I think most of us will be dead before we have an answer to this debate. That being said, as younger collectors come into the hobby, they are very far removed from silver coinage in circulation. While I personally think it is not as appealing, it isn't perhaps as "low-brow" to younger collectors. I think some new designs would also help for many reasons, but good luck removing the emperors, I mean presidents from the coins.
<< <i>For an average collector, it would be a steep uphill climb. The new person will need to spend the hundreds or perhaps even thousands of hours getting up to a similar level of expertise as these major players or be food for the higher ups on the food chain. >>
A couple points.
Becoming a serious collector of anything requires work and time. I don't believe that moderns are any more complicated than any other collectible. In some ways they are probably actually easier.
Also, there's the fact that folks like Wondercoin had to blaze his own trails into the wil- derness. But he has left those trails and has made clearings and left markers for any who would follow. Of course putting together modern sets seems a daunting task to anyone who hasn't followed the coins or even the price guides but it becomes far simpler the instant you define a collection and start filling an album or assembling the parts. I believe collecting the higher grade coins really simplifies things since there's less issue with getting matching coins or similar surfaces.
I almost hate to say this but assembling modern sets is almost like "painting by the num- bers". I don't mean it isn't worthwhile, just that once you get started it's probably easier than most coin collections and they are far cheaper than your average Rembrandt. The beauty can be found in the coins moreso than the picture they paint. The beauty is in a representation of the modern age that is attractive and positive.
<< <i>The only thing that comes to mind is that a collection of moderns in 30 years will be looked at like a stamp collection is today. And unless its the very very best, its junk. >>
So do you believe the Russian moderns which can sell up to a couple thousand for a typical Unc will also be just so much window dressing? Are the Russian coin collectors going to just wake up one day and decide there's no reason to include any coins from 1961 to 1990? Are New Zealand collectors going to decide the cu/ ni coins aren't really desirable afterall. How about India? Are they making a mistake paying big money for aluminum coins made in modern times?
Why should US coins be uncollectible except in high grade?
<< <i>If I have misunderstood the post then please set me straight. >>
Yes. You've missed the point by a country mile. This simply isn't about anyone personally. I'm not going to say why it doesn't involve me personally because it's not the point. It's true I've been wrong longer than anyone else but even a stopped clock has to be right eventually; even the calender repeats.
The point here is that there is good reason to believe that things will change just as soon as the economy improves and every indication is the economy is finally starting to improve. The only thing standing in the way of higher prices for moderns has always and only been the lack of demand. It's never been about too much supply. Even in 1969 it would have been difficulrt to find enough nice attractive Philly quarters to sat- isfy any significant demand. After all these years these coins are almost all gone and there is still no demand.
But demand has been creeping higher since about 1980 and has been goosed a few times, most notably with the issuance of the states coins. It's invisible but demand has been still escalating since the onset of the great recession. It's invisible because the recession caused a brief spike in the supply of mint and proof sets onto the market and these have hidden a lot of new interesty and new demand. I see this new interest everyday though and demand forces are building while the supply of raw coins is on the verge of drying up.
Keep in mind the backdrop of many modern world coins exploding higher in price. This means there's even a little demand from other countries for US moderns. The point of the thread is simply that the supply of moderns is small and the apparent supply can evaporate nearly overnight. The thread isn't about pop-tops or flipping brand new coins though I like coins in the highest grades and wouldn't begrudge anyone selling a new coin for a fast profit. I have never dealt in coins less than three years old except to occasionally buy something from the mint and to scour new coin.
<< <i> Point taken on the 1969 P quarter. That is only 1 die variety. But consider the 1969 D. The 1969 D has 5 varieties. The type B like type H is the most obvious and the scarcest. Starting in 1973 I used to find almost 1% of the 1969 D's were this variety. By that time, they all had some degree of circulation to them. I would like to have an unc version. That is virtually impossible to find.
THe the 1970D, 1971D and 1972D ones are much scarcer that the 1969D's ones. >>
These lower mintage coins are like the canary in the coal mine in showing what the real demand is for moderns. Many of these coins are simply rare above XF condition yet they are very reasonably priced (if you could find one).
It's very hard to believe this situation will last. These are US coins with everything going for them.
<< <i>I think most of us will be dead before we have an answer to this debate. >>
Perhaps, but I'm guessing that as soon as the economy shows positive signs of recovery that moderns will start higher. Truth to tell, I think if US collectors continue to shun the coins then they will begin flowing out of the country. It's a world market more and more because of the internet and there are people all over who want nice coins.
"Combine that with dealer side access to raw coins"
RedTiger: I believe the "trick" was buying the coins when no one else wants them. For example, before Heritage liked moderns ... many, many moons ago, they simply wholesaled out much of what they took in (that they did not want). I would buy every bank-wrapped roll I could from them ... especially Lincoln Wheat Cents, Jefferson Nickels, Roosie Dimes, Wash Quarters, Kennedy Half Dollars, etc., etc. The rolls I purchased yielded great finds over the years.
Now, let's turn to 2013. First, these rolls simply do not exist like they did back in the 1980's and 1990's. What's out there in many cases are the "left overs" or "put together" rolls. So, does that mean a young collector has no chance to cherry great moderns as I was able to do in the 1980's and 1990's or CK in the 1970's? Heck no! There is a fantastic source for fresh raw business strike moderns now ... namely the US Mint. One can buy (500) fresh Pres $1's for $550 and potentially find pop tops or scarce varieties for about a 10 cents premium per coin to search. Or, $25 in fresh National Park Quarters for $35. Slab a highest grade specimen and turn a huge profit. Hence, "dealer side access" is really not all that important any longer in the hunt for moderns as the largest coin dealer in the county has plenty of coins to sell to everyone and fresh off their presses.
Now, I mention the "profits" because so many reading this thread would prefer to take such profits and buy classic coins with the proceeds given the choice. But, I have sold just a tiny fraction of the great modern coins I have slabbed throughout the years... generally for the benefit of a collector I am assisting with building a set (and in some cases have had the opportunity to buy back some of these coins when the collector later called it quits). I really just love these post-1964 business strike coins as I grew up with them. The 1970-D Kennedy Half Dollar in PCGS-MS67 I slabbed about 6 weeks ago came from a coin I set aside a decade or two decades ago. I knew the coin would be an amazing MS67 one day as I once owned one of the other two PCGS-MS67 coins for that date and I let it go as a couple of my raw 70-D coins were simply nicer quality specimens in my view. I had zero interest in selling the raw monster gem Kennedy ten or twenty years ago and even less interest now that it is in a PCGS-MS67 holder (pop 3/0) as it is a stunner. In fact, next up is a monster toned 1969-D Kennedy Half Dollar I have always personally graded MS67 ... I submitted it today actually. Another "near impossible" coin to locate in true MS67 quality ... PCGS has graded 3 coins MS67 in the past 26 years or so (and I know I slabbed at least one of those three coins as this would be a dupe for me if it grades MS67).
Never a dull moment when you are "knee deep" into these moderns.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>I know that the copper-nickel clad coinage is scarce to rare in the Gem Mint State grades (MS-65 and higher), but I'm sorry, I just don't like the look of the stuff.
I keep up with all of the modern commemorative coins, and in all but two cases, the 1982 Washington and the Bill of Rights half dollars, the 50 cent pieces are all clad coins. Some of the designs are great and are often better than the designs of their silver dollar counterparts, but that grayish nickel surface is just inferior to silver. I don't care for it.
That is just my taste in coins, and I will never be a modern coin collector or student of the series. >>
Any individual collector is free to enjoy or not enjoy a series. What matters more for overall series demand, is how many people do enjoy it. There are many classic series that aren't very much to look at but have strong enough demand to generate decent prices.
It will be interesting to see what happens with circulation moderns but I'm always a strong proponent of collect what you like.
Good post CladKing, as always. I suspect your audience is much larger than is reflected by the replies to this thread. I enjoyed your comments on the Ike and your initial reaction to the appearance of the typical circulated example. I also liked reading Bill Jones take on the unattractiveness of the Washington quarter. I disagree with his his view, but believe it is an honest view that ignores the artificial distinction between moderns and other coins. I hold a similar view of the seated liberty design which graced nearly all federal coins from 1836 to 1891. We all like different things. A lusterous Ike supergem is quite unlike a marked up circ. I am always surprised when I see one in person.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Most new collectors probably start out with moderns but quickly become bored. Then, they discover something more fun to collect, like bust halves, large cents, Morgans, Walkers or whatever, and quickly abandon moderns.
I can see your point but I don't think we will ever see the demand.
How many collectors have upgraded their modern clad sets or even their Washington quarter(1932-1964 included) or Jefferson nickel(1938 to date) sets, from circulation finds to BU? I have started to do so, however this is a back burner project.
I am not a big fan of moderns but l do like the varieties like double dies, type B & C- reverse quarters, wide am cents, off-metal planchets, clad coins without a clad layer, etc.
How many years did it take for a 1912 S Liberty nickel to get so expensive ? Or ... a 1914 D Lincoln cent ? It could take 99 years or 101 years with today's coins. The point people are missing about moderns will be debated next century, too.
<< <i>I would guess that in the early 1950's no one expected the coins of the day to become as collectible as they are now. If the mint abandons the cent or changes the composition of the nickel due to the cost of nickel, there may be a new batch of collectors out there. Many present collectors got started shortly after silver was eliminated from our coins. I dont know what the future holds, but i think cladking makes a very good point. If and when interest in what we call moderns picks up for whatever reason, high quality specimens will be difficult to find. I personally welcome cladkings knowledge and foresight. I appreciate his willingness to share that knowledge here. >>
Since reading his threads for the past 3 years I have been pulling in some of these coins as I find them. For the past 3 years I have searched for the 69d thru 72 d type H quarters with no luck, but I still search everyday. Collect what you like and I am in the camp of searching out these now....Thanks for taking the time to share the info.......Enjoy
The fact is this's stuff, circulating moderns......we all have cans of small change and it is sickeningly familiar. If you get excited about a very shiny seventies quarter then your in your element. If you like the history of coins... This stuff is useless.
One of my best friends has a saying that I believe I'll have put on a coffee cup: I don't have to convince you, its not religion. I'm glad Sam doesn't feel that way.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Even given the seemingly unending supply of clad mint sets, the supply of GEMS is steadily shrinking.
I have been going thru mint sets looking for GEMS for very many years and the frequency of finding GEMS in these sets gets lower and lower.
This leads me to beleive that many of the sets on the market have already been screened.
In the mid 1990's I had much more success... finding things on occasion like MS68 Kennedys and MS68FB dimes.
Sure, there are no doubt unsearched sets sitting around in closets and large inventories, but a significant number of those sets have already been cherried IMHO.
Jumping into the discussion late, but whenever I see a post by CladKing, I pay close attention. It was actually his comments that got me to put together a quarter set from circulation about 3 or 4 years ago. It was a lot of fun, and I quickly saw what he was talking about--just how rapidly quarters especially are wearing out. I also saw that when I found a nice one, it really was beautiful--something I'd never appreciated with clad coins before. No, I don't buy them, but I continue to set aside nice older dates I find.
<< <i>The only thing that comes to mind is that a collection of moderns in 30 years will be looked at like a stamp collection is today. And unless its the very very best, its junk. >>
I will back you up with that comment! >>
WOW! The arrogance of some people, reading this thread really shows the bias of some collectors towards modern coinage.
My collection of Kennedy half dollars is no where near the “very very best” because I know of several collections that are better. But still to me anything valued at over six figures I wouldn’t consider “junk”.
And if you think nice looking coins are easy to find, I will gladly pay four figures for a businesses strike 1967 or 1971 (P) Kennedy half dollar graded MS67 at PCGS
So when you say that “I will back you up with that comment!” it shows me that you don’t know what you are talking about. Somebody’s mouth is writing checks that their back side can’t cover.
You have a forbidden word in your message post. Please click the back button in your browser and remove this word from your post. The words that are forbidden are highlighted for you.
Caleb: Rest easy ... “The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are coksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” ― Bertrand Russell, Mortals and Others 1: American Essays 1931-35
Wondercoin (had to change the spelling of 1 word to get this through)
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Here's another issue that irks me about moderns, I often see right on this board how everyone is running out to buy newly minted what evers, trying to figure out if it will be a winner or not, then buying them and immediately fllipping them...
If you read the OP, you will see that CK is not talking about that situation. He is talking about real collectors collecting real coins in the same way that you do.
I think that Keets hit the nail on the head: <<there are three things which work against Moderns: 1. the designs are still being struck. 2. the coins are struck on planchets with no intrinsic value. 3. the bulk of the collecting population is older and advanced past entry level.>>
For me, "old and obsolete" has always been an attraction to coins, from the time I was a boy. I would rather have a partial album with slick, common date Barber dimes than a complete album of lovely MS Roosevelt dimes. My favorite coin was always my oldest, and I did my best to keep pushing back in time. Everybody has a reason to collect and a perspective that is unique and different from the next person's.
Ten years ago, I hated on the moderns. Today, I have an appreciation for the various facets of collecting them, and modern coins, esp NCLT, are an important part of my collection.
The point I was trying to make was not one of arrogance but of realism from my perspective. Caleb if you have $100k+ tied up in moderns more power to you. I would be crapping myself. I'd always be wondering if I would ever get my money back if I quickly needed to. To me that amount is no longer hobby money, it is an investment, and I will treat it as such.
For example, that $86k SAE - to me that is not liquid. Let's forget about that it could be one spot, or scratch, or whatever away from a 95% loss. It's a very special market and if you needed that money in a pinch, there is a very real possibility that a huge loss may be taken. That is a volatility with which I am not comfortable. For me, an $86k Higley could be unloaded in an instant if necessary.
<< <i>The point I was trying to make was not one of arrogance but of realism from my perspective. Caleb if you have $100k+ tied up in moderns more power to you. I would be crapping myself. I'd always be wondering if I would ever get my money back if I quickly needed to. To me that amount is no longer hobby money, it is an investment, and I will treat it as such.
For example, that $86k SAE - to me that is not liquid. Let's forget about that it could be one spot, or scratch, or whatever away from a 95% loss. It's a very special market and if you needed that money in a pinch, there is a very real possibility that a huge loss may be taken. That is a volatility with which I am not comfortable. For me, an $86k Higley could be unloaded in an instant if necessary. >>
The counterargument is that an expensive seated coin or bust coin can turn and lose a substantial portion of its value overnight. Also, the $86k SAE is not the typical scenario. My bullion grade SAEs will not lose their value overnight; in fact, a roll of them is probably more liquid and stable than a seated coin of comparable value.
Deliabug: Bringing up an $86k silver eagle 1995-W sale is like arguing classic coins are no good because on 8/7/2000 a 1919-D Mercury Dime MS66FB sold for $218,500 at the Heritage sale and then on 10/6/2000 another one sold for $115,000 at Heritage just 2 months later (not to mention $69,000 on 4/30/2009).
Do you see the point Deliabug?
Wondercoin
Edited to add ... in fact, it actually may show just how incredible Caleb's Kennedy collection really is. While some folks (well purported one person) are spending $86,000 on a coin worth less than $4,000 in the undergrade with nearly 1,600 examples presently graded ... that money could have bought nearly Caleb's entire Kennedy collection! Holy Cow!! And, this comes back to another point made on this thread ... folks will likely "lose their shirts' on buying moderns while others will make a small fortune. It's all about doing your homework and buying the RIGHT coins.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>The point I was trying to make was not one of arrogance but of realism from my perspective. Caleb if you have $100k+ tied up in moderns more power to you. I would be crapping myself. I'd always be wondering if I would ever get my money back if I quickly needed to. To me that amount is no longer hobby money, it is an investment, and I will treat it as such.
For example, that $86k SAE - to me that is not liquid. Let's forget about that it could be one spot, or scratch, or whatever away from a 95% loss. It's a very special market and if you needed that money in a pinch, there is a very real possibility that a huge loss may be taken. That is a volatility with which I am not comfortable. For me, an $86k Higley could be unloaded in an instant if necessary. >>
First, we don’t have $100,000 tied up in the set, actually under $45,000 (see below):
The value that PCGS puts on this set is a little light considering that within the price tag of $115,736 there are 30 (thirty) coins that they have a price tag of $0.00 on (a few are illustrated below):
Then there are some coins like the 1972 DDO FS-101 or the 1973-D DDO FS-101 which for a top pop of 1, PCGS has a price tag of $85 each (LOL). Something tells me that the market would bring more.
Then you add the minor varieties that we have in our showcase set linked below, we are more then comfortable with the level of financial commitment to this hobby. Something tells me that we could at least break even if not double our investment if we choice to sell.
I had been collecting for 10 years when the first clad coinage was released in the fall of 1965. I had eagerly anticipated the 1965 quarters, but was extremely disappointed whenI received the first ones. They were dull, had streaks of grease on them, and the relief was shallower than on the silver coins they replaced. The 1965 dimes came out a month or two later, and were better. I just didn't collect Roosevelts at that time. When the first silver-clad 1965 halves came out in early 1966, I bought my first one at my local B&M the first week they were available. Now THAT was a nice coin! I still have it, and think it has a shot at being a MS67. I've hesitated to send it in for grading, because I'm afraid PCGS would label it as a SMS coin, even though I purchased it before SMS sets were available.
The 1966 quarters were an improvement over the 1965's, but it seemed that many were struck from worn dies. I found that to be true for many of the 1966 dimes, too. I bought a business strike 1966 half when they were released in August of that year. The dealer had just received his first roll of them, and they were all prooflike! Unfortunately, they also had extremely heavy die polish, which detracted from their appearance. None of the 1966 halves I subsequently received in change were prooflike.
By 1967, clad quarters were finally beginning to look decent. As a whole, they were a huge improvement over the first 2 years, and frequently would almost look like silver coins. I received many 1967 halves in change, with most of them having attractive luster, but also a few bagmarks.
1968 was a mixed bag for quarters. The P mint coins were absolutely awful-looking - weakly struck, dull, and covered with hundreds of marks on the planchets. They looked as if they'd been in circulation for 5 years, even when new. In the late 1970's I found a really nice 68-P in a dealer's case. I later submitted it to PCGS, hoping for a MS67, but it came back as MS66. The Denver coins were another story. I found some that were semi-prooflike, a first for the clad quarter series. It was easy to find attractive 1968-D quarters. The 1968-D halves were comparable in quality to those of 1967.
1969 was similar to 1968 for the quarters but, as Cladking points out, the quality of the P mint quarters was abysmal, even worse than the 1968-P, which is saying a lot! The 1969-D halves were nowhere near as nice as those from 1965-1968. They had a lot more bagmarks, and the luster was almost uniformly dull. Even today, finding a 1969-D half with booming white luster is difficult.
The P mint quarters continued to be very poor quality through 1971, although some acceptable examples can be found in mint sets.
My experience with the first Ike dollars mirrors that of the first clad quarters. I received both P and D mints at the local banks. The best ones had so-so luster and lots of bagmarks. It wasn't until I received my 1973 mint sets that I saw my first really nice CuNi Ike dollar.
The poor quality of clad coinage in its early years probably went a long way toward keeping collectors from saving it. I believe there are also some later issues, particularly from the 1980's, that are sleepers in MS66 or better.
I've enjoyed reading all of the comments here, and understand the aversion of some people to collecting clad coinage. I am a COLLECTOR, though, and have always saved attractive specimens when received in the year of issue. (The self checkout at Home Depot is a good source for new coinage.) One of these days I'll do as Wondercoin has, and "dust-off" the tubes that I've filled over the years.
I had been collecting for 10 years when the first clad coinage was released in the fall of 1965. I had eagerly anticipated the 1965 quarters, but was extremely disappointed whenI received the first ones. They were dull, had streaks of grease on them, and the relief was shallower than on the silver coins they replaced.
Our experiences were different. When the 1965 Quarters first came out, I was intrigued by the glowing grey luster and clean strike. People were talking about how LBJ had debased the coinage, but this new metal was very interesting to me. The edges were red and sometimes the copper would show on the obverse or reverse.
By the time I was in college during the early 1970s, the dies were being overused and nothing looked any good, especially the Kennedys.
I still collect multiple books from circulation, and I've just recently started my Dansco BU collection of the newer stuff. Flashy, yes. Valuable, no.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I would just say this: if the mint issue rolls of Sacagawea dollars are selling for face value how can anyone ever expect that other modern coins would ever have any collector value. If that example is not good enough then how long would you have to hold on to a mint issue Proof set for you to be able to sell it for more than you paid?
these Modern threads, meant to be informative, always seem to follow the same course. I find them to be at the same time both disheartening and humorous.
<< <i>Jumping into the discussion late, but whenever I see a post by CladKing, I pay close attention. It was actually his comments that got me to put together a quarter set from circulation about 3 or 4 years ago. It was a lot of fun, and I quickly saw what he was talking about--just how rapidly quarters especially are wearing out. I also saw that when I found a nice one, it really was beautiful--something I'd never appreciated with clad coins before. No, I don't buy them, but I continue to set aside nice older dates I find. >>
I've had a hoot with my "from circulation" sets as well. Even my primary set is "from circulation" to a large degree since some coins I've found only in circulation or from rolls and bags but I've been doing that straight along. I wanted to know what sets of these coins would look like for people who started with the states coins so I started dime and quarter sets in 1996 when the program was announced. It's not just how much I've learned from these sets and having a nice reference collection at home instead of in the safety deposit box but they're just a lot of fun to put together. It's pretty surprising how nice many of the coins are with all of the quarters being XF or better with most in AU and a few Gems for post-94 dates. The dimes aren't quite as nice because I don't search as many dimes and because the attrition on dimes is very high. It's tough to find a nice '78-D dime when you rarely see a '78-D dime at all.
My only real regret is that I didn't do nickels also. I'm thinking of starting new sets of dimes, quar- ters, and nickels. Perhaps pennies would be a good thing as well but I keep up with them well enough probably. I'm guessing the quarters will prove far more difficult now sinmce I haven't had an upgrade on a pre-'92 coin in over two years. The coins aren't as much getting picked over as they are just continuing to wear out in circulation.
This thread is reminiscent of this thread back in January: Link as well as a bunch of others from the past 10 years:
If clad quarters have not attracted a significant following in 48 years, why should they become popular now? Or as I put it in the January thread, if I go out and buy up a bunch of 1965 quarters now how much longer will I have to wait until the rest of the collector world catches on so that I can cash in big time? Because I'm not as young as I was in 1965 and waiting an additional 48 years is in one sense optimistic while at the same time not a real attractive proposition.
<< <i>Good post CladKing, as always. I suspect your audience is much larger than is reflected by the replies to this thread. I enjoyed your comments on the Ike and your initial reaction to the appearance of the typical circulated example. I also liked reading Bill Jones take on the unattractiveness of the Washington quarter. I disagree with his his view, but believe it is an honest view that ignores the artificial distinction between moderns and other coins. I hold a similar view of the seated liberty design which graced nearly all federal coins from 1836 to 1891. We all like different things. A lusterous Ike supergem is quite unlike a marked up circ. I am always surprised when I see one in person. >>
It is apparent that the numbers of modern collectors is continuing to increase. It might even be snowballing but I've lost touch with the mass market in these; namely Shop At Home, Bob Vila, et al. I'll regain touch very soon though. There are stirrings in these markets now which is why I've started the thread. I've been wrong about these coins longer than anyone but if I'm right people will one day say I was about the first to be right. Keep in mind that there have been about a dozen road signs that have always needed to be in place before these coins could take off and the improving economy now is the very last one. If it doesn't happen with a strong economy in the next couple three years it might never happen.
The Washington quarter is never going to be considered high art but my opinion has softened a great deal over the years. I think it was fairly good art for its time. 1932 was art deco and you can see the influence. While I'm not a fan of presidents and coins loaded with mottos and verbiage this is a good reflection of modern day America where advertising rules all.
<< <i> Most new collectors probably start out with moderns but quickly become bored. Then, they discover something more fun to collect, like bust halves, large cents, Morgans, Walkers or whatever, and quickly abandon moderns.
I can see your point but I don't think we will ever see the demand.
How many collectors have upgraded their modern clad sets or even their Washington quarter(1932-1964 included) or Jefferson nickel(1938 to date) sets, from circulation finds to BU? I have started to do so, however this is a back burner project.
>>
It is simply inconcievable to me that a coin like a '50-D nickel with more than one and a half million coins surviving in Unc can indefinitely sell for far more than more recent coins with much lower survivorship. Why should the demand for coins simply stop at 1964 except for the fact that most existing collectors quit collecting new coins in 1964? Now the population of collectors are opposed to moderns, base metal, and later coins but this is not going to be a factor for collectors in other countries nor most newer collectors in this country. One of the primary at- tractants for collectors is rarity so why will future collectors want to pay for a '50-D when a far scarcer coin can be had for a lot less money? This is greatly exascerbated by the fact that most '50-D nickels look fairly decent but in some cases the scarcer newer coins can be usually ugly.
Perhaps you're right, but I doubt it and history is probably on my side. Of course this is modern history since before the 1880's numismatics was mostly just the hobby of kings. With the inter- net, grading companies, and the ability to locate just about anything I don't think we'll revert to numismatics being only for the wealthy. One of the reasons collecting wasn't popular was simply the inability to obtain coins except in circulation.
<< <i>One of my best friends has a saying that I believe I'll have put on a coffee cup: I don't have to convince you, its not religion. I'm glad Sam doesn't feel that way. >>
I'll be thumping one Bible or another any day now.
I think people are going to be pretty happy if they react to this. Yes, there's probably a sort of self fullfilling prophesy at work as well but for the main part the future really is beyond anyone's control. Millions of folders are getting sold and I'm not the one buying them or paying for them. People are coming up with the idea of collecting them on their own because it's a natural out- growth of seeing all the rejects for their states quarter sets. Every time they see an old quarter or one in spectacular condition they are likely to wonder where it's been and how it looks like it does.
<< <i>Even given the seemingly unending supply of clad mint sets, the supply of GEMS is steadily shrinking.
I have been going thru mint sets looking for GEMS for very many years and the frequency of finding GEMS in these sets gets lower and lower.
This leads me to beleive that many of the sets on the market have already been screened.
In the mid 1990's I had much more success... finding things on occasion like MS68 Kennedys and MS68FB dimes.
Sure, there are no doubt unsearched sets sitting around in closets and large inventories, but a significant number of those sets have already been cherried IMHO. >>
Some of the sets are heavily picked over. Some less so.
I don't believe they are picked over systematically so much as naturally. What I mean is that it's not the result of someone saving every '72-D dime he sees in every mint set nicer than MS-65 but rather someone looking over a few sets and choosing the nicest '72-D dime. The effect isn't quite the same. If people were systematically cherry picking then the highest grades would be hit extremely hard and somewhat lower grade much less so. Instead what seems to be happening is that all the gemmy coins are becoming equally less common. Where you might have once found eight decent '69 quarters in a 100 mint sets you'll now find only six. But those six will lay out about the same as they used to with the same proportion of grades. What many don't see because they haven't paid attention is that it used to be easy to find 100 1969 mint sets and now it's difficult to find more than a handfull at a time. These sets have been "consumed"; lost to time and tide.
Or as I put it in the January thread, if I go out and buy up a bunch of 1965 quarters now how much longer will I have to wait until the rest of the collector world catches on so that I can cash in big time?
Who collects anything by going out and buying up a bunch, other than bullion?
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>I had been collecting for 10 years when the first clad coinage was released in the fall of 1965. I had eagerly anticipated the 1965 quarters, but was extremely disappointed whenI received the first ones. They were dull, had streaks of grease on them, and the relief was shallower than on the silver coins they replaced. The 1965 dimes came out a month or two later, and were better. I just didn't collect Roosevelts at that time. When the first silver-clad 1965 halves came out in early 1966, I bought my first one at my local B&M the first week they were available. Now THAT was a nice coin! I still have it, and think it has a shot at being a MS67. I've hesitated to send it in for grading, because I'm afraid PCGS would label it as a SMS coin, even though I purchased it before SMS sets were available.
The 1966 quarters were an improvement over the 1965's, but it seemed that many were struck from worn dies. I found that to be true for many of the 1966 dimes, too. I bought a business strike 1966 half when they were released in August of that year. The dealer had just received his first roll of them, and they were all prooflike! Unfortunately, they also had extremely heavy die polish, which detracted from their appearance. None of the 1966 halves I subsequently received in change were prooflike.
By 1967, clad quarters were finally beginning to look decent. As a whole, they were a huge improvement over the first 2 years, and frequently would almost look like silver coins. I received many 1967 halves in change, with most of them having attractive luster, but also a few bagmarks.
1968 was a mixed bag for quarters. The P mint coins were absolutely awful-looking - weakly struck, dull, and covered with hundreds of marks on the planchets. They looked as if they'd been in circulation for 5 years, even when new. In the late 1970's I found a really nice 68-P in a dealer's case. I later submitted it to PCGS, hoping for a MS67, but it came back as MS66. The Denver coins were another story. I found some that were semi-prooflike, a first for the clad quarter series. It was easy to find attractive 1968-D quarters. The 1968-D halves were comparable in quality to those of 1967.
1969 was similar to 1968 for the quarters but, as Cladking points out, the quality of the P mint quarters was abysmal, even worse than the 1968-P, which is saying a lot! The 1969-D halves were nowhere near as nice as those from 1965-1968. They had a lot more bagmarks, and the luster was almost uniformly dull. Even today, finding a 1969-D half with booming white luster is difficult.
The P mint quarters continued to be very poor quality through 1971, although some acceptable examples can be found in mint sets.
My experience with the first Ike dollars mirrors that of the first clad quarters. I received both P and D mints at the local banks. The best ones had so-so luster and lots of bagmarks. It wasn't until I received my 1973 mint sets that I saw my first really nice CuNi Ike dollar.
The poor quality of clad coinage in its early years probably went a long way toward keeping collectors from saving it. I believe there are also some later issues, particularly from the 1980's, that are sleepers in MS66 or better.
I've enjoyed reading all of the comments here, and understand the aversion of some people to collecting clad coinage. I am a COLLECTOR, though, and have always saved attractive specimens when received in the year of issue. (The self checkout at Home Depot is a good source for new coinage.) One of these days I'll do as Wondercoin has, and "dust-off" the tubes that I've filled over the years. >>
This was definitely written by a collector.
Watching all those old poorly made cpoins wear out and get lost from circulation over the years has also been quite an experience. It's funny how some coins like brand new '69-D dimes or '65 quarters were still being released in 1975. Funnier is how '72-D quarters stayed in AU longer than other dates or how '84-P quarters just about "evaporated" in cir- culation.
These coins have been a lot of fun to watch and collect and it's just going to get better and better. I hope to stick around long enough to see some of them be retired. ...I think. This is the fate of most world moderns; to make refrigerators and other consumer products. Collectors have to fight for a few that were saved.
<< <i>I had been collecting for 10 years when the first clad coinage was released in the fall of 1965. I had eagerly anticipated the 1965 quarters, but was extremely disappointed whenI received the first ones. They were dull, had streaks of grease on them, and the relief was shallower than on the silver coins they replaced.
Our experiences were different. When the 1965 Quarters first came out, I was intrigued by the glowing grey luster and clean strike. People were talking about how LBJ had debased the coinage, but this new metal was very interesting to me. The edges were red and sometimes the copper would show on the obverse or reverse.
By the time I was in college during the early 1970s, the dies were being overused and nothing looked any good, especially the Kennedys.
I still collect multiple books from circulation, and I've just recently started my Dansco BU collection of the newer stuff. Flashy, yes. Valuable, no. >>
My very first 1965 clad was pretty gemmy as well. By the time I got done with it it was a wreck since I tried to take it apart. As time went by though it was very soon they all started looking like a mess. They were poorly struck by worn dies. They were "mushy". A lot of the '66's were even worse.
<< <i> If clad quarters have not attracted a significant following in 48 years, why should they become popular now? >>
I watch these markets very very closely. You don't see the steadily increasing demand because you aren't interested but I've seen it ratcheting higher since 1980. Anecdotal evidence suggests the rate of increase is increasing at the grass roots level.
It was the great recession of '08 that caused a glut of mint sets on the market and swamped the demand. These sets are now largely consumed and with an improving economy there will be a large curtailment of sets coming to market. The backlog is simply insignificant and could be eliminated with one or two nights of TV sales. There is no other source for the grow- ing demand.
It simply won't take "popularity" to drive prices sharply higher. It will merely take more de- mand than supply. World nmoderns aren't going through the roof because they are so popular; far from it. They are going higher because there is a small demand and a smaller supply.
One day it would be great to see high quality photographs of a set of GEM (or better) MS Ike dollars, SBA dollars, 1970-2002 Kennedy half dollars, 1965-1998 Washington Quarters, 1965-1999 Roosevelt dimes, 1965-2002 Jefferson Nickels and 1959-2008 Lincoln Cents. Having high quality photographs of examples of these coins available for viewing would allow those who participate in the hobby an opportunity to compare to the photographs the best examples of these coins to the best of whatever "modern coins" they happen to have sitting around in mint sets, folders, rolls and flips.
Wondercoin has posted pictures of some of his best Silver Washington quarters and many people were amazed at the quality and beauty of same. I suspect that his best 1965-1998 Clad quarters would, if displayed, generate quiet a bit of buzz around the forums. >>
I am not much of a photographer myself, but have been slowly getting trueviews of my collection done. I figure it will take me a few more years to get it done, but have finished most of my Ikes, SBA, and Saca dollars so far. There are a few pretty good examples of GEM or better quality there.
There have been several good points made by several posters in this thread. It is a welcome breath of fresh air, as opposed to the typical modern bashing posts of a few years ago.
I enjoyed the aurguments made about the liquidity and "investment" opinions. From my own perspective, I can not bring myself to consider collecting moderns as an financial investment. As a rule, the supply far exceeds the demand at this time. This is most true when it comes to the ultra-modern dollars, as they do not circulate well, and are piling up in storage. As the decades pass, this will slowly change; but I will not see it in my lifetime. I try to collect the highest grades possible, as the benefit of conditional rarety does reduce the risk somewhat. However I must assume, if something were to happen to me tommorrow and my wife had to dump everything at Heritage, she would probably not realize anything close to what I have in the coins. So for that reason, I do not ever consider the value of any of my moderns as an investment from a financial point of view. There are other ways to look at investing. I invest in the enjoyment I receive, in building and improving my collection. From that perspective it is very easy to rationalize the cost of the coins.
WonderCoin makes good points about the opportunities and costly pitfalls about searching through raw material for gems. He is one of the experts in that area. I know how tough it can be to find the gems. Whenever, I have the time, I search through rolls of presentials for edge varieties when I can. Unfortunately, I just do not have the time to search much, and trust me, it takes a lot of searching to find anything decent. I have had a brick of Arthurs in my dest for over a year, and have barely had the time to dent it. It takes a lot of time and patience to do it right. That is why I usually have to depend on people like Wondercoin and his children to come up with the top quality coins. I do not mind paying up for those coins, because I know the labor and costs involved in finding them.
Modern coins don't really perform that much differently than more traditional Classic coins, the primary influence on price seems to be that there are more collectors(and hence, more demand) for the latter than the former. one argument against Modern coins is always the numbers available, yet the numbers available in the high grades which drive the market aren't as staggering as many believe. let's face it, most of the collections being assembled which the anti's bemoan are bought at little past face value. that's something that can't be done with Classic coins. those collectors assembling sets in the higher/highest grades in either segment will always be paying a large premium. perhaps there is less risk "at the top" with Classic coins but overall it isn't that much different than Modern coins. with both Classic coins and Modern coins there will always be "sure thing" winners and losers which is an aspect which makes the Hobby the interesting thing that it is to us all.
back to demand, I wonder which area of the two we're discussing has the best probability of increased demand during the next few decades?? that seems to be the real point we're discussing in an attempt for us each to decide where we feel the least risk and highest reward may lie. for someone such as Realone who is hip deep in a collecting direction the question is settled as it is likewise for someone such as Wondercoin. if you haven't decided where to take your collection and have funds available, time to learn and a willing dealer to assist you then the field is wide open, you can assemble coins which are either Classic or Modern. to malign one or the other just doesn't make sense to me.
back to demand, I wonder which area of the two we're discussing has the best probability of increased demand during the next few decades?? that seems to be the real point we're discussing in an attempt for us each to decide where we feel the least risk and highest reward may lie. for someone such as Realone who is hip deep in a collecting direction the question is settled as it is likewise for someone such as Wondercoin. if you haven't decided where to take your collection and have funds available, time to learn and a willing dealer to assist you then the field is wide open, you can assemble coins which are either Classic or Modern. to malign one or the other just doesn't make sense to me. >>
Why do we have to discuss and decide, as collectors, which coins will perform better in the future? Why not just decide on our own which coins interest us and just go with it? Do we really need a "willing dealer" to help us decide which direction to take?
I always thought of deciding to collect coins, or anything else, to be more spontaneous and less pre-meditated than you present.
<< <i>Why do we have to discuss and decide, as collectors, which coins will perform better in the future? Why not just decide on our own which coins interest us and just go with it? >>
I don't know. Seems like it would be a lot more fun than many of the people here appear through their posts to be having.
My collecting strategy is to buy coins I like. When it comes time to sell, if it turns out I chose coins others like too and I make a profit, great. If not, well... I got to enjoy my coins while I had them.
CK, I actually did start with a circ Jeff nickel collection and think it's delivered the most bang for the buck. This was in 2006, and over the next 2 years, I found all dates/mints except about 12--including 7 of the war nickels. Many of these were in amazing condition, too. By 2010, however, I noticed a dramatic drop in what I found in rolls AND the quality had plunged--I presume, from counting machines. I don't search rolls anymore, but am so glad I did this when I did.
Comments
<< <i>For an average collector, it would be a steep uphill climb. The new person will need to spend the hundreds or perhaps even thousands of hours getting up to a similar level of expertise as these major players or be food for the higher ups on the food chain. >>
A couple points.
Becoming a serious collector of anything requires work and time. I don't believe that
moderns are any more complicated than any other collectible. In some ways they are
probably actually easier.
Also, there's the fact that folks like Wondercoin had to blaze his own trails into the wil-
derness. But he has left those trails and has made clearings and left markers for any
who would follow. Of course putting together modern sets seems a daunting task to
anyone who hasn't followed the coins or even the price guides but it becomes far simpler
the instant you define a collection and start filling an album or assembling the parts. I
believe collecting the higher grade coins really simplifies things since there's less issue
with getting matching coins or similar surfaces.
I almost hate to say this but assembling modern sets is almost like "painting by the num-
bers". I don't mean it isn't worthwhile, just that once you get started it's probably easier
than most coin collections and they are far cheaper than your average Rembrandt. The
beauty can be found in the coins moreso than the picture they paint. The beauty is in
a representation of the modern age that is attractive and positive.
<< <i>The only thing that comes to mind is that a collection of moderns in 30 years will be looked at like a stamp collection is today. And unless its the very very best, its junk. >>
So do you believe the Russian moderns which can sell up to a couple thousand for
a typical Unc will also be just so much window dressing? Are the Russian coin collectors
going to just wake up one day and decide there's no reason to include any coins from
1961 to 1990? Are New Zealand collectors going to decide the cu/ ni coins aren't really
desirable afterall. How about India? Are they making a mistake paying big money for
aluminum coins made in modern times?
Why should US coins be uncollectible except in high grade?
<< <i>If I have misunderstood the post then please set me straight. >>
Yes. You've missed the point by a country mile. This simply isn't about anyone personally. I'm
not going to say why it doesn't involve me personally because it's not the point. It's true I've been
wrong longer than anyone else but even a stopped clock has to be right eventually; even the calender
repeats.
The point here is that there is good reason to believe that things will change just as soon as the economy
improves and every indication is the economy is finally starting to improve. The only thing standing in the
way of higher prices for moderns has always and only been the lack of demand. It's never been about too
much supply. Even in 1969 it would have been difficulrt to find enough nice attractive Philly quarters to sat-
isfy any significant demand. After all these years these coins are almost all gone and there is still no demand.
But demand has been creeping higher since about 1980 and has been goosed a few times, most notably with
the issuance of the states coins. It's invisible but demand has been still escalating since the onset of the great
recession. It's invisible because the recession caused a brief spike in the supply of mint and proof sets onto
the market and these have hidden a lot of new interesty and new demand. I see this new interest everyday
though and demand forces are building while the supply of raw coins is on the verge of drying up.
Keep in mind the backdrop of many modern world coins exploding higher in price. This means there's even a
little demand from other countries for US moderns. The point of the thread is simply that the supply of moderns
is small and the apparent supply can evaporate nearly overnight. The thread isn't about pop-tops or flipping
brand new coins though I like coins in the highest grades and wouldn't begrudge anyone selling a new coin
for a fast profit. I have never dealt in coins less than three years old except to occasionally buy something
from the mint and to scour new coin.
<< <i>
Point taken on the 1969 P quarter. That is only 1 die variety. But consider the 1969 D.
The 1969 D has 5 varieties. The type B like type H is the most obvious and the scarcest. Starting in 1973 I used to find
almost 1% of the 1969 D's were this variety. By that time, they all had some degree of circulation to them. I would like to have an unc version. That is virtually impossible to find.
THe the 1970D, 1971D and 1972D ones are much scarcer that the 1969D's ones. >>
These lower mintage coins are like the canary in the coal mine in showing what the real
demand is for moderns. Many of these coins are simply rare above XF condition yet they
are very reasonably priced (if you could find one).
It's very hard to believe this situation will last. These are US coins with everything going
for them.
<< <i>I think most of us will be dead before we have an answer to this debate. >>
Perhaps, but I'm guessing that as soon as the economy shows positive signs of recovery
that moderns will start higher. Truth to tell, I think if US collectors continue to shun the coins
then they will begin flowing out of the country. It's a world market more and more because
of the internet and there are people all over who want nice coins.
RedTiger: I believe the "trick" was buying the coins when no one else wants them. For example, before Heritage liked moderns ... many, many moons ago, they simply wholesaled out much of what they took in (that they did not want). I would buy every bank-wrapped roll I could from them ... especially Lincoln Wheat Cents, Jefferson Nickels, Roosie Dimes, Wash Quarters, Kennedy Half Dollars, etc., etc. The rolls I purchased yielded great finds over the years.
Now, let's turn to 2013. First, these rolls simply do not exist like they did back in the 1980's and 1990's. What's out there in many cases are the "left overs" or "put together" rolls. So, does that mean a young collector has no chance to cherry great moderns as I was able to do in the 1980's and 1990's or CK in the 1970's? Heck no! There is a fantastic source for fresh raw business strike moderns now ... namely the US Mint. One can buy (500) fresh Pres $1's for $550 and potentially find pop tops or scarce varieties for about a 10 cents premium per coin to search. Or, $25 in fresh National Park Quarters for $35. Slab a highest grade specimen and turn a huge profit. Hence, "dealer side access" is really not all that important any longer in the hunt for moderns as the largest coin dealer in the county has plenty of coins to sell to everyone and fresh off their presses.
Now, I mention the "profits" because so many reading this thread would prefer to take such profits and buy classic coins with the proceeds given the choice. But, I have sold just a tiny fraction of the great modern coins I have slabbed throughout the years... generally for the benefit of a collector I am assisting with building a set (and in some cases have had the opportunity to buy back some of these coins when the collector later called it quits). I really just love these post-1964 business strike coins as I grew up with them. The 1970-D Kennedy Half Dollar in PCGS-MS67 I slabbed about 6 weeks ago came from a coin I set aside a decade or two decades ago. I knew the coin would be an amazing MS67 one day as I once owned one of the other two PCGS-MS67 coins for that date and I let it go as a couple of my raw 70-D coins were simply nicer quality specimens in my view. I had zero interest in selling the raw monster gem Kennedy ten or twenty years ago and even less interest now that it is in a PCGS-MS67 holder (pop 3/0) as it is a stunner. In fact, next up is a monster toned 1969-D Kennedy Half Dollar I have always personally graded MS67 ... I submitted it today actually. Another "near impossible" coin to locate in true MS67 quality ... PCGS has graded 3 coins MS67 in the past 26 years or so (and I know I slabbed at least one of those three coins as this would be a dupe for me if it grades MS67).
Never a dull moment when you are "knee deep" into these moderns.
Wondercoin
<< <i>I know that the copper-nickel clad coinage is scarce to rare in the Gem Mint State grades (MS-65 and higher), but I'm sorry, I just don't like the look of the stuff.
I keep up with all of the modern commemorative coins, and in all but two cases, the 1982 Washington and the Bill of Rights half dollars, the 50 cent pieces are all clad coins. Some of the designs are great and are often better than the designs of their silver dollar counterparts, but that grayish nickel surface is just inferior to silver. I don't care for it.
That is just my taste in coins, and I will never be a modern coin collector or student of the series. >>
Any individual collector is free to enjoy or not enjoy a series. What matters more for overall series demand, is how many people do enjoy it. There are many classic series that aren't very much to look at but have strong enough demand to generate decent prices.
It will be interesting to see what happens with circulation moderns but I'm always a strong proponent of collect what you like.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Most new collectors probably start out with moderns but quickly become bored. Then, they discover something more fun to collect, like bust halves, large cents, Morgans, Walkers or whatever, and quickly abandon moderns.
I can see your point but I don't think we will ever see the demand.
How many collectors have upgraded their modern clad sets or even their Washington quarter(1932-1964 included) or Jefferson nickel(1938 to date) sets, from circulation finds to BU? I have started to do so, however this is a back burner project.
I am not a big fan of moderns but l do like the varieties like double dies, type B & C- reverse quarters, wide am cents, off-metal planchets, clad coins without a clad layer, etc.
Bob
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I would guess that in the early 1950's no one expected the coins of the day to become as collectible as they are now. If the mint abandons the cent or changes the composition of the nickel due to the cost of nickel, there may be a new batch of collectors out there. Many present collectors got started shortly after silver was eliminated from our coins. I dont know what the future holds, but i think cladking makes a very good point. If and when interest in what we call moderns picks up for whatever reason, high quality specimens will be difficult to find. I personally welcome cladkings knowledge and foresight. I appreciate his willingness to share that knowledge here. >>
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.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I have been going thru mint sets looking for GEMS for very many years and the frequency of finding GEMS in these sets gets lower and lower.
This leads me to beleive that many of the sets on the market have already been screened.
In the mid 1990's I had much more success... finding things on occasion like MS68 Kennedys and MS68FB dimes.
Sure, there are no doubt unsearched sets sitting around in closets and large inventories, but a significant number of those sets have already been cherried IMHO.
<< <i>
<< <i>The only thing that comes to mind is that a collection of moderns in 30 years will be looked at like a stamp collection is today. And unless its the very very best, its junk. >>
I will back you up with that comment! >>
WOW! The arrogance of some people, reading this thread really shows the bias of some collectors towards modern coinage.
My collection of Kennedy half dollars is no where near the “very very best” because I know of several collections that are better. But still to me anything valued at over six figures I wouldn’t consider “junk”.
And if you think nice looking coins are easy to find, I will gladly pay four figures for a businesses strike 1967 or 1971 (P) Kennedy half dollar graded MS67 at PCGS
So when you say that “I will back you up with that comment!” it shows me that you don’t know what you are talking about. Somebody’s mouth is writing checks that their back side can’t cover.
I am now finding very attractively toned coins from the 70s, which I find much more appealling than the fresh copper / nickel outer layer on clads.
Caleb: Rest easy ... “The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are coksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” ― Bertrand Russell, Mortals and Others 1: American Essays 1931-35
Wondercoin
(had to change the spelling of 1 word to get this through)
If you read the OP, you will see that CK is not talking about that situation. He is talking about real collectors collecting real coins in the same way that you do.
I think that Keets hit the nail on the head:
<<there are three things which work against Moderns:
1. the designs are still being struck.
2. the coins are struck on planchets with no intrinsic value.
3. the bulk of the collecting population is older and advanced past entry level.>>
For me, "old and obsolete" has always been an attraction to coins, from the time I was a boy. I would rather have a partial album with slick, common date Barber dimes than a complete album of lovely MS Roosevelt dimes. My favorite coin was always my oldest, and I did my best to keep pushing back in time. Everybody has a reason to collect and a perspective that is unique and different from the next person's.
Ten years ago, I hated on the moderns. Today, I have an appreciation for the various facets of collecting them, and modern coins, esp NCLT, are an important part of my collection.
For example, that $86k SAE - to me that is not liquid. Let's forget about that it could be one spot, or scratch, or whatever away from a 95% loss. It's a very special market and if you needed that money in a pinch, there is a very real possibility that a huge loss may be taken. That is a volatility with which I am not comfortable. For me, an $86k Higley could be unloaded in an instant if necessary.
<< <i>The point I was trying to make was not one of arrogance but of realism from my perspective. Caleb if you have $100k+ tied up in moderns more power to you. I would be crapping myself. I'd always be wondering if I would ever get my money back if I quickly needed to. To me that amount is no longer hobby money, it is an investment, and I will treat it as such.
For example, that $86k SAE - to me that is not liquid. Let's forget about that it could be one spot, or scratch, or whatever away from a 95% loss. It's a very special market and if you needed that money in a pinch, there is a very real possibility that a huge loss may be taken. That is a volatility with which I am not comfortable. For me, an $86k Higley could be unloaded in an instant if necessary. >>
The counterargument is that an expensive seated coin or bust coin can turn and lose a substantial portion of its value overnight. Also, the $86k SAE is not the typical scenario. My bullion grade SAEs will not lose their value overnight; in fact, a roll of them is probably more liquid and stable than a seated coin of comparable value.
Do you see the point Deliabug?
Wondercoin
Edited to add ... in fact, it actually may show just how incredible Caleb's Kennedy collection really is. While some folks (well purported one person) are spending $86,000 on a coin worth less than $4,000 in the undergrade with nearly 1,600 examples presently graded ... that money could have bought nearly Caleb's entire Kennedy collection! Holy Cow!! And, this comes back to another point made on this thread ... folks will likely "lose their shirts' on buying moderns while others will make a small fortune. It's all about doing your homework and buying the RIGHT coins.
<< <i>The point I was trying to make was not one of arrogance but of realism from my perspective. Caleb if you have $100k+ tied up in moderns more power to you. I would be crapping myself. I'd always be wondering if I would ever get my money back if I quickly needed to. To me that amount is no longer hobby money, it is an investment, and I will treat it as such.
For example, that $86k SAE - to me that is not liquid. Let's forget about that it could be one spot, or scratch, or whatever away from a 95% loss. It's a very special market and if you needed that money in a pinch, there is a very real possibility that a huge loss may be taken. That is a volatility with which I am not comfortable. For me, an $86k Higley could be unloaded in an instant if necessary. >>
First, we don’t have $100,000 tied up in the set, actually under $45,000 (see below):
The value that PCGS puts on this set is a little light considering that within the price tag of $115,736 there are 30 (thirty) coins that they have a price tag of $0.00 on (a few are illustrated below):
Then there are some coins like the 1972 DDO FS-101 or the 1973-D DDO FS-101 which for a top pop of 1, PCGS has a price tag of $85 each (LOL). Something tells me that the market would bring more.
Then you add the minor varieties that we have in our showcase set linked below, we are more then comfortable with the level of financial commitment to this hobby. Something tells me that we could at least break even if not double our investment if we choice to sell.
The 1966 quarters were an improvement over the 1965's, but it seemed that many were struck from worn dies. I found that to be true for many of the 1966 dimes, too. I bought a business strike 1966 half when they were released in August of that year. The dealer had just received his first roll of them, and they were all prooflike! Unfortunately, they also had extremely heavy die polish, which detracted from their appearance. None of the 1966 halves I subsequently received in change were prooflike.
By 1967, clad quarters were finally beginning to look decent. As a whole, they were a huge improvement over the first 2 years, and frequently would almost look like silver coins. I received many 1967 halves in change, with most of them having attractive luster, but also a few bagmarks.
1968 was a mixed bag for quarters. The P mint coins were absolutely awful-looking - weakly struck, dull, and covered with hundreds of marks on the planchets. They looked as if they'd been in circulation for 5 years, even when new. In the late 1970's I found a really nice 68-P in a dealer's case. I later submitted it to PCGS, hoping for a MS67, but it came back as MS66. The Denver coins were another story. I found some that were semi-prooflike, a first for the clad quarter series. It was easy to find attractive 1968-D quarters. The 1968-D halves were comparable in quality to those of 1967.
1969 was similar to 1968 for the quarters but, as Cladking points out, the quality of the P mint quarters was abysmal, even worse than the 1968-P, which is saying a lot! The 1969-D halves were nowhere near as nice as those from 1965-1968. They had a lot more bagmarks, and the luster was almost uniformly dull. Even today, finding a 1969-D half with booming white luster is difficult.
The P mint quarters continued to be very poor quality through 1971, although some acceptable examples can be found in mint sets.
My experience with the first Ike dollars mirrors that of the first clad quarters. I received both P and D mints at the local banks. The best ones had so-so luster and lots of bagmarks. It wasn't until I received my 1973 mint sets that I saw my first really nice CuNi Ike dollar.
The poor quality of clad coinage in its early years probably went a long way toward keeping collectors from saving it. I believe there are also some later issues, particularly from the 1980's, that are sleepers in MS66 or better.
I've enjoyed reading all of the comments here, and understand the aversion of some people to collecting clad coinage. I am a COLLECTOR, though, and have always saved attractive specimens when received in the year of issue. (The self checkout at Home Depot is a good source for new coinage.) One of these days I'll do as Wondercoin has, and "dust-off" the tubes that I've filled over the years.
Jim
Our experiences were different. When the 1965 Quarters first came out, I was intrigued by the glowing grey luster and clean strike. People were talking about how LBJ had debased the coinage, but this new metal was very interesting to me. The edges were red and sometimes the copper would show on the obverse or reverse.
By the time I was in college during the early 1970s, the dies were being overused and nothing looked any good, especially the Kennedys.
I still collect multiple books from circulation, and I've just recently started my Dansco BU collection of the newer stuff. Flashy, yes. Valuable, no.
I knew it would happen.
What is bid on a 99 silver proof set?
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Jumping into the discussion late, but whenever I see a post by CladKing, I pay close attention. It was actually his comments that got me to put together a quarter set from circulation about 3 or 4 years ago. It was a lot of fun, and I quickly saw what he was talking about--just how rapidly quarters especially are wearing out. I also saw that when I found a nice one, it really was beautiful--something I'd never appreciated with clad coins before. No, I don't buy them, but I continue to set aside nice older dates I find. >>
I've had a hoot with my "from circulation" sets as well. Even my primary set is "from circulation"
to a large degree since some coins I've found only in circulation or from rolls and bags but I've
been doing that straight along. I wanted to know what sets of these coins would look like for
people who started with the states coins so I started dime and quarter sets in 1996 when the
program was announced. It's not just how much I've learned from these sets and having a nice
reference collection at home instead of in the safety deposit box but they're just a lot of fun to
put together. It's pretty surprising how nice many of the coins are with all of the quarters being
XF or better with most in AU and a few Gems for post-94 dates. The dimes aren't quite as nice
because I don't search as many dimes and because the attrition on dimes is very high. It's tough
to find a nice '78-D dime when you rarely see a '78-D dime at all.
My only real regret is that I didn't do nickels also. I'm thinking of starting new sets of dimes, quar-
ters, and nickels. Perhaps pennies would be a good thing as well but I keep up with them well
enough probably. I'm guessing the quarters will prove far more difficult now sinmce I haven't had
an upgrade on a pre-'92 coin in over two years. The coins aren't as much getting picked over as
they are just continuing to wear out in circulation.
If clad quarters have not attracted a significant following in 48 years, why should they become popular now? Or as I put it in the January thread, if I go out and buy up a bunch of 1965 quarters now how much longer will I have to wait until the rest of the collector world catches on so that I can cash in big time? Because I'm not as young as I was in 1965 and waiting an additional 48 years is in one sense optimistic while at the same time not a real attractive proposition.
CG
<< <i>Good post CladKing, as always. I suspect your audience is much larger than is reflected by the replies to this thread. I enjoyed your comments on the Ike and your initial reaction to the appearance of the typical circulated example. I also liked reading Bill Jones take on the unattractiveness of the Washington quarter. I disagree with his his view, but believe it is an honest view that ignores the artificial distinction between moderns and other coins. I hold a similar view of the seated liberty design which graced nearly all federal coins from 1836 to 1891. We all like different things. A lusterous Ike supergem is quite unlike a marked up circ. I am always surprised when I see one in person. >>
It is apparent that the numbers of modern collectors is continuing to increase. It might even be
snowballing but I've lost touch with the mass market in these; namely Shop At Home, Bob Vila,
et al. I'll regain touch very soon though. There are stirrings in these markets now which is why
I've started the thread. I've been wrong about these coins longer than anyone but if I'm right
people will one day say I was about the first to be right. Keep in mind that there have been about
a dozen road signs that have always needed to be in place before these coins could take off and
the improving economy now is the very last one. If it doesn't happen with a strong economy in
the next couple three years it might never happen.
The Washington quarter is never going to be considered high art but my opinion has softened a great
deal over the years. I think it was fairly good art for its time. 1932 was art deco and you can see the
influence. While I'm not a fan of presidents and coins loaded with mottos and verbiage this is a good
reflection of modern day America where advertising rules all.
<< <i>
Most new collectors probably start out with moderns but quickly become bored. Then, they discover something more fun to collect, like bust halves, large cents, Morgans, Walkers or whatever, and quickly abandon moderns.
I can see your point but I don't think we will ever see the demand.
How many collectors have upgraded their modern clad sets or even their Washington quarter(1932-1964 included) or Jefferson nickel(1938 to date) sets, from circulation finds to BU? I have started to do so, however this is a back burner project.
>>
It is simply inconcievable to me that a coin like a '50-D nickel with more than one and a half
million coins surviving in Unc can indefinitely sell for far more than more recent coins with much
lower survivorship. Why should the demand for coins simply stop at 1964 except for the fact
that most existing collectors quit collecting new coins in 1964? Now the population of collectors
are opposed to moderns, base metal, and later coins but this is not going to be a factor for
collectors in other countries nor most newer collectors in this country. One of the primary at-
tractants for collectors is rarity so why will future collectors want to pay for a '50-D when a far
scarcer coin can be had for a lot less money? This is greatly exascerbated by the fact that most
'50-D nickels look fairly decent but in some cases the scarcer newer coins can be usually ugly.
Perhaps you're right, but I doubt it and history is probably on my side. Of course this is modern
history since before the 1880's numismatics was mostly just the hobby of kings. With the inter-
net, grading companies, and the ability to locate just about anything I don't think we'll revert
to numismatics being only for the wealthy. One of the reasons collecting wasn't popular was
simply the inability to obtain coins except in circulation.
<< <i>One of my best friends has a saying that I believe I'll have put on a coffee cup: I don't have to convince you, its not religion. I'm glad Sam doesn't feel that way.
I'll be thumping one Bible or another any day now.
I think people are going to be pretty happy if they react to this. Yes, there's probably a sort of
self fullfilling prophesy at work as well but for the main part the future really is beyond anyone's
control. Millions of folders are getting sold and I'm not the one buying them or paying for them.
People are coming up with the idea of collecting them on their own because it's a natural out-
growth of seeing all the rejects for their states quarter sets. Every time they see an old quarter
or one in spectacular condition they are likely to wonder where it's been and how it looks like it
does.
What this site needs is a good soapbox.
<< <i>Even given the seemingly unending supply of clad mint sets, the supply of GEMS is steadily shrinking.
I have been going thru mint sets looking for GEMS for very many years and the frequency of finding GEMS in these sets gets lower and lower.
This leads me to beleive that many of the sets on the market have already been screened.
In the mid 1990's I had much more success... finding things on occasion like MS68 Kennedys and MS68FB dimes.
Sure, there are no doubt unsearched sets sitting around in closets and large inventories, but a significant number of those sets have already been cherried IMHO. >>
Some of the sets are heavily picked over. Some less so.
I don't believe they are picked over systematically so much as naturally. What I mean is
that it's not the result of someone saving every '72-D dime he sees in every mint set nicer
than MS-65 but rather someone looking over a few sets and choosing the nicest '72-D dime.
The effect isn't quite the same. If people were systematically cherry picking then the highest
grades would be hit extremely hard and somewhat lower grade much less so. Instead what
seems to be happening is that all the gemmy coins are becoming equally less common. Where
you might have once found eight decent '69 quarters in a 100 mint sets you'll now find only six.
But those six will lay out about the same as they used to with the same proportion of grades.
What many don't see because they haven't paid attention is that it used to be easy to find 100
1969 mint sets and now it's difficult to find more than a handfull at a time. These sets have been
"consumed"; lost to time and tide.
Who collects anything by going out and buying up a bunch, other than bullion?
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Who collects anything by going out and buying up a bunch, other than bullion? >>
Wondercoin and Col. Green?
CG
<< <i>I had been collecting for 10 years when the first clad coinage was released in the fall of 1965. I had eagerly anticipated the 1965 quarters, but was extremely disappointed whenI received the first ones. They were dull, had streaks of grease on them, and the relief was shallower than on the silver coins they replaced. The 1965 dimes came out a month or two later, and were better. I just didn't collect Roosevelts at that time. When the first silver-clad 1965 halves came out in early 1966, I bought my first one at my local B&M the first week they were available. Now THAT was a nice coin! I still have it, and think it has a shot at being a MS67. I've hesitated to send it in for grading, because I'm afraid PCGS would label it as a SMS coin, even though I purchased it before SMS sets were available.
The 1966 quarters were an improvement over the 1965's, but it seemed that many were struck from worn dies. I found that to be true for many of the 1966 dimes, too. I bought a business strike 1966 half when they were released in August of that year. The dealer had just received his first roll of them, and they were all prooflike! Unfortunately, they also had extremely heavy die polish, which detracted from their appearance. None of the 1966 halves I subsequently received in change were prooflike.
By 1967, clad quarters were finally beginning to look decent. As a whole, they were a huge improvement over the first 2 years, and frequently would almost look like silver coins. I received many 1967 halves in change, with most of them having attractive luster, but also a few bagmarks.
1968 was a mixed bag for quarters. The P mint coins were absolutely awful-looking - weakly struck, dull, and covered with hundreds of marks on the planchets. They looked as if they'd been in circulation for 5 years, even when new. In the late 1970's I found a really nice 68-P in a dealer's case. I later submitted it to PCGS, hoping for a MS67, but it came back as MS66. The Denver coins were another story. I found some that were semi-prooflike, a first for the clad quarter series. It was easy to find attractive 1968-D quarters. The 1968-D halves were comparable in quality to those of 1967.
1969 was similar to 1968 for the quarters but, as Cladking points out, the quality of the P mint quarters was abysmal, even worse than the 1968-P, which is saying a lot! The 1969-D halves were nowhere near as nice as those from 1965-1968. They had a lot more bagmarks, and the luster was almost uniformly dull. Even today, finding a 1969-D half with booming white luster is difficult.
The P mint quarters continued to be very poor quality through 1971, although some acceptable examples can be found in mint sets.
My experience with the first Ike dollars mirrors that of the first clad quarters. I received both P and D mints at the local banks. The best ones had so-so luster and lots of bagmarks. It wasn't until I received my 1973 mint sets that I saw my first really nice CuNi Ike dollar.
The poor quality of clad coinage in its early years probably went a long way toward keeping collectors from saving it. I believe there are also some later issues, particularly from the 1980's, that are sleepers in MS66 or better.
I've enjoyed reading all of the comments here, and understand the aversion of some people to collecting clad coinage. I am a COLLECTOR, though, and have always saved attractive specimens when received in the year of issue. (The self checkout at Home Depot is a good source for new coinage.) One of these days I'll do as Wondercoin has, and "dust-off" the tubes that I've filled over the years.
>>
This was definitely written by a collector.
Watching all those old poorly made cpoins wear out and get lost from circulation over
the years has also been quite an experience. It's funny how some coins like brand new
'69-D dimes or '65 quarters were still being released in 1975. Funnier is how '72-D quarters
stayed in AU longer than other dates or how '84-P quarters just about "evaporated" in cir-
culation.
These coins have been a lot of fun to watch and collect and it's just going to get better
and better. I hope to stick around long enough to see some of them be retired. ...I think.
This is the fate of most world moderns; to make refrigerators and other consumer products.
Collectors have to fight for a few that were saved.
<< <i>I had been collecting for 10 years when the first clad coinage was released in the fall of 1965. I had eagerly anticipated the 1965 quarters, but was extremely disappointed whenI received the first ones. They were dull, had streaks of grease on them, and the relief was shallower than on the silver coins they replaced.
Our experiences were different. When the 1965 Quarters first came out, I was intrigued by the glowing grey luster and clean strike. People were talking about how LBJ had debased the coinage, but this new metal was very interesting to me. The edges were red and sometimes the copper would show on the obverse or reverse.
By the time I was in college during the early 1970s, the dies were being overused and nothing looked any good, especially the Kennedys.
I still collect multiple books from circulation, and I've just recently started my Dansco BU collection of the newer stuff. Flashy, yes. Valuable, no. >>
My very first 1965 clad was pretty gemmy as well. By the time I got done with it it was
a wreck since I tried to take it apart. As time went by though it was very soon they all
started looking like a mess. They were poorly struck by worn dies. They were "mushy".
A lot of the '66's were even worse.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>This thread needs a picture.
Hey, that's not too bad!
If all clad looked like that I'd buy one or two every 5 years.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>
If clad quarters have not attracted a significant following in 48 years, why should they become popular now? >>
I watch these markets very very closely. You don't see the steadily increasing demand
because you aren't interested but I've seen it ratcheting higher since 1980. Anecdotal
evidence suggests the rate of increase is increasing at the grass roots level.
It was the great recession of '08 that caused a glut of mint sets on the market and swamped
the demand. These sets are now largely consumed and with an improving economy there
will be a large curtailment of sets coming to market. The backlog is simply insignificant and
could be eliminated with one or two nights of TV sales. There is no other source for the grow-
ing demand.
It simply won't take "popularity" to drive prices sharply higher. It will merely take more de-
mand than supply. World nmoderns aren't going through the roof because they are so popular;
far from it. They are going higher because there is a small demand and a smaller supply.
<< <i>
One day it would be great to see high quality photographs of a set of GEM (or better) MS Ike dollars, SBA dollars, 1970-2002 Kennedy half dollars, 1965-1998 Washington Quarters, 1965-1999 Roosevelt dimes, 1965-2002 Jefferson Nickels and 1959-2008 Lincoln Cents. Having high quality photographs of examples of these coins available for viewing would allow those who participate in the hobby an opportunity to compare to the photographs the best examples of these coins to the best of whatever "modern coins" they happen to have sitting around in mint sets, folders, rolls and flips.
Wondercoin has posted pictures of some of his best Silver Washington quarters and many people were amazed at the quality and beauty of same. I suspect that his best 1965-1998 Clad quarters would, if displayed, generate quiet a bit of buzz around the forums. >>
I am not much of a photographer myself, but have been slowly getting trueviews of my collection done. I figure it will take me a few more years to get it done, but have finished most of my Ikes, SBA, and Saca dollars so far. There are a few pretty good examples of GEM or better quality there.
There have been several good points made by several posters in this thread. It is a welcome breath of fresh air, as opposed to the typical modern bashing posts of a few years ago.
I enjoyed the aurguments made about the liquidity and "investment" opinions. From my own perspective, I can not bring myself to consider collecting moderns as an financial investment. As a rule, the supply far exceeds the demand at this time. This is most true when it comes to the ultra-modern dollars, as they do not circulate well, and are piling up in storage. As the decades pass, this will slowly change; but I will not see it in my lifetime. I try to collect the highest grades possible, as the benefit of conditional rarety does reduce the risk somewhat. However I must assume, if something were to happen to me tommorrow and my wife had to dump everything at Heritage, she would probably not realize anything close to what I have in the coins. So for that reason, I do not ever consider the value of any of my moderns as an investment from a financial point of view. There are other ways to look at investing. I invest in the enjoyment I receive, in building and improving my collection. From that perspective it is very easy to rationalize the cost of the coins.
WonderCoin makes good points about the opportunities and costly pitfalls about searching through raw material for gems. He is one of the experts in that area. I know how tough it can be to find the gems. Whenever, I have the time, I search through rolls of presentials for edge varieties when I can. Unfortunately, I just do not have the time to search much, and trust me, it takes a lot of searching to find anything decent. I have had a brick of Arthurs in my dest for over a year, and have barely had the time to dent it. It takes a lot of time and patience to do it right. That is why I usually have to depend on people like Wondercoin and his children to come up with the top quality coins. I do not mind paying up for those coins, because I know the labor and costs involved in finding them.
back to demand, I wonder which area of the two we're discussing has the best probability of increased demand during the next few decades?? that seems to be the real point we're discussing in an attempt for us each to decide where we feel the least risk and highest reward may lie. for someone such as Realone who is hip deep in a collecting direction the question is settled as it is likewise for someone such as Wondercoin. if you haven't decided where to take your collection and have funds available, time to learn and a willing dealer to assist you then the field is wide open, you can assemble coins which are either Classic or Modern. to malign one or the other just doesn't make sense to me.
<< <i>Modern coins...
back to demand, I wonder which area of the two we're discussing has the best probability of increased demand during the next few decades?? that seems to be the real point we're discussing in an attempt for us each to decide where we feel the least risk and highest reward may lie. for someone such as Realone who is hip deep in a collecting direction the question is settled as it is likewise for someone such as Wondercoin. if you haven't decided where to take your collection and have funds available, time to learn and a willing dealer to assist you then the field is wide open, you can assemble coins which are either Classic or Modern. to malign one or the other just doesn't make sense to me. >>
Why do we have to discuss and decide, as collectors, which coins will perform better in the future? Why not just decide on our own which coins interest us and just go with it? Do we really need a "willing dealer" to help us decide which direction to take?
I always thought of deciding to collect coins, or anything else, to be more spontaneous and less pre-meditated than you present.
<< <i>Why do we have to discuss and decide, as collectors, which coins will perform better in the future? Why not just decide on our own which coins interest us and just go with it? >>
I don't know. Seems like it would be a lot more fun than many of the people here appear through their posts to be having.
My collecting strategy is to buy coins I like. When it comes time to sell, if it turns out I chose coins others like too and I make a profit, great. If not, well... I got to enjoy my coins while I had them.
Of course, as always, YMMV...