Options
Why is "Top Quality" more important in this market than "Top Rarity"?
MrEureka
Posts: 24,728 ✭✭✭✭✭
The consensus seems to be that "crazy" and astounding prices for top quality coins is not so crazy at all. Yet you hardly ever see "crazy" prices for coins that are simply extraordinarily rare. Yes, the prices for these rarities may be high, but they are never really surprising, and they always seem logical.
First, do you agree?
Second, can you explain?
First, do you agree?
Second, can you explain?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
0
Comments
<< <i>I dunno - over $3M each for the worst known examples on the market of the 1913 Liberty Head nickel and 1804 Class I dollars recently ... that's fairly strong money for Rarity, not condition. >>
IMO those are example of fame that happen to be rare. There are several coins that are as rare or rare as dates and many more by major type varieties that are rarer and don't command that type of money.
Top quality/originalty is going across all hobbies and collectibles. Quality is often confused with preservation in our hobby, IMO there can be tremendous quality with a VF coin and marginal MS66. Also value plays a part in my definition of quality which is why I never pay for quality I can't differentiate (MS68 vs 67) or a MS65 when a MS64 costs 50%.
I believe true rarity has fallen behind because there isn't enough of it to sell to keep our dealer network fed. They have been pushing condition since the 80s and this is a natural culmination of that market focus. Rarity should come back into vouge after a boom & bust cycle or two.
<< <i>I think that assigned grades have become overrated relative to rarity. The reason why it has is the registry point system which awards a disproportionate number of points to common coins in high grade relative to rarer coins in grades that are very difficult to obtain. When you collect very nice examples of classic rarities you get a lot less bang for your buck than when you collect far more common material in the higher grades. In other words you are better off buying Standing Quarters in MS-67 Full Head than a VF or EF 1796 Quarter from the registry point perspective. >>
I think that is a large part too , specific grades can give the impression of rarity. If you are looking for a AU55 widget and it takes you 3 years to find one you come away thinking it was pretty rare, never mind the 15xf and 2 dozen low end UNCs you passed up.
And despite my little graph to the contrary, I doubt the price realized was logical to most observers.
<< <i>I think that assigned grades have become overrated relative to rarity. The reason why it has is the registry point system which awards a disproportionate number of points to common coins in high grade relative to rarer coins in grades that are very difficult to obtain. When you collect very nice examples of classic rarities you get a lot less bang for your buck than when you collect far more common material in the higher grades. In other words you are better off buying Standing Quarters in MS-67 Full Head than a VF or EF 1796 Quarter from the registry point perspective. >>
Do you think this is done by design so more people can participate on registry competition? If less people could effectively compete, it seems like it would have less overall interest.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
partly responsible for the shift. Firstly, coins that don't make a strong visual impression when
imaged have suffered, and secondly, extreme rarities don't seem so "rare" when one can bring
up a photo of them at will.
The rise of the Registries and the trend toward building top sets has probably also been a
big factor.
<< <i>I think that assigned grades have become overrated relative to rarity. The reason why it has is the registry point system which awards a disproportionate number of points to common coins in high grade relative to rarer coins in grades that are very difficult to obtain. When you collect very nice examples of classic rarities you get a lot less bang for your buck than when you collect far more common material in the higher grades. In other words you are better off buying Standing Quarters in MS-67 Full Head than a VF or EF 1796 Quarter from the registry point perspective. >>
No doubt about it. Looking at Liberty Seated Half Dollars, for example, an MS-64 1853 With Arrows half, has a weight of 5, which yields 320 points. Compare that with a VF-30 1878-S half, has a weight of 10, which yields 300 points. There are 199 1853 WA halves in MS-64 with 22 higher with 1,249 in all grades, and there are 2 1878-S halves in VF-30 with 16 higher, but only 27 in all grades. So the coin that is much more common and much, much easier to obtain, yields more registry points.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
True "Rarity" by its very nature is different in terms of either mintage and/or surviving population. Certain rarities just can not be promoted because there is just not enough for that process to work.
The real question is does condition rarity trump true rarity? And that will be debated among collectors today and well into the future. My preference is true rarity- I don't need the finest known example of a common coin
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
In the old days, collectors tended to collect many different series of coins. Partly because coins were cheaper and more available, but also because the prevailing mentality was that it was OK to fill a hole with a less-than-ideal coin and move on quickly to filling another hole in some other set. In that environment, lots of people collected the entire Red Book, and lots of people needed the rarest coins.
Today, with much higher prices and perfectionism the norm, most collectors have a much narrower focus, and they tend to only take on sets that can be completed. Instead of collecting the entire Red Book and knowing from the start they won't ever be complete, they focus all their efforts on one or two series and they try to "do it right". In that world - our world - the S-VDB in 68RD will get far more attention than an 1829 $5 in XF. And if one of the two coins will bring a runaway price, it will be the S-VDB.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
+1
www.brunkauctions.com
<< <i>I'll take a stab at my own question.
In the old days, collectors tended to collect many different series of coins. Partly because coins were cheaper and more available, but also because the prevailing mentality was that it was OK to fill a hole with a less-than-ideal coin and move on quickly to filling another hole in some other set. In that environment, lots of people collected the entire Red Book, and lots of people needed the rarest coins.
Today, with much higher prices and perfectionism the norm, most collectors have a much narrower focus, and they tend to only take on sets that can be completed. Instead of collecting the entire Red Book and knowing from the start they won't ever be complete, they focus all their efforts on one or two series and they try to "do it right". In that world - our world - the S-VDB in 68RD will get far more attention than an 1829 $5 in XF. And if one of the two coins will bring a runaway price, it will be the S-VDB. >>
If they can afford draped or capped bust coins in these grades, they will buy them.. if they can't afford bust, then they'll collect choice/gem seated-era silver or coronet gold, or barber, or mercury/standing/walking -era coins. If they can't afford gem silver, they will collect gem clad or bullion coins.
There are exceptions, of course, many of them (including yours truly), but to me, this explanation answers much of the "quality vs. rarity" question with respect to the quality part.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I think TDN's example's and comments that seem to contradict the trend are more geared toward super rarities which 99% of the population inlc myself cant buy anyway.
<< <i>Ok, let's take the Carter 1794 dollar as an example. It didn't fetch $10M simply because of its condition (there is one finer condition example and it wouldn't sell for that). It didn't fetch $10M simply because of its specimen status (there are numerous examples that I can cite where specimens add only a little value percentage wise). It brought $10M because if its rarity as most likely the first dollar struck for the United States of America.
And despite my little graph to the contrary, I doubt the price realized was logical to most observers. >>
Really, I thought it brought $10M because you popped the bid by a few million for the "shock and awe" factor -- would it have really sold for the "magical" $10M price point if that hadn't happened? I wasn't there, but just asking based on what I read.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
A select few collect and always seem to be at the helm of driving the market with the "top rarity" coins, thus they (those coins) reach a plateau which tends to remain relatively predictable. Not that this plateau isn't already surprisingly "high".
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Rarity is only one part of the equation. Demand is another very significant price mover. >>
I think this nails it in a nutshell. The price of a gem 1916 standing quarter is substantially more than say a gem 1870 seated quarter because of the popularity of the standing quarter series, the aforementioned registry mania, and it being perceived as the key to that series. The 1870 Quarter in gem is a far rarer coin, but the price does not reflect it's true rarity. The 1916 stills bring considerably more, even though it is no where near as rare, demand is the key in this instance, as there are far more collectors of the standing quarter series than the seated quarter series.
To try and stay on topic with the op's statement, sometimes what is perceived as a rarity is really not a rarity, check the pops on the 1916 and you get the point.