<< <i>My 2 cents: Hunt down the "Keys" first for sets. Find a decent condition Key for your sets but not a high quality one. Save those babies for a "single " sale or to show off to others. >>
I have found that for a collector, not buying the "end game" coin first is a mistake, especially in this market. Upgrades often cost you more money than if you buy the right coin in the first place.
I'll stick by my contention that you buy the good coins when they become available for the set at fair prices. Forcing things to buy only specific "key dates" first at the expense of everything else is a mistake.
"Key dates" and other rarer stuff does not always go up in price. I'd be money in today if I had not bought some rare date gold coins, like the 1795 Eagle and the 1808 Quarter Eagle, years ago. They are a lot cheaper now.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
A strong argument for the average collector starting a new series is to buy the non-keys first while they develop an eye for the nuances of grading, eye appeal, strike etc for a series that is new to them. Essentially practicing on the more common dates before shelling out big money for the keys, and hopefully making better buys on the big dollar coins.
I agree with Laura but think there is also more to building a great date set than just acquiring the keys first. I started my proof IHC collection by purchasing the 1877 in 65RB from Rick Snow. I then started looking for the 1861 which I acquired a few years ago in PR64 with nice color, which is uncommon with CuNi. And then I ws able to buy the 1859 in PR65+ with Great color.
But conditional rarity and eye appeal are other factors that deserves as much consideration as the date of the coin. I for example, I was able to acquire an 1869 PR66BN with great toning (CoinFacts plate coin) that was pop2/0 for BN which is much more difficult than the 1877. As a side benefit, the Registry awards higher points for the key dates, so I currently have the 8th highest rated set with only 52% completion. And knowing that the last 50% will be somewhat easier than the first 50%.
A lot of these responses have gone off on a tangent, focusing on return on investment, including buying coins that just happened to have appreciated in price more than the ultra common dates, or comparing returns on coins from different series; clearly not what Laura’s blog is about. Her use of the Eliasberg 93-S as an example defined the scope of her point to cases where gem specimens of the key date are sufficiently scarce such that if not pounced on when they come to market a collector with the money to buy one might not get a second chance for a long time. Obviously a $500,000 coin like that is out of the reach of all but a tiny number of collectors anyway. This is an example where a high grade example of one or two coins in a series can cost more than all of the other coins in the series combined.
If you are talking about “keys” like an 1909-s vdb that are regularly available in high grade at large auctions and shows, that is another matter. When there are a lot of nice examples to choose from, the issue more often comes down to how much is one more grade point worth, and how much are you willing to pay for a coin that is readily available.
<< <i>A lot of these responses have gone off on a tangent, focusing on return on investment, including buying coins that just happened to have appreciated in price more than the ultra common dates, or comparing returns on coins from different series; clearly not what Laura’s blog is about. Her use of the Eliasberg 93-S as an example defined the scope of her point to cases where gem specimens of the key date are sufficiently scarce such that if not pounced on when they come to market a collector with the money to buy one might not get a second chance for a long time. Obviously a $500,000 coin like that is out of the reach of all but a tiny number of collectors anyway. This is an example where a high grade example of one or two coins in a series can cost more than all of the other coins in the series combined.....CG >>
It's hard to separate ROI when you have hard and fast rules in place for building a set. If a key date doesn't appreciate more than the other coins in the set, why is it even a key date in the first place?
But back to your 1893-s MS65 Eliasberg example above. I get that. Now my earlier point on the Vermeulle MS67 that apparently didn't get locked up in a major Morgan dollar collection from 2001 to approx 2012(?) when Legend brokered it into the Coronet collection. Not likely that it was pulled out of the clutches of a major Morgan dollar set. So here's the best Morgan dollar of them all not getting all that much love for a decade from big dollar Morgan set collectors. All I can say is where were all those major Morgans sets in that period? At least the comparable Norweb MS67 did find a major set to live in a for a while (until dipped and lowered in quality). Legend built the Simpson seated half dime set. And I think there's some contradictions between their posted "REG set key date rules" and that seated half dime set....or most any top level seated set that has ever been built (though I'd give TDNs seated and trade dollar sets a pass on that one). But that's a discussion for another day.
So if the dealers are not buying big money Morgans at auction, are the collectors stepping up in their place? Doesn't appear that the Morgan dealers from 14 years ago stepped up either. If I'm a buyer for anything but the 1893-s Morgan in a top REG set being auctioned, why would I care one iota that they put a space filler in the set? Does that change the grades and quality of all the semi-key and lesser dates, especially if they're nice? I hope not. If the 2nd tier coins are of killer quality, I don't care if they're being auctioned off in a junk yard off I-95, I'm going to be there to bid on them. Guess that makes me an uneducated buyer. Set building is now about avoiding "EMBARRASSMENT?" Whatever the means. There were plenty of "low quality" (maybe even embarrassing) coins in the epic collections of Norweb, Eliasberg, James Stack, Pittman, etc. Did that keep the buyers away? Nope. Did it reduce the prices. Nope. Next topic.
There were plenty of "low quality" (maybe even embarrassing) coins in the epic collections of Norweb, Eliasberg, James Stack, Pittman, etc. Did that keep the buyers away? Nope. Did it reduce the prices. Nope.
That all changes when you bring slabs into the equation. With the above old-time collections, it was just about impossible to identify their blunders, because you knew nothing about what they paid for a coin, or how they graded it. With slabs, a low-end coin in a slab tells you a lot about the collector.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
RR your observation about the Vermeulle 93-S may actually support Laura's point. It was locked up for years, either as part of Morgan set or held as a stand-alone trophy coin or investment coin. Either way, anyone whose goal was to assemble a top Morgan set and who could have footed the bill at the time it was sold missed that opportunity. It is now being offered by Coronet through Legend for $2 million. Will there be a taker at that price? Don't know.
Consider this. Which would you rather own. The Coronet set without the 93-s, 92-s and 93-o, or just the Coronet 92-s and 93-O with the Eliasberg 93-s instead of the Vermeulle coin?
<< <i>There were plenty of "low quality" (maybe even embarrassing) coins in the epic collections of Norweb, Eliasberg, James Stack, Pittman, etc. Did that keep the buyers away? Nope. Did it reduce the prices. Nope.
That all changes when you bring slabs into the equation. With the above old-time collections, it was just about impossible to identify their blunders, because you knew nothing about what they paid for a coin, or how they graded it. With slabs, a low-end coin in a slab tells you a lot about the collector. >>
Not so much their price blunders, but if they accepted a scrubbed, cleaned, or otherwise problem coin, that would say something. And if the coin were somewhat available in say VF-XF or even UNC., why would they settle for a VG coin? A low end coin in a slab, may tell us as much about the grading company than it does the owner. The owner may have well paid low end money (or less for the coin). In the case of Gene Gardner, he had plenty of lower end NGC and even PCGS coins. But the thing is, they were about the best available of those dates....and a little bit nicer or a full grade nicer wasn't available, or often didn't exist. It wasn't like he could order up all high end pieces for each date. The only other solution was to crack then all out and force the grading company to downgrade them. He wasn't building a set of Morgans where there's no shortage of solid/high end coins for nearly every date/mint. This is why I say some of those Legend-specific "rules" for REG sets don't work so well for difficult 18th and 19th set series. You want a choice for the grade MS64 1843-0, 1847-0, 1849-0, 1856-s, 1864-s, or 1867-s quarters? There may not be any in existence. So should you feel embarrassed you settled for a lower end MS64 when MS65's essentially don't exist, and if they did, would be low end as well?
<< <i>RR your observation about the Vermeulle 93-S may actually support Laura's point. It was locked up for years, either as part of Morgan set or held as a stand-alone trophy coin or investment coin. Either way, anyone whose goal was to assemble a top Morgan set and who could have footed the bill at the time it was sold missed that opportunity. It is now being offered by Coronet through Legend for $2 million. Will there be a taker at that price? Don't know.
Consider this. Which would you rather own. The Coronet set without the 93-s, 92-s and 93-o, or just the Coronet 92-s and 93-O with the Eliasberg 93-s instead of the Vermeulle coin?
CG >>
My only point was that it was likely locked up by someone other than a very top end, Morgan REG set collector. No doubt a great trophy coin as I even thought about buying it back in 2001. Yes, any big time set collectors missed the boat back then. Who knows why? We'll see if Legend gets their $2 MILL bucks. They want $2 MILL bucks for the 1870-s half dime too. But from what I recall reading in the last Legend auction catalog, that 1893-s dollar was going to their fall auction unreserved. So now it's been pieced separate from the rest of the set for a fixed $2 MILL?....a 5X increase since 2001. That sort of supports my idea (ie the coin is no longer part of the set ....and therefore not available at auction and therefore can't be used to draw in additional bidders). So much for the theories about a great set when the key date coin is sold separate. I say let it go off unreserved at auction like it did back back in 2001.
Consider this. Which would you rather own. The Coronet set without the 93-s, 92-s and 93-o, or just the Coronet 92-s and 93-O with the Eliasberg 93-s instead of the Vermeulle coin?
It's the finest known Vermeulle coin that always interested me. So the MS65 Eliasberg, no matter how PQ doesn't cut it. My choice would be the entire orig set without the V. 93-s, 92-s and 93-0. Morgan sets never fascinated me so I'd prefer none of the above. I considered the V. coin once because in the $400-$475K range it seemed reasonable, even in 2001. For my $2 MILL today I could buy the Simpson half dime collection (less the 70-s which I wouldn't want) and have a 1 $MILL left over to buy a lot of other coins. If Morgan dollar collectors and dealers are apparently known for not stepping up, why would I want to spend $2 MILL on one Morgan dollar? That same money could buy a laundry list of major rarities....where dealers and collectors have normally stepped up. $1 MILL would could buy the run of 1870-1873 cc quarters (5) in top grades. I think that $2 MILL would buy that set by substituting the finest known of 5 1873-cc NA for one of the MS63/64 coins. 5 essentially finest known CC quarters for the same price as the Vermeulle 1893-s? No brainer for me. Though that same $2 MILL would also buy one heck of gem O and S mint seated quarter set (47+ coins)....almost enough for all the finest knowns, most of which are rarer in gem unc than a 93-s Morgan.
You know, I went back and looked at the article a 3rd time and noticed that the article was titled: DO NOT DO THIS! . And then right below is the apparent descriptive sub-title: RESPECT THE KEY DATES
So if I'm reading this literally, the article could mean either DO or DO NOT - Respect the Key Dates. So be your own judge. I took it to mean "respect them" based on the interior content. Your mileage may vary.
Comments
<< <i>My 2 cents: Hunt down the "Keys" first for sets. Find a decent condition Key for your sets but not a high quality one. Save those babies for a "single " sale or to show off to others.
I have found that for a collector, not buying the "end game" coin first is a mistake, especially in this market. Upgrades often cost you more money than if you buy the right coin in the first place.
I'll stick by my contention that you buy the good coins when they become available for the set at fair prices. Forcing things to buy only specific "key dates" first at the expense of everything else is a mistake.
"Key dates" and other rarer stuff does not always go up in price. I'd be money in today if I had not bought some rare date gold coins, like the 1795 Eagle and the 1808 Quarter Eagle, years ago. They are a lot cheaper now.
But conditional rarity and eye appeal are other factors that deserves as much consideration as the date of the coin. I for example, I was able to acquire an 1869 PR66BN with great toning (CoinFacts plate coin) that was pop2/0 for BN which is much more difficult than the 1877. As a side benefit, the Registry awards higher points for the key dates, so I currently have the 8th highest rated set with only 52% completion. And knowing that the last 50% will be somewhat easier than the first 50%.
OINK
If you are talking about “keys” like an 1909-s vdb that are regularly available in high grade at large auctions and shows, that is another matter. When there are a lot of nice examples to choose from, the issue more often comes down to how much is one more grade point worth, and how much are you willing to pay for a coin that is readily available.
CG
<< <i>A lot of these responses have gone off on a tangent, focusing on return on investment, including buying coins that just happened to have appreciated in price more than the ultra common dates, or comparing returns on coins from different series; clearly not what Laura’s blog is about. Her use of the Eliasberg 93-S as an example defined the scope of her point to cases where gem specimens of the key date are sufficiently scarce such that if not pounced on when they come to market a collector with the money to buy one might not get a second chance for a long time. Obviously a $500,000 coin like that is out of the reach of all but a tiny number of collectors anyway. This is an example where a high grade example of one or two coins in a series can cost more than all of the other coins in the series combined.....CG >>
It's hard to separate ROI when you have hard and fast rules in place for building a set. If a key date doesn't appreciate more than the other coins in the set, why is it even a key date in the first place?
But back to your 1893-s MS65 Eliasberg example above. I get that. Now my earlier point on the Vermeulle MS67 that apparently didn't get locked up in a major Morgan dollar collection from 2001 to approx 2012(?) when Legend brokered it into the Coronet collection. Not likely that it was pulled out of the clutches of a major Morgan dollar set. So here's the best Morgan dollar of them all not getting all that much love for a decade from big dollar Morgan set collectors. All I can say is where were all those major Morgans sets in that period? At least the comparable Norweb MS67 did find a major set to live in a for a while (until dipped and lowered in quality). Legend built the Simpson seated half dime set. And I think there's some contradictions between their posted "REG set key date rules" and that seated half dime set....or most any top level seated set that has ever been built (though I'd give TDNs seated and trade dollar sets a pass on that one). But that's a discussion for another day.
So if the dealers are not buying big money Morgans at auction, are the collectors stepping up in their place? Doesn't appear that the Morgan dealers from 14 years ago stepped up either. If I'm a buyer for anything but the 1893-s Morgan in a top REG set being auctioned, why would I care one iota that they put a space filler in the set? Does that change the grades and quality of all the semi-key and lesser dates, especially if they're nice? I hope not. If the 2nd tier coins are of killer quality, I don't care if they're being auctioned off in a junk yard off I-95, I'm going to be there to bid on them. Guess that makes me an uneducated buyer. Set building is now about avoiding "EMBARRASSMENT?" Whatever the means. There were plenty of "low quality" (maybe even embarrassing) coins in the epic collections of Norweb, Eliasberg, James Stack, Pittman, etc. Did that keep the buyers away? Nope. Did it reduce the prices. Nope. Next topic.
That all changes when you bring slabs into the equation. With the above old-time collections, it was just about impossible to identify their blunders, because you knew nothing about what they paid for a coin, or how they graded it. With slabs, a low-end coin in a slab tells you a lot about the collector.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Consider this. Which would you rather own. The Coronet set without the 93-s, 92-s and 93-o, or just the Coronet 92-s and 93-O with the Eliasberg 93-s instead of the Vermeulle coin?
CG
<< <i>There were plenty of "low quality" (maybe even embarrassing) coins in the epic collections of Norweb, Eliasberg, James Stack, Pittman, etc. Did that keep the buyers away? Nope. Did it reduce the prices. Nope.
That all changes when you bring slabs into the equation. With the above old-time collections, it was just about impossible to identify their blunders, because you knew nothing about what they paid for a coin, or how they graded it. With slabs, a low-end coin in a slab tells you a lot about the collector. >>
Not so much their price blunders, but if they accepted a scrubbed, cleaned, or otherwise problem coin, that would say something. And if the coin were somewhat available in say VF-XF or even UNC., why would they settle for a VG coin? A low end coin in a slab, may tell us as much about the grading company than it does the owner. The owner may have well paid low end money (or less for the coin). In the case of Gene Gardner, he had plenty of lower end NGC and even PCGS coins. But the thing is, they were about the best available of those dates....and a little bit nicer or a full grade nicer wasn't available, or often didn't exist. It wasn't like he could order up all high end pieces for each date. The only other solution was to crack then all out and force the grading company to downgrade them. He wasn't building a set of Morgans where there's no shortage of solid/high end coins for nearly every date/mint. This is why I say some of those Legend-specific "rules" for REG sets don't work so well for difficult 18th and 19th set series. You want a choice for the grade MS64 1843-0, 1847-0, 1849-0, 1856-s, 1864-s, or 1867-s quarters? There may not be any in existence. So should you feel embarrassed you settled for a lower end MS64 when MS65's essentially don't exist, and if they did, would be low end as well?
<< <i>RR your observation about the Vermeulle 93-S may actually support Laura's point. It was locked up for years, either as part of Morgan set or held as a stand-alone trophy coin or investment coin. Either way, anyone whose goal was to assemble a top Morgan set and who could have footed the bill at the time it was sold missed that opportunity. It is now being offered by Coronet through Legend for $2 million. Will there be a taker at that price? Don't know.
Consider this. Which would you rather own. The Coronet set without the 93-s, 92-s and 93-o, or just the Coronet 92-s and 93-O with the Eliasberg 93-s instead of the Vermeulle coin?
CG >>
My only point was that it was likely locked up by someone other than a very top end, Morgan REG set collector. No doubt a great trophy coin as I even thought about buying it back in 2001. Yes, any big time set collectors missed the boat back then. Who knows why? We'll see if Legend gets their $2 MILL bucks. They want $2 MILL bucks for the 1870-s half dime too. But from what I recall reading in the last Legend auction catalog, that 1893-s dollar was going to their fall auction unreserved. So now it's been pieced separate from the rest of the set for a fixed $2 MILL?....a 5X increase since 2001. That sort of supports my idea (ie the coin is no longer part of the set ....and therefore not available at auction and therefore can't be used to draw in additional bidders). So much for the theories about a great set when the key date coin is sold separate. I say let it go off unreserved at auction like it did back back in 2001.
Consider this. Which would you rather own. The Coronet set without the 93-s, 92-s and 93-o, or just the Coronet 92-s and 93-O with the Eliasberg 93-s instead of the Vermeulle coin?
It's the finest known Vermeulle coin that always interested me. So the MS65 Eliasberg, no matter how PQ doesn't cut it. My choice would be the entire orig set without the V. 93-s, 92-s and 93-0. Morgan sets never fascinated me so I'd prefer none of the above. I considered the V. coin once because in the $400-$475K range it seemed reasonable, even in 2001. For my $2 MILL today I could buy the Simpson half dime collection (less the 70-s which I wouldn't want) and have a 1 $MILL left over to buy a lot of other coins. If Morgan dollar collectors and dealers are apparently known for not stepping up, why would I want to spend $2 MILL on one Morgan dollar? That same money could buy a laundry list of major rarities....where dealers and collectors have normally stepped up. $1 MILL would could buy the run of 1870-1873 cc quarters (5) in top grades. I think that $2 MILL would buy that set by substituting the finest known of 5 1873-cc NA for one of the MS63/64 coins. 5 essentially finest known CC quarters for the same price as the Vermeulle 1893-s? No brainer for me. Though that same $2 MILL would also buy one heck of gem O and S mint seated quarter set (47+ coins)....almost enough for all the finest knowns, most of which are rarer in gem unc than a 93-s Morgan.
You know, I went back and looked at the article a 3rd time and noticed that the article was titled: DO NOT DO THIS! . And then right below is the apparent descriptive sub-title: RESPECT THE KEY DATES
So if I'm reading this literally, the article could mean either DO or DO NOT - Respect the Key Dates. So be your own judge. I took it to mean "respect them" based on the interior content. Your mileage may vary.