Doug Winter does it again

Yorkshireman · December 11, 2013 7:13AM

Doug Winter continues to amaze.

Doug posted a new article to his website today : "Some thoughts on Rarity".
No matter what type of coins you collect, it is well worth the time to read this article.

I like both Carson City Morgan dollars AND gold coins. It is, however, very interesting to see the different standards of what is seen as "rare" in various series.

Thank you, Doug, for continuing to help run of the mill collectors like me better understand the details of our hobby.

http://raregoldcoins.com/market-blog/some-thoughts-on-rarity

kimber45ACP · December 11, 2013 7:18AM

<< Got a link? >>

link

Yorkshireman · December 11, 2013 7:30AM

Thanks for beating me to the punch by posting the link.

OriginalDan · December 11, 2013 7:41AM

"You may collect Trade Dollars by variety but if you do you are one of probably ten or fewer collectors who do. Paying a large premium for a seemingly rare variety might not prove financially prudent down the road."

Priceless.

BryceM · December 11, 2013 8:12AM

So how rare are people who write well?

This is an interesting read and provides plenty of food for thought, especially if the word "investment" ever entered your brain. It's too bad it's so hard to predict the demand side of the supply/demand relationship.

JerseyJoe · December 11, 2013 9:23AM

I am glad I stepped away from collecting for a couple years because I came back with a
new perspective and can appreciate all the points in this article.

Thanks for sharing.

crypto79 · December 11, 2013 10:29AM

<< "You may collect Trade Dollars by variety but if you do you are one of probably ten or fewer collectors who do. Paying a large premium for a seemingly rare variety might not prove financially prudent down the road."

Priceless. >>

I would like to thank RYK for lobbying on my behalf to Mr Winter to inflate the number from his original swag in the first draft of "2 or fewer".

EVillageProwler · December 11, 2013 10:50AM

<< 

<< "You may collect Trade Dollars by variety but if you do you are one of probably ten or fewer collectors who do. Paying a large premium for a seemingly rare variety might not prove financially prudent down the road."

Priceless. >>

I would like to thank RYK for lobbying on my behalf to Mr Winter to inflate the number from his original swag in the first draft of "2 or fewer". >>

Ten is a bit optimistic. The real number might be just closer to two than to ten. JMHO, YMMV.

I ask the readership to do me a favor: post the PCGS pop for 1859-O and 1893-S S$1 in grades from AU55 to MS67, and also post the PCGS prices for those same grades.

TIA,

EVP

keyman64 · December 11, 2013 11:46AM

A good bit of this has been mentioned before, here on the forums, some of which has been mentioned by myself. I have mentioned this a few times, specifically when it comes to the rare varieties within the Mercury Dime series. When we compare the keys and semi-keys to the very rare varieties we get something that goes like this... The 1916-D is key due to mintage but considering there are likely more than 10,000 examples, it is not a rare coin by any stretch of the imagination. The DEMAND is what drives the price considering the SUPPLY that is available. The truly rare varieties within the series have fewer than 10 examples known, the DEMAND for which is minimal.

The difference between my(and others) ramblings on the forums and what Doug did is that he put a lot more thought into it and wrote a very nice and well organized article. Kudos to Doug.

BryceM · December 11, 2013 11:50AM

1859-O:

AU55, $1750, #58
AU58, $2000, #52
MS60, $2300, #100
MS61, $2500, #123
MS62, $2950, #121
MS63, $4800, #56
MS64, $7750, #23
MS65, $85,000, #2
none higher

1893-S:

AU55, $37,500, #30
AU58, $52,500, #11
MS60, $103,500, #2
MS61, $110,000, #9
MS62, $130,000, #6
MS63, $185,000, #9
MS64, $330,000, #4
MS65, $650,000, #5
MS66 - none
MS67 $1,000,000, #1

So, EVP, what's your point? There are obviously more people who collect Morgans and the 1893-S is actually reasonably uncommon in higher grades. You are comparing the key date of an exceedingly popular series to one of the most common dates in the Seated series. I don't see much in the numbers that is surprising, but I could be missing your point.....

EVillageProwler · December 11, 2013 12:34PM

BryceM,

Thanks for the data. Are you sure your numbers are correct? Going off memory, I had a different set of numbers and thus an actual point. With your numbers, if accurate, I have no point. Sorry!

EVP

crypto79 · December 11, 2013 12:44PM

<< BryceM,

Thanks for the data. Are you sure your numbers are correct? Going off memory, I had a different set of numbers and thus an actual point. With your numbers, if accurate, I have no point. Sorry!

EVP >>

The total pops might be similar but the 93s is a legit condition rarity

RYK · December 11, 2013 2:29PM

I thought it was an excellent blog (but would have been considerably better if I was making counterpoints

). Seriously, some of it was intuitive and obvious, but until you lay it out and give examples, it seems so intangible. With examples, sometimes the conclusions are unexpected (like in this thread). Good stuff all around.

Doug Winter does it again

Comments

Leave a Comment