was there much of an increase in demand for Lincoln Cents circa 2009? >>
I will be curious to see if the Mercs can be successfully promoted. Especially the proofs, since they are cheap.
The MPLs were pushed in the run-up to 2009, and I bought a handful of red gem proofs as an investment. Prices shot up, and then began a retreat (classic pump and dump scenario).
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>I see more sets being sold than assembled. The commons get thrown in the silver bin and the keys are held back and marketed. So, you'll see more keys for sale, especially in lower grades. >>
<< <i>What often goes unsaid about "key dates" and their availability is that coin dealers are in business to make money. Thus, it makes sense to stock a 1877 Indian if you believe that customers would want one. The more valuable the coin, often the more margin you have in it, on a gross dollar basis if not a percentage one. That is why you can find all the "key dates" from our youth in most any sizable coin show. Those will always have demand and due to the pricing structure, make the dealer more money than a nice coin that is not a key date in the same series. >>
^ These are the correct answers.
Some 20th Century keys are really key dates like the 1901-S and 1913-S Barber quarters. The 1901-S is not common in any grade and a real challenge above vg and up to au. There's probably more uncs out there than mid-grade circs. There are also dozens of "secret key dates" at certain grade levels below superb gem that are otherwise common.
<< <i>Key dates have to be plentiful enough so dealers/speculators can flip them back and forth. Occasionally a collector intervenes in that process and buys one. I don't consider the 1901-s all that scarce on an absolute sense. True, most exist in low grades below Fine. It's also probably true that 75% of the seated quarter series (1838-1891) is rarer than the 1901-s quarter. Key dates have sprung up their own cottage industry in the past 10-15 years, hence the rapid price movement in that period.
"" There was plenty of information back in the mid-1970's to show that "key" dates were readily available"". >>
but the difference people see it online
That's what I'm doing with all of them hitting the market makes it look like there are more then there are so it will drive the price down and on the next go around you will do fine with your little hoard of key dates so try to get the best one's for the money...... That's just me dumb Type2 thinking
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>I think you are spot on OP when you say the internet has revealed certain things about the hobby otherwise unknown 15 years ago and you lay out an excellent case for the true availability of key dates. I have only been in the market 9 years now, so my perception is skewed. I wasn't there to look for 38-D Halves in circulation back in the day. I did several years ago now assemble complete modern sets from circulation. I do know of the scarceness of some modern key dates like 1971-P Quarters, 1979-D Dimes and so forth. I have searched through many bags of Wheat Cents over the years, some were probably searched but I don't doubt many were truly unsearched. I can appreciate the rarity of a 1909-S VDB a bit more since I have had that experience. Best I ever found in a bag of Wheats was a 1913-S.
I will say that after the Baltimore 2006 big coin show I attended (my first national coin show), I noted that 1877 was one of the more common Indian Head Cents on the bourse! But I understood why: they are worth promoting since they are so valuable. But such promotion does skew perception of actual rarity of a coin.
I have a 1921 Peace Dollar in F with rim nicks but don't have a picture of it. That is an example of a very "common" key date in common condition and has been hit by price declines consistently for the 8 years I have been paying attention now. crypto, your 38-D Walker being AU is still truly scarce because of condition; not rare, but scarce. Scarce holder, too, which does matter.
Edit to add: winky makes the very legit broader point that I have noticed and remind my friends that are a bit younger than me and don't remember a time before the internet that the internet has made almost everything common. I do remember a time before the internet; not by much, but I do. Video games that were once rare to find in the mid to late 1990s like Mega Man X3, Dragon Warrior 4, and the like are now findable and buyable because the internet has connected so many people that couldn't have been before for distance. I collected baseball cards as a kid and the 1990 Topps NNOF Frank Thomas was a grail of sorts back then or the 1991 Donruss Elite rare insert card in 1 out of every 200 packs or something like that. I have since dropped that hobby, but I have no doubt those 2 cards would be quite easily findable on the internet (for a price still of course). >>
1990 topps nnof Thomas hasn't gotten more common with the years; it's as tough as it was then and will fetch strong prices, all the more so since his hof induction. In terms of comparison to coins, it's rather like the 1955 dd cent, owing its existence to a manufacturing error.
<< <i>
<< <i>Even 20 years ago you could buy rolls of 09-SVDBs 16-D dimes and even 93-S Morgans. They are more distributed now, but still not rare. Just for fun I walked a Baltimore bourse and counted 100 Isabella quarters in 63, that certainly seems as if it's not worth the price tag. >>
It might be fun to assemble a roll of a scarce 19th century Seated or Barber coin (budget permitting, of course). >>
Careful what you wish for, or, like the fellow who hoarded 1844 dimes for years, you find out that cornering the market means you are the market, to the exclusion of most others, which can suck when it comes time to sell.
What do new/modern collectors collect? Well, if a kid started asking how he should start collecting coins, what would most of you say? Probably something along the lines of "Stick with eye appealing coins certified by PCGS/NGC, approved by CAC when possible." Another pearl: "Buy the highest grade of a coin you can afford, but don't sacrifice eye appeal for technical numeric grade".
Maybe, just maybe, new collectors are actually taking this advice.
Key dates may decline, due to any number of the reasons already mentioned, but I bet the unappealing common dates are going to be hurt even more in a slow market.
<< <i>
Key dates may decline, due to any number of the reasons already mentioned, but I bet the unappealing common dates are going to be hurt even more in a slow market. >>
They have declined in price in bear market periods, but at the end of the day they are still key dates and will carry the day. As long as the fed fails to exhibit any propensity to manage the money supply, the price of goods and services will continue to inflate albeit with starts and stops along the way.
Analyst (above)<< This is an interesting point. Will some of the firms that market coins to the general public promote Mercury Dimes next year?
Was there much of an increase in demand for Lincoln Cents circa 2009? >>
DesertRat: <<I will be curious to see if the Mercs can be successfully promoted. Especially the proofs, since they are cheap.>>
Business strikes minted after 1934 are common and could easily be promoted. They are neat coins and more people could be encouraged to become coin collectors. A focus on Abraham Lincoln, however, would seem to be a way of reaching a larger audience. Mercs require more of an explanation:
Classic U.S. Coins for less than $500 each, Part 8: Mercury Dimes
DesertRat: << The MPLs were pushed in the run-up to 2009, ...
I figured, perhaps incorrectly, that Jon was referring to promotions to the general public. One would have to have a rather advanced understanding of early 20th century coins to appreciate Matte Proof Lincolns. As a kid, I bought a Proof 1916 Lincoln that was sold as a business strike. The dealer who sold it and most of my collecting friends at the time insisted that it was a business strike. Few people then knew the difference, and perhaps even fewer know now.
DesertRat: << ... and I bought a handful of red gem proofs as an investment. Prices shot up, and then began a retreat (classic pump and dump scenario).
Please further explain this statement. Markets for classic U.S. coins in general boomed from 2002 to early Aug. 2008, especially from 2005 to 2007. I am not aware of anyone attempting to heavily influence market prices of MPLs. Early 20th century series have not reached the peak levels that they, respectively, reached during points from 2005 to 2008. Did MPLs take more of a dive than Saints or "gem" Buffalo nickels? I have not tracked them.
Roadrunner: <<. I don't consider the 1901-s all that scarce on an absolute sense.
It is much scarcer than all other Barber Quarters. The 1896-S and the 1913-S are relatively very scarce as well.
Key 1896-S Barber Quarter in Stack’s-Bowers Auction, A Tremendous Condition Rarity
Roadrunner: << It's also probably true that 75% of the seated quarter series (1838-1891) is rarer than the 1901-s quarter.
I believe that seated quarters are excellent values.
Key 1849-O Quarter in SBG Auction, an Unnoticed Rarity
Even so, many more people seek to complete sets of Barbers than of seated series. The demand is obviously much greater. Market prices for 1901-S quarters are sound in terms of economic theory.
Circulated Barber Quarters, with emphasis upon recent auction results for Key Dates
Roadrunner: <<Key dates have sprung up their own cottage industry in the past 10-15 years, hence the rapid price movement in that period. >>
Not exactly, there has been a resurgence in the collecting of classic U.S. coins and people need the key dates to complete sets. Current market prices for key dates make sense. There is nothing peculiar, slimy or inefficient in this context.
The rise in the number of collectors of rare U.S. coins and the importance of the PCGS