<< <i>In December 2006 there were 3134 PCGS-certified 1916-D dimes. The current PCGS population is 6964. That’s well over a 100% increase in less than nine years. I imagine the same is true for both NGC and ANACS.
The fact is that there are many thousands of raw 1916-D dimes out there. Some of them make their way to the TPGs each year, significantly increasing the total number graded over time. There’s no reason to believe that this growth in the certified population is going to come to a sudden stop anytime soon. Just another strong bit of evidence that there are *way more* than 10,000 surviving 1916-D dimes. >>
You are ignoring a very important grading change that impacted high dollar coins like no other...a few years back, + grading was introduced by a couple of TPGs! This produced a ton of business for TPGs. A ton of coins "worth" resubmitting, were cracked out and resubmitted! This is where most of your population explosion happened. Here is a fine example. The semi-key (based on mintage) 1931-D in 2010 had 40 examples in MS67FB at PCGS, with none finer. Now there are 57 in 67FB with 2 finer at 67+FB. You think mint state rolls of the stuff just came forward? You think 19 people had these fresh new examples raw in albums? No, they were crack-outs and resubmissions, at least that is what I have seen. This is approximately a 50% increase in the POPULATION in the top pop realm. There is more money to be made with the 16-D if someone can get a + or full bump in grade. Greed in this case, allows many to be a bit murky in their thinking. So if a semi-key can have a 50% increase in the top pop realm, the 16-D does not surprise me to have a 100+% increase across all grades since there is so much more money to be made. Crack-outs for the 16-D have always been a problem but the + Grading by two TPGs caused this problem to explode.
Do not get me wrong, I am not claiming the 16-D to be a rare coin. Quite the opposite is true. I merely argue that the survival rate is 4-6% instead of your claim of a nutty 30%. I would venture to guess that ANACS has not had the same explosion in population as the + Grading companies....or does ANACS do + Grading as well? There have been posts on these forums where members have cracked out and resubmitted a coin 2 times, 3 times, 5 times and even 10+ times when it has been worth it for them to do so. With the 16-D, it is frequently worth it unfortunately.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Of the 6964 1916-D dimes graded by PCGS, only 856 are in grades XF40 or higher, a requirement for the "+" designation. That leaves 6108 in VF or lower grades that have no shot at a "+". So the overwhelming majority of the 1916-D Mercs that have been slabbed in the past nine years are not even candidates for the "+" resubmission lottery. Most of them are likely ordinary circulated specimens that have been slabbed for the first and only time.
<< <i>I think it depends on how one collects to answer,for oneself, "are key dates good values...?"
To one who collects by date/mintmark these days like most of the '60's collectors did,my answer is a definite 'no.' The date/mintmark keys are virtually all overpriced and we're not going to be seeing any close-out prices on keys in popular series in our lifetimes.I am amazed,and have been amazed for years,at the prices listed for coins that most of us old-time collectors have come to realize are really not all that rare.
1909-S V.D.B. and 1914-D Lincoln prices are two of the handiest examples of key date overpricing and so are the easiest to pick on.This is not to take away from the coolness of owning either one of these coins.These are "magic dates" and will always be magic dates for the Lincoln collector who is trying to assemble a date/mint set of Lincolns, 1909-1958.
Prices are not always driven by supply and demand.There are plenty of 1909 S V.D.B.'s in all grades and colors up to MS 65,available.The supply is ample,in other words.You wouldn't have been able to convince me that there was an ample supply of 1909-S V.D.B's in 1963,however.Going through countless penny rolls obtained from banks yielded zero 1909 dated Lincolns for this collector,much less the prize 1909-S V.D.B.
I was trying to find a 1909-S V.D.B. for a penny,a one-cent investment,when the demand was high.Am I willing to pay over $1000 these days for a 1909-S V.D.B. because I like Lincoln cents and can now afford to pay the price? The answer,for me, is 'no.' The demand,for me,is not there anymore.There are far better values in coins to spend $1000 these days than an example of 1909-S V.D.B. for my collection,no matter how I collect.
Just as one would not have been able to convince me in 1963 that there was an ample supply of 1909-S V.D.B.'s available,one would not be able to convince me in 2015 that there is much demand these days at over $1000 for a nice example,either. Impressions in the mind of the newbie collector about there being limited supply and a corresponding high demand are created by the marketers. Not so easy for the marketers is to create those impressions in the mind of the old-timer,those of us who have been around the block a few times.
What to do then? I like Lincolns and want to collect them some but I don't want to throw my money away on over-priced,over-rated coins like 1909-S V.D.B.
I collect Lincolns by year only.I can represent all years and all mints in my Lincoln one-a-year collection.Did you know that 1922 is the lowest mintage year for all Lincoln cents,wheat-back,memorial or otherwise,1909 to the present? Thus,1922-D is my key,my magic date in the Lincoln series.
!922-D Lincolns are a good value at current price levels. I will buy every well-struck,problem-free 1922-D that is offered to me.They are very elusive.1922 'no D' Lincoln is not a good value,never will be a good value,however.
Analyst's research is on key date coins that cost from $100 to $2500 each.I value my 1922-D key Lincoln at today's prices at about $100 (originally bought out of a Denver dealer's showcase years ago for $50) so it has doubled in value.As key dates go,from an investment perspective,and willing to pay today's prices,I would much rather spend my $1000 on ten,or more,nice examples of 1922-D than one example of 1909-S V.D.B. >>
I'm confused here. You go looking for a 1909 SVDB and can't find a single 1909 cent and dismiss their rarity? I'm also puzzled because I found several 1909 cents, including a AU58 1909 cent, in the late 1960's. One can collect whatever they want, and that's the beauty of the hobby, but basing one's sense of supply and demand on their "late-to-the-party" experiences in coin hunting is not a good strategy. However, Your comments contradict your conclusions.
There is a history to coin collecting, and collecting from circulation, and I suggest collectors become fully aware of it. Read up on hoards like the New York Subway Hoard to get a better feel for the rarity in circulation of some of the classic rarities of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Weigh that against your own hunting experiences if you are old enough to do so. It's a very interesting and enlightening read!
<< <i>Of the 6964 1916-D dimes graded by PCGS, only 856 are in grades XF40 or higher, a requirement for the "+" designation. That leaves 6108 in VF or lower grades that have no shot at a "+". So the overwhelming majority of the 1916-D Mercs that have been slabbed in the past nine years are not even candidates for the "+" resubmission lottery. Most of them are likely ordinary circulated specimens that have been slabbed for the first and only time. >>
Or cracked out 10 times regardless of the + grading! You forgot that! Greed and the desire for a higher grade is the problem. I agree that not everything was in a TPG holder back in 2006 but 9 years later with so many counterfeits out there, anyone wanting to sell one has been forced to get them slabbed. Most examples, besides junky AG/G and examples with problems, are in TPG holders and have quite possibly been submitted many times.
You are wrong beyond any doubt! There are nowhere close to 80,000 1916-D examples in existence today.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I ran across this thread from 2003 that extensively debates both sides of the issue.
Here’s my take. As of 2006 there were 3134 *total* 1916-D dimes certified by PCGS. Today there are 5103 in grades VG08 or less alone. None (or very few) of these low-grade coins would have been cracked out and resubmitted, as the small chance of a modest increase in value by a bump to the next higher grade would not justify the hassle and expense of resubmission. This means that, mathematically, there have to be *at least* 1969 freshly graded (by PCGS) 1916-D dimes during the past nine years, plus a proportionate number by the other grading services. At a minimum, that’s more than 200 fresh coins per year graded by PCGS alone. (The actual number is almost certainly considerably higher.) I don’t know how many problem examples each year are being slabbed as “Genuine”, but these also have to be added to the total.
Any way you look at it, there have to be many thousands of raw 1916-D dimes out there to feed the growing population of certified examples. Maybe the total number of 1916-D's is not 80,000 but I expect that it is well over 10,000.
<< <i>In December 2006 there were 3134 PCGS-certified 1916-D dimes. The current PCGS population is 6964. That’s well over a 100% increase in less than nine years. I imagine the same is true for both NGC and ANACS.
The fact is that there are many thousands of raw 1916-D dimes out there. Some of them make their way to the TPGs each year, significantly increasing the total number graded over time. There’s no reason to believe that this growth in the certified population is going to come to a sudden stop anytime soon. Just another strong bit of evidence that there are *way more* than 10,000 surviving 1916-D dimes. >>
You just can't pick any two time periods based on pop reports and come to a conclusion solely on that. From Aug 1986 to July 2001 (15 years) PCGS only saw 902 of the 1916-d dimes. So what does that mean? 902 in 15 years and then 7X as many in the next 14 years. Can you then say the pops will increase 7X in the next 15 years? You have to look at what the particular market is doing in any stretch of time. That includes supply and demand, grading changes, promotions, overall rare coin market direction, etc. It was key date mania from around 2002-2008. It's possible coins were swapped back and forth from NGC to PCGS to take advantage of each little bit of grading looseness that occurred from 2002-2008. You can bet many of the Mercs made their way to NGC holders in that time as they brought more money in higher grades. When things tightened up in 2009-2011, they started making their way back to PCGS holders again. If you look at the pops early on, PCGS was getting 3X as many of the 16-D's from 1986-1998. Then NGC started picking up the pace from 1998-2008 and closed ground. The coins would gravitate back and forth depending on where the coin was worth more money. Also factor in REG set competition. I don't know which year that occurred but it would have forced coins to shift holders once again.
If we are just looking at PCGS pops, the 1916-d dime is 4X as common as the 1916-s in all grades. What can you get from that? In fact, from the pops, a newbie would conclude that the 16-d is one of the most common Mercs of all. And fwiw there are always speculators looking at an AG-3 1916-d merc and seeing it in a Good-4 holder. So in it goes (4 owners in 15 years and 4 submissions trying for a Good-4). If you toss that coin in with other coins in a submission it might cost you $30 to get it graded. But the gain would be worth $100-$200. Sounds like good odds to me. Each now owner of that 16-d sees a possible opportunity....not knowing the previous submission history of the coin. And during the 1998-2008 I'd bet a lot of PCGS Fr's, AG's, and Goods got sent over to NGC looking for a bump. And in the post-2008 era where NGC coins are much less desired, collectors are back tracking and trying to cross them back into PCGS holders....or even accepting a slight downgrade back to where many might have started. Don't underestimate the resubmission mentality (ie greed) unless you've played that crack out and resubmission game for many years. I've tried the same coin up to 4X. The first 2 or 3 submissions didn't deter me when I strongly felt the coin was a higher grade. Would I try an AG 1916-d Merc if I felt it was basically a Good-4? Sure I would. I'd much rather have a good in my set than an AG....and not have to pay the extra $200 to get it. If you look at ebay price ranges for AG-Good 16-d Mercs, it's quite large....approx $500-$1200. There are sellers asking huge premiums on the jump from AG3 to Good 4. Looks to me like some of those dealers/speculators would try multiple times if they felt right about upgrading an AG. $25 to make $200-$300? You could do that several times. In most cases, the cost is eventually passed on to the customer.
I read that 2003 thread again. In fact I commented in it originally that there were >10,000 of them out there. I was no fan of that date back then. Seems to me that the majority opinion was that the surviving specimens would be in the 10K+ range. There were very few that stated numbers of 30K or higher (Rich Uhrich). The facts still remain that most survive in very low grade, which means they were not saved originally. It probably wasn't until the first Redbooks came out that they started getting plucked from change in quantity.....30 years too late. I found it interesting that so many can't fathom what could happen to 90% of ANY mintage. It just can't "disappear" can it? Well yeah, it can. And that's typically what happens. The survival rates on most seated dimes is in the 0.2% to 2% range. So where did the other 98% go? I guarantee you they still aren't out there in undiscovered hoards. What about 1901-s quarters or 1893-s Dollars? They made plenty of both. And >90% appear to be missing. Are those sitting around in old hoards too? I doubt it. I suspect that no single business strike Mercury dime has a survival rate >10%. They were used for commerce....and got "used up"....eventually being recycled back into other silver products. If there is some "plot" to hoard 1916-d dimes, then it must be the same for every other key date silver coin of the 1890-1933 period. 70-90% of the orig mintage is still out there hiding for all of them......1916 SLQ, 1932d Washington, 1913s quarter, 1904s dime, etc. Look out set collectors because 7X to 9X of the currently market known supplies of late 19th to early 20th century silver coinage still exist in hidden hoards.
They minted 83,000 1872-s quarters....that was a lot of coins for that 1860-1872 period. Maybe 100-150 of those survive. So what happened to the other 99.8% of them? They couldn't have just disappeared? Yup, they did. If you can buy a 0.2% survival rate in 1872, it's not a big stretch to figure on 3%-5% in 1893 or 1916. 10% would be an utter worse case imo, possibly 26,000 1916-d dimes surviving. No one saved them. Very few people followed mintages in 1916 other than a few hundred or thousand collectors in the US. They all no doubt got "their" 1916-d dime early on. Though I wonder if the Philly/Eastern area coin guys really cared at all about Denver or San Fransisco coinage all that much. There were no "sets" of Merc dimes in 1916....just a one year type coin so far. Wonder how many of those "kept" 1916-d dimes were spent in the first 5-20 years? What were 1916-d dimes worth in 1932-1933 when silver was down to 25c/oz? Literally, that "dime" contained 1.8c in silver. It might as well been "clad coinage." Things changed in 1946-1947 when the Red Books came out. Did the early B. Max Mehl and Raymond albums come with mintages on them like the Whitman holders did in the late 1950's? No one is disputing that for a "key" date the 1916d dime is somewhat "common." The only question is how many survived? 80% 70%....40% 30% 20% 10%, 5%? Clues can be gotten by comparing to other key date, lower mintage coins of the 1870-1933 period.
It's time for a poll.........Again, the only "truth" we absolutely know about 1916-d dimes and 1901-s quarters is that they were not saved at time of issue. The low mintages did not cause a commotion of collectors and speculators to storm the mint and buy every one of them. For some reason that somewhat occurred for the 1909 Lincolns. I guess Americans loved Honest Abe, and not so much Miss Liberty, even after giving her a "flying cap."
I've been searching change since 1961. I've found and kept many xf+ 09-s - 13-s Lincolns from the early 1960's. I never saw a 16-d merc. My bet is that rolls of ag/g were pulled from circulation between 1945-1960. Back then few if any were saving dimes as bullion. So where'd they go?
I think they are still around. At least 20% of the mintage. Probably more.
AG/G 16-d mercs are a common coin. XF-AU 16-d...that's a whole different ballgame.
Roadrunner, thank you for your additional insight. Well done. The market fluctuations and crossover situation (or crackouts and submitting to another TPG) was great to bring up. Some people just do not understand the true power of greed in this game.
Hurrrrrrrry, go buy those 1916-S since there are only 1,615 slabbed at PCGS!!! They must be super rare and valuable! There are so few because they are not worth slabbing, cracking out, resubmitting, there are no counterfeits to speak of....etc. The 1944-D in F-12 is a Pop 1 Coin...it must be worth thousands!!!!!!!!! Ummmm, no.
When coins are worth a lot, they are submitted a lot, over and over, cracked out and then submitted over and over some more.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
David W. Lange had this to say in his "The Complete Guide to Mercury Dimes" book wayyyyy back in 2005.
"The key to the Mercury Dime series, the 1916-D has been in demand by collectors in all grades since the mid-1930s. This early awareness of its rarity resulted largely from the introduction of inexpensive coin boards in 1934. These novel collecting tools are described fully in the chapter on collecting Mercury Dimes. Previously, only established numismatists sought these coins, and their preference was for Mint State examples. The assembling of collections from circulation created a demand even for worn specimens of 1916-D, 1921 and 1921-D. By the end of the 1930s, these three dates typically brought from 50 cents to a dollar in low grades. Mint State examples of the 1916-D were rarely offered, then as now. In what is to the author’s knowledge the earliest comprehensive offering of Uncirculated Mercury Dimes, dealer John R. Stewart of Milwaukee placed an advertisement in the January 1940 issue of The Numismatist selling Uncirculated 1916-D dimes at $9.50. This was in sharp contrast to his price of 85 cents for 1916-P and a mere 60 cents for 1916-S. The substantial premiums attached to this date have in the past proved too much for the unscrupulous to resist. While outright counterfeits are seldom encountered, perhaps thousands of alterations have been devised by adding a ‘D’ mintmark to genuine but less valuable 1916 dimes of the Philadelphia Mint. Another popular (though less often successful) activity has been the reshaping of the mintmark ‘S’ on San Francisco Mint dimes to resemble the letter ‘D.’ These forgeries are covered in some detail in Chapter 3, while the characteristics of genuine 1916-D dimes are described and illustrated below. Such is the prevalence of altered and counterfeit examples that even those which meet the established criteria for genuineness should be authenticated by a reputable certification service. Uncertified specimens may prove very difficult to sell."
You notice he says in demand since the mid-1930s! 20 Years after they were produced! Silver is soft. They were used for commerce. They were worn away to nothing and recycled.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
So a majority of the freshly graded 1916-D dimes are nothing more than recycled crackouts? Really? If that's truly the case, the "grade-and-flip" attitude is even more extreme for classic coins than it is for modern coin speculators seeking the perfect MS70.
And I don't recall myself or anyone else on this thread claiming that common coins are slabbed in proportion to their mintage. Obviously not the case.
In that article Bowers suggests that several tens of thousands of 09s-vdb cents exist....out of a mintage of 484,000 (83% more than the 16d dime). What we do know is that the 1909 cents were saved from day one in quantity, especially the 1909 Philly coins where they sold for a premium on the first day of issue. The provocative reverse VDB initials and other design features gave these coins wide exposure in 1909. Clearly, the 09s-vdb tends to exist in the upper grades more than lower grades...unlike the 16d. More saved, and therefore a higher percentage of them exist. Yet Bowers is not suggesting even 100,000 1909s vdb cents exist (20% survival rate). Certainly the 16d dime would have a much lower survival rate since it wasn't saved until 20-30 years lapsed.
Another comparison coin would be the 1955/1955 double die cent. Approx 20,000-25,000 are thought to have been coined with 10,000-15,000 surviving per PCGS....a hefty survival rate of approx 50%. These were actively searched for at time of issue and most all survive in XF/AU or higher grades. Yet, half of them disappeared? How could that happen? So how could the 1916d dime have anywhere near the survival rates of these 2 popular key date cents that were saved in high grades near time of issue? Either that, or 70-90% of these cents are being held back by determined speculators and your average non-collector citizens. They've been holding them for 106 years waiting for what? PCGS shows 15,770 of the 1909-s vdb's which is a little more than double the 1916-d pops (2.25X)....so that's reasonable considering a 1.83X higher mintage and a higher survival rate. About 45% of the 09s vdb's are in mint state....a population curve inverse to the 1916-d.
I would agree that the "resubmit and flip" attitude is quite high for 19th and 18th century coins. That's where the bucks tend to be. I wouldn't think that those looking for MS70's on moderns will keep trying them until they score. That could get expensive. They submit those in bulk grading with a min grade of MS69 or MS70 and let it fly. Wondercoin might have some pointers on the picking out the very best of those that don't make it the first time and recycling those into the next bulk/batch order.
I can't place a number of how many of the currently submitted 16-d dimes are recycled ones or fresh. But I would guess that >50% of them are ones that have been previously submitted. Only the Merc dime key date hoarders can probably accurately address that. I don't expect to hear from them.
The impact of the exceedingly low 16-D mintage (compared to all other dates in the series) is more important than some might think. Don't ignore the emotional component of coin collecting. It is difficult to quantify and put into words, but it is certainly one force that dictates popularity and price.
Collectors bend over backwards with data-justification, population reports and rarity scales, but there are other factors that come into play. Sure, the intelligent, logical collector knows that original mintages may have little or no impact on existing numbers, but other factors still linger in the back of our minds. Only 264,000 minted......there's something so coooool about that fact.
When I see a properly graded Fine of VF 16-D dime with just the right amount of toning, I get excited. I suspect others from all age groups feel the same way, and yes, even consider it a "good" or even "great" value. One day, I'll buy one of these. Perhaps I'll wait for the key date doomsday that some are predicting and get it at a super duper value. Maybe I'll get some at the local flea market, thrown in with a bunch of dateless Buffalo nickels. But how long should I wait?
I'm sure the intelligent, logical collector will give me an exact date.
Where'd they all go? I do not believe they were incirculation in the 60's. My dad was saving ROLLS and BAGS of mercs from our 2000+ washer and dryer route from the 50's onward. I never found one in his accumulations. I never found one in the two retail cash registers I was allowed to pick from in elementary school. I started at 8 years old. I read the red book and searched for value. They weren't out there 54 years ago in circulation. There are guys on this board who were searching in the 50's. They'd have a feel for what was available.
I do not believe they made it to the melts of the 60's onward. Don Kagin probably knows because Art had him searching Lincoln bags in the mid 50's.
<< <i>So a majority of the freshly graded 1916-D dimes are nothing more than recycled crackouts? Really? If that's truly the case, the "grade-and-flip" attitude is even more extreme for classic coins than it is for modern coin speculators seeking the perfect MS70. >>
Besides some obvious low-lying fruit such as F/AG/G examples, I do believe your statement here to be true.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
El Contador: <<With the exception of the 01 S and 13 S quarter which immediately come to mind, I don't think there are many key date 20th century coins. There are many popular 20th century coins which have been bid up because people want them (ie, the 09 S VDB cent), but I don't consider them to be particularly scarce.>>
The 1901-S and 1913-S quarters are not rare. More importantly, there seems to be some confusion over the concept of a key date. My belief is that most collectors define key dates as those that are widely recognized as relatively scarce and are needed to complete sets. The 1909-S VDB and 1914-D Lincolns are relatively very scarce and are needed to complete sets. The 1877 is the scarcest copper Indian Cent and is certainly needed for a set. 1916 and 1918/7-S SLQs are certainly key dates, as are 1921 and 1921-S Walkers. The total number of 1916-D dimes is small as a percentage of the number of collectors who are assembling sets of Mercs by date (and mint location). Is there a reason to believe that a key date is or should be a rarity in absolute terms?
Roadrunner: << Roadrunner was trying to show direct linkage between various denominations of both bust and seated coinage, something very few have done at one time under the same market conditions.>>
I do not completely understand this remark. Please further explain Roadrunner's objectives in this regard.
It was just at the time I was analyzing them I like the 1802 better, especially in higher grades.
Acknowleged, one of my points, which Roadrunner said as well, was that there are fewer 1802s in high grades to like, so there are more high grade 1801s to write about, including three that were recently 'in the news'!
Roadrunner: << Those dates will always be popular because bust halves and particularly draped bust halves are a very popular and historical series. I didn't find anything in Analyst's research that I disagreed with.>>
Good, I feel smarter now. Seriously, please publicly disagree, when you really do disagree in your mind. I welcome discussions including debates, which can lead to additional knowledge. One purpose of this forum, I hope, is to provide a setting where ideas, theories and conclusions may be challenged by others who have carefully thought about the subject matter. I thank David Hall, Don Willis and others at PCGS for enabling reasonably free and open, public discussions.
Roadrunner: << I figured out very quickly in 1974 that 20th century "key" dates were not so key when compared to 19th century semi-key dates.
Roadrunner is saying that 19th century semi-keys are often rarer than 20th century keys. I, too, am puzzled as to why more collectors are not drawn to 19th century series. For every one person who collects Liberty Seated Dimes, there are more than a thousand people who collect Mercs.
Roadrunner: << Part of the problem with using only a dime to dime comparison is that there a lot less of them that are really scarce (compared to the quarters). It also makes the dimes a more completable set.>>
Mostly for this reason, I believe that more people collect Liberty Seated Dimes by date (including mints). Also, half dollars are less difficult to collect than Liberty Seated Quarters. Personally, I find the design of the Liberty Seated Quarter to be especially attractive.
<< <i>Roadrunner is saying that 19th century semi-keys are often rarer than 20th century keys. I, too, am puzzled as to why more collectors are not drawn to 19th century series. For every one person who collects Liberty Seated Dimes, there are more than a thousand people who collect Mercs. >>
Mainly because collectors within a wide budget range can realistically complete a Mercury dime set. This is not the case when it comes to Liberty Seated dimes. Even in the lowest grades, this set is way too expensive. Liberty Seated coins are unattractive in low circulated grades, but in my opinion, G-4 Mercury dimes are aesthetically pleasing. These are just some of the factors that move the "average" date/mm collector into other series.
<< <i>Roadrunner is saying that 19th century semi-keys are often rarer than 20th century keys. I, too, am puzzled as to why more collectors are not drawn to 19th century series. For every one person who collects Liberty Seated Dimes, there are more than a thousand people who collect Mercs. >>
Mainly because collectors within a wide budget range can realistically complete a Mercury dime set. This is not the case when it comes to Liberty Seated dimes. Even in the lowest grades, this set is way too expensive. Liberty Seated coins are unattractive in low circulated grades, but in my opinion, G-4 Mercury dimes are aesthetically pleasing. These are just some of the factors that move the "average" date/mm collector into other series. >>
I don't find any design particularly pleasing in Good-4 condition, and certainly not Mercs. I've never considered completing ANY set that had expensive/overrated key dates in the mix. So if I were doing a seated dime set, I'd probably pass on all the rare CC dimes, the 60-0, and maybe even the 85-s. I'd focus on the mid-tier dates in nice F-VF (XF if affordable). That would still be a 90-95% complete set with a lot of cool coins. Better yet, I'd shoot for a complete set of S mints, maybe even the O mints (while kicking and dragging myself to buy a 60-0 or 85-s). You can to do a "set" any way you like. My Merc dime set would focus on the mint marks of the teens and twenties in circ grades VF-XF while ignoring the 16-d. I'd do the same with Barber quarters leaving out the 3 keys and going after all the other O and S mints in choice circ condition. That seems to be what most collectors are going after these days....with many of them buying every single nice VF-AU semi-scarce O and S mint they run across. You can always buy a Good 1901-s....but maybe not so for an XF 1897-s.
Frankly, complete sets of anything seated were always too expensive for me, especially in higher grades. And I never wanted a set of slugs either. Any set I've tried to build is a set of underrated coins. I'm happy with that. It doesn't tie up as much money and hopefully gives you some additional upside. As far as 19th century "keys," I've figured that 80% of the seated quarter set is rarer than the 1901-s quarter. That's what got me into them in the first place back in 1974. Being "expensive" is a relative thing. I had wonderful looking, full original Good 6 1842-0 sd quarter a few years back. It was a great looking low grade coin. If it were just an 1843-P it wouldn't have looked so good.....lol. I'm sure a Good 4 1870-cc 25c looks nice to its owner too. The Good 1894-s dime is a "looker" too. I like Good Barber coins before the Mercs, Walkers, SLQ's.
Price is a proxy for rarity + demand. Not sure why anyone would call a coin worth $100 a "key-date" as I think it misses the mark.
What is a fundamental flaw in the premise here is that a "Key date" that costs $10,000 has little correlation to price movement (in percentage) as a "Key Date" that costs $100. Apples and oranges.
MLAeBayNumismatics: "The greatest hobby in the world!"
<< <i>Roadrunner is saying that 19th century semi-keys are often rarer than 20th century keys. I, too, am puzzled as to why more collectors are not drawn to 19th century series. For every one person who collects Liberty Seated Dimes, there are more than a thousand people who collect Mercs. >>
Mainly because collectors within a wide budget range can realistically complete a Mercury dime set. This is not the case when it comes to Liberty Seated dimes. Even in the lowest grades, this set is way too expensive. Liberty Seated coins are unattractive in low circulated grades, but in my opinion, G-4 Mercury dimes are aesthetically pleasing. These are just some of the factors that move the "average" date/mm collector into other series. >>
I don't find any design particularly pleasing in Good-4 condition, and certainly not Mercs. I've never considered completing ANY set that had expensive/overrated key dates in the mix. So if I were doing a seated dime set, I'd probably pass on all the rare CC dimes, the 60-0, and maybe even the 85-s. I'd focus on the mid-tier dates in nice F-VF (XF if affordable). That would still be a 90-95% complete set with a lot of cool coins. Better yet, I'd shoot for a complete set of S mints, maybe even the O mints (while kicking and dragging myself to buy a 60-0 or 85-s). You can to do a "set" any way you like. My Merc dime set would focus on the mint marks of the teens and twenties in circ grades VF-XF while ignoring the 16-d. I'd do the same with Barber quarters leaving out the 3 keys and going after all the other O and S mints in choice circ condition. That seems to be what most collectors are going after these days....with many of them buying every single nice VF-AU semi-scarce O and S mint they run across. You can always buy a Good 1901-s....but maybe not so for an XF 1897-s.
Frankly, complete sets of anything seated were always too expensive for me, especially in higher grades. And I never wanted a set of slugs either. Any set I've tried to build is a set of underrated coins. I'm happy with that. It doesn't tie up as much money and hopefully gives you some additional upside. As far as 19th century "keys," I've figured that 80% of the seated quarter set is rarer than the 1901-s quarter. That's what got me into them in the first place back in 1974. Being "expensive" is a relative thing. I had wonderful looking, full original Good 6 1842-0 sd quarter a few years back. It was a great looking low grade coin. If it were just an 1843-P it wouldn't have looked so good.....lol. I'm sure a Good 4 1870-cc 25c looks nice to its owner too. The Good 1894-s dime is a "looker" too. I like Good Barber coins before the Mercs, Walkers, SLQ's. >>
Fair enough and to each his own. Our collecting strategies differ, because I like complete date/mm sets or type set specimens. Regarding the so-called "overrated" 16-D, if I could afford a sharp XF 16-D with superior eye-appeal, I'd pay the price, even at current levels. I could easily hold out for a similarly priced and far more elusive Liberty Seated coin, but I still come back to the 16-D. Is there something wrong with me? Am I one of those naive, impressionable collectors who is subject to hype and popular trends? Am I flushing my money down the toilet? Blissfully ignorant? Stubbornly planted in a bygone era? Well, maybe I am, but I don't think so.
Interesting thread. I was looking for nice 1801 and 1802 VF half dollars in the 1998-2002 time frame, which at the time were seldom available with dealers. Both market prices and price guides were too low back then, and collectors would snap them up soon after being offered by dealers. Around 2004, price guides and dealers greatly increased prices, and more 1801's and 02's came to market. I have owned several of both dates, they are great coins to have of relatively affordable, but scarce key dates, a much better value than the more common (yes, more common) 1794 half dollar, which are wildly priced from hoarding and first year issue euphoria.
I used to collect draped bust dimes by die variety. Compare the 1804 dime population with 1916-D dime pops. For that matter, compare 1800-1803 extant dimes to 1916-D dimes. The 1800-1803 dimes are rare, but not considered key dates because of the slightly more rare 1804 dimes, although they are as rare as 1794 dollars. For collectors who want a truly rare US Mint coin at a relatively cheap price, buy a 1800-1803 dime - if you can find one.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
<< <i>...Our collecting strategies differ, because I like complete date/mm sets or type set specimens. Regarding the so-called "overrated" 16-D, if I could afford a sharp XF 16-D with superior eye-appeal, I'd pay the price, even at current levels. I could easily hold out for a similarly priced and far more elusive Liberty Seated coin, but I still come back to the 16-D. Is there something wrong with me? Am I one of those naive, impressionable collectors who is subject to hype and popular trends? Am I flushing my money down the toilet? Blissfully ignorant? Stubbornly planted in a bygone era? Well, maybe I am, but I don't think so. >>
The availability of nice 1916-d 10c XF's is clearly limited. Going after one of those certainly makes good sense to me. And no doubt you are not alone in the quest for a killer looking XF. Good luck on that.
Interesting that Nysoto had the same experiences as I did with the 1794 half. Despite the mintage, 1st year of type, linkage with the rare 1794 dollar, it just showed up more often than the 1802 half. So logically in 1975 I was looking for a nice 1802 half, and not a 1794. The 1974 Coin World trends in EF showed a 1794 at $1900, the 1801 at $675, and the 1802 at $450. That was a no brainer to me, the scarcer coin was the cheapest. The 1794 had the lowest mintage too. Also for $675 was a 1901-s quarter in EF. And an 1874-cc dime in EF was $700 (priced well under the 71-cc or 73-cc at $1000 each). The 1893-s $ in EF was also $650. 1916 25c in EF was $550. 1870-cc quarter in EF was $800. The 1916-d 10c in EF was $350. There certainly were a lot of key dates in that $500-$800 range. The 1874-cc dime was the clear winner of that grouping (50X). In hindsight, the 1794 half was a better deal than the 1802 half (20X vs. 15X since 1974) because of the huge popularity increase in type coin/1st year of issue demand.
Overdate: <<So a majority of the freshly graded 1916-D dimes are nothing more than recycled crackouts?
Yes, the vast majority are probably crackouts. I am unaware of a hoard of 1916-D dimes emerging in a very long time. Have any forum members heard of a hoard of raw 1916-D dimes being submitted for grading at any point during the last fifteen years?
Really? If that's truly the case, the "grade-and-flip" attitude is even more extreme for classic coins than it is for modern coin speculators seeking the perfect MS70.>>
For a very long time, I have been discussing issues relating to grade-inflation and coin doctoring. Although Scott Travers and Laura Sperber have certainly contributed greatly to a public understanding of these topics, no one has written more about grade-inflation and coin doctoring than I have. Rather than write negative articles, I often blend pertinent references to grade-inflation and coin doctoring into articles that focus on newsworthy events or collecting strategies.
AMRC:<<Price is a proxy for rarity + demand. Not sure why anyone would call a coin worth $100 a "key-date" as I think it misses the mark.>>
I am puzzled by this remark. which I really do not understand. I hope that AMRC is not saying that a coin has to be both rare and expensive to be a key date. If we were talking about rarities, we would refer to them as rarities; if we were talking abut expensive coins, we could refer to them as such. A key date is not necessarily rare or expensive. As I intended this thread to be a discussion of key dates, I was hoping that there was a concensus, roughly, regarding the definition of a key date.
My belief is that almost all veteran collectors define key dates as those that are widely recognized as relatively scarce and are needed to complete sets. A relatively scarce coin may be common in absolute terms.
The 1909-S VDB and 1914-D Lincolns are relatively very scarce and are needed to complete sets, although a 1914-D could be found for less than $150. 1916 and 1918/7-S SLQs are certainly key dates, as are 1921 and 1921-D Walkers, even though a 1921 could probably be bought for less than $100. The total number of 1921 Walkers is small as a percentage of the number of collectors who are assembling sets of Walkers by date (and mint location). Although an 1864-Small Motto Two Cent Piece in Good-04 or AG-03 could be purchased for less than $100, it is a key date. Is AMRC saying that these are not key dates?
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
<< <i>With the advent of the Internet is key-date really a valid term anymore?
Between Heritage and E-Bay, anyone with a funded checkbook could fill the trunk of a car with 'key date' coins pretty quickly. >>
But most of the other dates in these series are so common, sellers don't even bother listing them individually. If the key dates could fill the trunk of a car, then the other dates could fill a dozen barges, three large islands and 50 built-in pools. Furthermore, the high values of key dates brings them all out into the light, giving the illusion of quantity.
<< <i>Overdate: <<So a majority of the freshly graded 1916-D dimes are nothing more than recycled crackouts?
Yes, the vast majority are probably crackouts. I am unaware of a hoard of 1916-D dimes emerging in a very long time. Have any forum members heard of a hoard of raw 1916-D dimes being submitted for grading at any point during the last fifteen years? >>
Crackouts and hoards do not exhaust the possibilities. Many “old-time” raw sets and individual coins exist that have been off the numismatic market for decades, that are now being inherited, sold to dealers and then submitted for grading. A few hundred 1916-D dimes per year returning to numismatic channels is not an unreasonable number, given the size of the collecting community at the time these sets were assembled, and the popularity of collecting contemporary coins by date and mintmark during that period in numismatic history.
It also isn’t likely that a static supply of 1916-D dimes will endlessly be cracked out and resubmitted for the possibility of an upgrade. There are many non-borderline dimes that have already achieved their appropriate grades, and are not viable candidates for resubmission. Dimes on the grading borderline may be submitted multiple times, but eventually they will either achieve the desired grade (and not be resubmitted again), or the submitter will give up. In the absence of a steady supply of fresh raw 1916-D dimes, the crackout game must eventually end.
<< <i>It also isn’t likely that a static supply of 1916-D dimes will endlessly be cracked out and resubmitted for the possibility of an upgrade. There are many non-borderline dimes that have already achieved their appropriate grades, and are not viable candidates for resubmission. Dimes on the grading borderline may be submitted multiple times, but eventually they will either achieve the desired grade (and not be resubmitted again), or the submitter will give up. In the absence of a steady supply of fresh raw 1916-D dimes, the crackout game must eventually end. >>
Not really. It may end for the owner AT THAT TIME but then it is sold and the next person is left unaware of the coin's airline miles and truck miles with the USPS/FEDEXUPS....etc...then the game starts all over again with the new owner.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Overdate: << It also isn’t likely that a static supply of 1916-D dimes will endlessly be cracked out and resubmitted for the possibility of an upgrade.>>
In regard to many coin issues, this is exactly what has been happening over the last twenty-five years. I admit, however, that I have not extensively researched 1916-D dimes. Overdate's counter-points have triggered further thoughts in my mind about 1916-D dimes. I will further analyze 1916-D dimes. When I put forth my remarks above, I had forgotten that such a substantial % of PCGS certified 1916-D dimes are in very low grades.
In any event, coins that have been certified in the past are cracked out on mulitple occasions. In another recent thread, a chart was published that provided evidence of grade-inflation of Commem $1 gold pieces. Roadrunner demonstrated that, from 1989 to the present, the relative populations of MS-61, MS-62 and MS-63 Commem Gold Dollars actually WENT WAY DOWN, while the relativve populations of MS-65, MS-66 and MS-67 coins all very much increased! AngryTurtle incorporated such data in a clear chart.
Overdate: There are many non-borderline dimes that have already achieved their appropriate grades, and are not viable candidates for resubmission.
This remark ignores grade-inflation. A coin that most most experts called MS-64 in 1995 may be called MS-66 by the same experts now.
Overdate: .. may be submitted multiple times, but eventually they will either achieve the desired grade (and not be resubmitted again), or the submitter will give up. In the absence of a steady supply of fresh raw 1916-D dimes, the crackout game must eventually end.
Keyman: <<Not really. It may end for the owner AT THAT TIME but then it is sold and the next person is left unaware of the coin's airline miles and truck miles .. then the game starts all over again with the new owner.>>
Yes, the crackout game will continue for a while. For the benefit of coin collecting, though, we should all think about how mainstream grading practices may evolve over time.
<< <i>It also isn’t likely that a static supply of 1916-D dimes will endlessly be cracked out and resubmitted for the possibility of an upgrade. There are many non-borderline dimes that have already achieved their appropriate grades, and are not viable candidates for resubmission. Dimes on the grading borderline may be submitted multiple times, but eventually they will either achieve the desired grade (and not be resubmitted again), or the submitter will give up. In the absence of a steady supply of fresh raw 1916-D dimes, the crackout game must eventually end. >>
Not really. It may end for the owner AT THAT TIME but then it is sold and the next person is left unaware of the coin's airline miles and truck miles with the USPS/FEDEXUPS....etc...then the game starts all over again with the new owner. >>
And every little tweak to the grading system (*, +, secure, etc.) ensures a stream of resubmits. A 1916-d dime with a shot from G4 to G6 (or an AG3 to G4) will continue to see those coins resubmitted by someone who thinks they see an opportunity. Considering that on any day of the week different graders with slightly different opinions can grade a coin differently, then resubmits will occur until every permutation has been exhausted. I think a big plus in the support of key date pricing are the dealers themselves. As long as those guys are willing to inventory thousands of specimens while waiting for a buyer, they act as interim-collectors. 10,000 dealers holding 5K-10K of the coins? It's quite possible. And while B&M's may be in permanent decline, the proliferation of Ebay dealers without that store overhead might be much more willing to stock a 16-d dime with the hopes of flipping it in a few weeks/months. These days, it's hard to draw the line from on-line dealer vs. collector.
The allure of many of the 20th century “key dates” I believe stems from the days when most collectors tried to assemble sets from coins found in circulation. It was possible, though not easy, with enough patience to fill the Whitman Lincoln and Merc folders save for the 09-s vdb, 14-d, and 22 plain Lincolns, and 16-D dime. By the way, at least regionally in the East, the 55-s Lincoln was very hard to find and might have to be purchased. And of course back then the 50-d Jeff was hoarded as a rare coin certain to appreciate in value in years to come.
In contrast, the Seated coins were esoteric, comprising long series with many rare coins as stoppers, overall expensive in contrast to the 20th century series especially since all of the coins would have to be purchased, and the series are filled with odd particulars such as tall dates, small dates, with drapery, without drapery, with arrows and without.
The result of course is that while Roadrunner may have marveled over a 42-o quarter, most collectors would not have had a clue about it and that is probably still true today.
<< <i>Overdate: There are many non-borderline dimes that have already achieved their appropriate grades, and are not viable candidates for resubmission.
This remark ignores grade-inflation. A coin that most most experts called MS-64 in 1995 may be called MS-66 by the same experts now. >>
1916-D dimes grading MS64 or higher represent only 2.6% of the PCGS-graded total. Even if they were all a single coin resubmitted 180 times, they would not substantially change the overall number graded. Furthermore, grade inflation is a limited-time phenomenon. If a coin jumps from MS64 to MS66, it's not likely to be resubmitted again during periods of grade consistency or tightening. Unless grade inflation is a never-ending process, with all coins tending toward an eventual MS70, the resubmission game must end at some point.
Meanwhile, VG or lower 1916-D dimes total 78% of the PCGS-graded population. Certainly some are borderline and worth resubmitting a time or two, but the rewards for success are much less. A one-point bump in grade for an MS63 or higher coin is worth several thousand dollars. A one-level bump in grade for a FR02 through VG08 coin is worth around $200 to $400. How many times will a low-grade, non-borderline 1916-D be resubmitted under these circumstances? The risk/reward ratio doesn't justify it.
<< <i>....The result of course is that while Roadrunner may have marveled over a 42-o quarter, most collectors would not have had a clue about it and that is probably still true today. CG >>
I did marvel at that in 1974. While you could buy a good 1842-0 sd quarter for $13 back then (if you found one or $50 for an XF). A good 09-s vdb would have cost you $80-$100. Today? They are priced very similarly around $600-$700. In higher grades the 42-0 costs several times more. I agree most collectors don't have a clue. Invariably, any raw ones I see at the local shows attributed as small daters are actually the regular date variety. I suspect the odds of any B&M dealer ever having handled one of these is about as likely as them having had a 1794 dollar come through the shop. I don't recall ever finding one on the cheap back in those days.
<< <i>.... Unless grade inflation is a never-ending process, with all coins tending toward an eventual MS70, the resubmission game must end at some point............Meanwhile, VG or lower 1916-D dimes total 78% of the PCGS-graded population. Certainly some are borderline and worth resubmitting a time or two, but the rewards for success are much less. A one-point bump in grade for an MS63 or higher coin is worth several thousand dollars. A one-level bump in grade for a FR02 through VG08 coin is worth around $200 to $400. How many times will a low-grade, non-borderline 1916-D be resubmitted under these circumstances? The risk/reward ratio doesn't justify it. >>
After nearly 30 years, it would appear that grade inflation is never ending. While that might not matter all that much for FR-Good 1916-d dimes, it matters for coins that are generally found in VF-UNC/PF condition. If grade inflation should slow to a crawl, or resubmissions nearly end, then that would be a convenient time to reinvent the grading system. The grading services expanding into world coins and other collectibles might just be able to soften the blow and prevent a need to reinvent the system.
If you're going by price guides the price bumps in the FR-VG grades might appear modest. But that won't necessarily help you buy them. Check on Ebay and other dealer sites and see what they're asking for them. When I checked I was shocked that a VG could be priced at 2X the price of a G. Premiums were significant between lower end and higher end Good 4's. These guys aren't paying attention to price guides, rather the quality of the coins. And the slightest bump in details, originality, and stickers results in considerable rise in the asking price whether listed on the holder or not. As long as those guys are getting their asking prices, there's no end to trying to find quality specimens in all the lower grades and getting them stickered or bumped. As Keyman64 has noted, as long as there's a constant turnover in ownership, it's a new ball game on every ownership change. A choice G6 specimen may never stop being submitted as long as there's a shot at a VG8. The bell curve would suggest that 1/3 of all specimens in any grade range (FR, AG, Good) are nicer than the norm. Those several thousand coins have the potential of being resubmitted every 1-10 years, depending on the turnover in ownership. I suspect most won't go anywhere. But the owners will still try.
PCGS price guide shows enough of a price jump between FR-VG grades (20-40% each) to warrant resubmitting a choice specimen. All the bumps from grades 3-4, 4-6, and 6-8 are all in the + 35-40% range ($200 to $400). Very attractive for $30 resubmits. Even the $125 jump from a FR2 to AG3 is +28%. For any new owner these would be attractive upgrades with little downside. Ironically, the % spreads in the Good-VG range are superior to those in the Mint State (no FB) grades. Go figure. I never would have figured that. I suppose that's a reflection of the huge demand for these in the AG-VG range....and indifference to anything by gem FB coins (ie top REG sets). From F12 to VF20, and VF20 to XF40 the jump is about 45-49% each. In the mint state ranges a MS62 (non-FB) to 65 jump is approx 50%. That's interesting considering a bump from F to VF is the same amount.
<< <i>A choice G6 specimen may never stop being submitted as long as there's a shot at a VG8. The bell curve would suggest that 1/3 of all specimens in any grade range (FR, AG, Good) are nicer than the norm. Those several thousand coins have the potential of being resubmitted every 1-10 years, depending on the turnover in ownership. >>
If the G6 specimen is truly choice, it will stop being submitted as soon as it comes back as a VG8. Although 1/3 of all specimens in any grade range are nicer than the norm, this holds true only if each coin has been submitted only once. Whenever "nicer than the norm" coins are resubmitted and receive higher grades, they become "marginal" coins at their new grade level. Thus over time, a lot fewer than 1/3 of specimens in any grade range will remain "nicer than the norm" and a lot more than 1/3 will barely qualify. This should cut way down on the number of resubmissions.
6,611 non fb at pcgs 3,811 non fb at ngc 371 fb at pcgs 200 fb at ngc for a total of 10,993
Consider re submissions over the the years and the amount raw out there I would guess 11,000-15,000 is a really good guess (between 4-5% of the mintage)
Comments
<< <i>In December 2006 there were 3134 PCGS-certified 1916-D dimes. The current PCGS population is 6964. That’s well over a 100% increase in less than nine years. I imagine the same is true for both NGC and ANACS.
The fact is that there are many thousands of raw 1916-D dimes out there. Some of them make their way to the TPGs each year, significantly increasing the total number graded over time. There’s no reason to believe that this growth in the certified population is going to come to a sudden stop anytime soon. Just another strong bit of evidence that there are *way more* than 10,000 surviving 1916-D dimes. >>
You are ignoring a very important grading change that impacted high dollar coins like no other...a few years back, + grading was introduced by a couple of TPGs! This produced a ton of business for TPGs. A ton of coins "worth" resubmitting, were cracked out and resubmitted! This is where most of your population explosion happened. Here is a fine example. The semi-key (based on mintage) 1931-D in 2010 had 40 examples in MS67FB at PCGS, with none finer. Now there are 57 in 67FB with 2 finer at 67+FB. You think mint state rolls of the stuff just came forward? You think 19 people had these fresh new examples raw in albums? No, they were crack-outs and resubmissions, at least that is what I have seen. This is approximately a 50% increase in the POPULATION in the top pop realm. There is more money to be made with the 16-D if someone can get a + or full bump in grade. Greed in this case, allows many to be a bit murky in their thinking. So if a semi-key can have a 50% increase in the top pop realm, the 16-D does not surprise me to have a 100+% increase across all grades since there is so much more money to be made. Crack-outs for the 16-D have always been a problem but the + Grading by two TPGs caused this problem to explode.
Do not get me wrong, I am not claiming the 16-D to be a rare coin. Quite the opposite is true. I merely argue that the survival rate is 4-6% instead of your claim of a nutty 30%.
I would venture to guess that ANACS has not had the same explosion in population as the + Grading companies....or does ANACS do + Grading as well? There have been posts on these forums where members have cracked out and resubmitted a coin 2 times, 3 times, 5 times and even 10+ times when it has been worth it for them to do so. With the 16-D, it is frequently worth it unfortunately.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>I think it depends on how one collects to answer,for oneself, "are key dates good values...?"
To one who collects by date/mintmark these days like most of the '60's collectors did,my answer is a definite 'no.' The date/mintmark keys are virtually all overpriced and we're not going to be seeing any close-out prices on keys in popular series in our lifetimes.I am amazed,and have been amazed for years,at the prices listed for coins that most of us old-time collectors have come to realize are really not all that rare.
1909-S V.D.B. and 1914-D Lincoln prices are two of the handiest examples of key date overpricing and so are the easiest to pick on.This is not to take away from the coolness of owning either one of these coins.These are "magic dates" and will always be magic dates for the Lincoln collector who is trying to assemble a date/mint set of Lincolns, 1909-1958.
Prices are not always driven by supply and demand.There are plenty of 1909 S V.D.B.'s in all grades and colors up to MS 65,available.The supply is ample,in other words.You wouldn't have been able to convince me that there was an ample supply of 1909-S V.D.B's in 1963,however.Going through countless penny rolls obtained from banks yielded zero 1909 dated Lincolns for this collector,much less the prize 1909-S V.D.B.
I was trying to find a 1909-S V.D.B. for a penny,a one-cent investment,when the demand was high.Am I willing to pay over $1000 these days for a 1909-S V.D.B. because I like Lincoln cents and can now afford to pay the price? The answer,for me, is 'no.' The demand,for me,is not there anymore.There are far better values in coins to spend $1000 these days than an example of 1909-S V.D.B. for my collection,no matter how I collect.
Just as one would not have been able to convince me in 1963 that there was an ample supply of 1909-S V.D.B.'s available,one would not be able to convince me in 2015 that there is much demand these days at over $1000 for a nice example,either. Impressions in the mind of the newbie collector about there being limited supply and a corresponding high demand are created by the marketers. Not so easy for the marketers is to create those impressions in the mind of the old-timer,those of us who have been around the block a few times.
What to do then? I like Lincolns and want to collect them some but I don't want to throw my money away on over-priced,over-rated coins like 1909-S V.D.B.
I collect Lincolns by year only.I can represent all years and all mints in my Lincoln one-a-year collection.Did you know that 1922 is the lowest mintage year for all Lincoln cents,wheat-back,memorial or otherwise,1909 to the present? Thus,1922-D is my key,my magic date in the Lincoln series.
!922-D Lincolns are a good value at current price levels. I will buy every well-struck,problem-free 1922-D that is offered to me.They are very elusive.1922 'no D' Lincoln is not a good value,never will be a good value,however.
Analyst's research is on key date coins that cost from $100 to $2500 each.I value my 1922-D key Lincoln at today's prices at about $100 (originally bought out of a Denver dealer's showcase years ago for $50) so it has doubled in value.As key dates go,from an investment perspective,and willing to pay today's prices,I would much rather spend my $1000 on ten,or more,nice examples of 1922-D than one example of 1909-S V.D.B. >>
I'm confused here. You go looking for a 1909 SVDB and can't find a single 1909 cent and dismiss their rarity? I'm also puzzled because I found several 1909 cents, including a AU58 1909 cent, in the late 1960's. One can collect whatever they want, and that's the beauty of the hobby, but basing one's sense of supply and demand on their "late-to-the-party" experiences in coin hunting is not a good strategy. However, Your comments contradict your conclusions.
There is a history to coin collecting, and collecting from circulation, and I suggest collectors become fully aware of it. Read up on hoards like the New York Subway Hoard to get a better feel for the rarity in circulation of some of the classic rarities of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Weigh that against your own hunting experiences if you are old enough to do so. It's a very interesting and enlightening read!
<< <i>Of the 6964 1916-D dimes graded by PCGS, only 856 are in grades XF40 or higher, a requirement for the "+" designation. That leaves 6108 in VF or lower grades that have no shot at a "+". So the overwhelming majority of the 1916-D Mercs that have been slabbed in the past nine years are not even candidates for the "+" resubmission lottery. Most of them are likely ordinary circulated specimens that have been slabbed for the first and only time. >>
Or cracked out 10 times regardless of the + grading! You forgot that! Greed and the desire for a higher grade is the problem. I agree that not everything was in a TPG holder back in 2006 but 9 years later with so many counterfeits out there, anyone wanting to sell one has been forced to get them slabbed. Most examples, besides junky AG/G and examples with problems, are in TPG holders and have quite possibly been submitted many times.
You are wrong beyond any doubt! There are nowhere close to 80,000 1916-D examples in existence today.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Here’s my take. As of 2006 there were 3134 *total* 1916-D dimes certified by PCGS. Today there are 5103 in grades VG08 or less alone. None (or very few) of these low-grade coins would have been cracked out and resubmitted, as the small chance of a modest increase in value by a bump to the next higher grade would not justify the hassle and expense of resubmission. This means that, mathematically, there have to be *at least* 1969 freshly graded (by PCGS) 1916-D dimes during the past nine years, plus a proportionate number by the other grading services. At a minimum, that’s more than 200 fresh coins per year graded by PCGS alone. (The actual number is almost certainly considerably higher.) I don’t know how many problem examples each year are being slabbed as “Genuine”, but these also have to be added to the total.
Any way you look at it, there have to be many thousands of raw 1916-D dimes out there to feed the growing population of certified examples. Maybe the total number of 1916-D's is not 80,000 but I expect that it is well over 10,000.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>In December 2006 there were 3134 PCGS-certified 1916-D dimes. The current PCGS population is 6964. That’s well over a 100% increase in less than nine years. I imagine the same is true for both NGC and ANACS.
The fact is that there are many thousands of raw 1916-D dimes out there. Some of them make their way to the TPGs each year, significantly increasing the total number graded over time. There’s no reason to believe that this growth in the certified population is going to come to a sudden stop anytime soon. Just another strong bit of evidence that there are *way more* than 10,000 surviving 1916-D dimes. >>
You just can't pick any two time periods based on pop reports and come to a conclusion solely on that. From Aug 1986 to July 2001 (15 years) PCGS only saw 902 of the 1916-d dimes. So what does that mean? 902 in 15 years and then 7X as many in the next 14 years. Can you then say the pops will increase 7X in the next 15 years? You have to look at what the particular market is doing in any stretch of time. That includes supply and demand, grading changes, promotions, overall rare coin market direction, etc. It was key date mania from around 2002-2008. It's possible coins were swapped back and forth from NGC to PCGS to take advantage of each little bit of grading looseness that occurred from 2002-2008. You can bet many of the Mercs made their way to NGC holders in that time as they brought more money in higher grades. When things tightened up in 2009-2011, they started making their way back to PCGS holders again. If you look at the pops early on, PCGS was getting 3X as many of the 16-D's from 1986-1998. Then NGC started picking up the pace from 1998-2008 and closed ground. The coins would gravitate back and forth depending on where the coin was worth more money. Also factor in REG set competition. I don't know which year that occurred but it would have forced coins to shift holders once again.
If we are just looking at PCGS pops, the 1916-d dime is 4X as common as the 1916-s in all grades. What can you get from that? In fact, from the pops, a newbie would conclude that the 16-d is one of the most common Mercs of all. And fwiw there are always speculators looking at an AG-3 1916-d merc and seeing it in a Good-4 holder. So in it goes (4 owners in 15 years and 4 submissions trying for a Good-4). If you toss that coin in with other coins in a submission it might cost you $30 to get it graded. But the gain would be worth $100-$200. Sounds like good odds to me. Each now owner of that 16-d sees a possible opportunity....not knowing the previous submission history of the coin. And during the 1998-2008 I'd bet a lot of PCGS Fr's, AG's, and Goods got sent over to NGC looking for a bump. And in the post-2008 era where NGC coins are much less desired, collectors are back tracking and trying to cross them back into PCGS holders....or even accepting a slight downgrade back to where many might have started. Don't underestimate the resubmission mentality (ie greed) unless you've played that crack out and resubmission game for many years. I've tried the same coin up to 4X. The first 2 or 3 submissions didn't deter me when I strongly felt the coin was a higher grade. Would I try an AG 1916-d Merc if I felt it was basically a Good-4? Sure I would. I'd much rather have a good in my set than an AG....and not have to pay the extra $200 to get it. If you look at ebay price ranges for AG-Good 16-d Mercs, it's quite large....approx $500-$1200. There are sellers asking huge premiums on the jump from AG3 to Good 4. Looks to me like some of those dealers/speculators would try multiple times if they felt right about upgrading an AG. $25 to make $200-$300? You could do that several times. In most cases, the cost is eventually passed on to the customer.
They minted 83,000 1872-s quarters....that was a lot of coins for that 1860-1872 period. Maybe 100-150 of those survive. So what happened to the other 99.8% of them? They couldn't have just disappeared? Yup, they did. If you can buy a 0.2% survival rate in 1872, it's not a big stretch to figure on 3%-5% in 1893 or 1916. 10% would be an utter worse case imo, possibly 26,000 1916-d dimes surviving. No one saved them. Very few people followed mintages in 1916 other than a few hundred or thousand collectors in the US. They all no doubt got "their" 1916-d dime early on. Though I wonder if the Philly/Eastern area coin guys really cared at all about Denver or San Fransisco coinage all that much. There were no "sets" of Merc dimes in 1916....just a one year type coin so far. Wonder how many of those "kept" 1916-d dimes were spent in the first 5-20 years? What were 1916-d dimes worth in 1932-1933 when silver was down to 25c/oz? Literally, that "dime" contained 1.8c in silver. It might as well been "clad coinage." Things changed in 1946-1947 when the Red Books came out. Did the early B. Max Mehl and Raymond albums come with mintages on them like the Whitman holders did in the late 1950's? No one is disputing that for a "key" date the 1916d dime is somewhat "common." The only question is how many survived? 80% 70%....40% 30% 20% 10%, 5%? Clues can be gotten by comparing to other key date, lower mintage coins of the 1870-1933 period.
It's time for a poll.........Again, the only "truth" we absolutely know about 1916-d dimes and 1901-s quarters is that they were not saved at time of issue. The low mintages did not cause a commotion of collectors and speculators to storm the mint and buy every one of them. For some reason that somewhat occurred for the 1909 Lincolns. I guess Americans loved Honest Abe, and not so much Miss Liberty, even after giving her a "flying cap."
My bet is that rolls of ag/g were pulled from circulation between 1945-1960. Back then few if any were saving dimes as bullion. So where'd they go?
I think they are still around. At least 20% of the mintage. Probably more.
AG/G 16-d mercs are a common coin. XF-AU 16-d...that's a whole different ballgame.
Hurrrrrrrry, go buy those 1916-S since there are only 1,615 slabbed at PCGS!!! They must be super rare and valuable!
There are so few because they are not worth slabbing, cracking out, resubmitting, there are no counterfeits to speak of....etc.
The 1944-D in F-12 is a Pop 1 Coin...it must be worth thousands!!!!!!!!! Ummmm, no.
When coins are worth a lot, they are submitted a lot, over and over, cracked out and then submitted over and over some more.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
"The key to the Mercury Dime series, the 1916-D has been in demand by collectors in all grades since the mid-1930s. This early awareness of its rarity resulted largely from the introduction of inexpensive coin boards in 1934. These novel collecting tools are described fully in the chapter on collecting Mercury Dimes. Previously, only established numismatists sought these coins, and their preference was for Mint State examples. The assembling of collections from circulation created a demand even for worn specimens of 1916-D, 1921 and 1921-D. By the end of the 1930s, these three dates typically brought from 50 cents to a dollar in low grades. Mint State examples of the 1916-D were rarely offered, then as now. In what is to the author’s knowledge the earliest comprehensive offering of Uncirculated Mercury Dimes, dealer John R. Stewart of Milwaukee placed an advertisement in the January 1940 issue of The Numismatist selling Uncirculated 1916-D dimes at $9.50. This was in sharp contrast to his price of 85 cents for 1916-P and a mere 60 cents for 1916-S. The substantial premiums attached to this date have in the past proved too much for the unscrupulous to resist. While outright counterfeits are seldom encountered, perhaps thousands of alterations have been devised by adding a ‘D’ mintmark to genuine but less valuable 1916 dimes of the Philadelphia Mint. Another popular (though less often successful) activity has been the reshaping of the mintmark ‘S’ on San Francisco Mint dimes to resemble the letter ‘D.’ These forgeries are covered in some detail in Chapter 3, while the characteristics of genuine 1916-D dimes are described and illustrated below. Such is the prevalence of altered and counterfeit examples that even those which meet the established criteria for genuineness should be authenticated by a reputable certification service. Uncertified specimens may prove very difficult to sell."
You notice he says in demand since the mid-1930s! 20 Years after they were produced! Silver is soft. They were used for commerce. They were worn away to nothing and recycled.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
And I don't recall myself or anyone else on this thread claiming that common coins are slabbed in proportion to their mintage. Obviously not the case.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
In that article Bowers suggests that several tens of thousands of 09s-vdb cents exist....out of a mintage of 484,000 (83% more than the 16d dime). What we do know is that the 1909 cents were saved from day one in quantity, especially the 1909 Philly coins where they sold for a premium on the first day of issue. The provocative reverse VDB initials and other design features gave these coins wide exposure in 1909. Clearly, the 09s-vdb tends to exist in the upper grades more than lower grades...unlike the 16d. More saved, and therefore a higher percentage of them exist. Yet Bowers is not suggesting even 100,000 1909s vdb cents exist (20% survival rate). Certainly the 16d dime would have a much lower survival rate since it wasn't saved until 20-30 years lapsed.
Another comparison coin would be the 1955/1955 double die cent. Approx 20,000-25,000 are thought to have been coined with 10,000-15,000 surviving per PCGS....a hefty survival rate of approx 50%. These were actively searched for at time of issue and most all survive in XF/AU or higher grades. Yet, half of them disappeared? How could that happen? So how could the 1916d dime have anywhere near the survival rates of these 2 popular key date cents that were saved in high grades near time of issue? Either that, or 70-90% of these cents are being held back by determined speculators and your average non-collector citizens. They've been holding them for 106 years waiting for what? PCGS shows 15,770 of the 1909-s vdb's which is a little more than double the 1916-d pops (2.25X)....so that's reasonable considering a 1.83X higher mintage and a higher survival rate. About 45% of the 09s vdb's are in mint state....a population curve inverse to the 1916-d.
I would agree that the "resubmit and flip" attitude is quite high for 19th and 18th century coins. That's where the bucks tend to be. I wouldn't think that those looking for MS70's on moderns will keep trying them until they score. That could get expensive. They submit those in bulk grading with a min grade of MS69 or MS70 and let it fly. Wondercoin might have some pointers on the picking out the very best of those that don't make it the first time and recycling those into the next bulk/batch order.
I can't place a number of how many of the currently submitted 16-d dimes are recycled ones or fresh. But I would guess that >50% of them are ones that have been previously submitted. Only the Merc dime key date hoarders can probably accurately address that. I don't expect to hear from them.
Don't ignore the emotional component of coin collecting. It is difficult to quantify and put into words, but it is certainly one force that dictates popularity and price.
Collectors bend over backwards with data-justification, population reports and rarity scales, but there are other factors that come into play.
Sure, the intelligent, logical collector knows that original mintages may have little or no impact on existing numbers, but other factors still linger in the back of our minds. Only 264,000 minted......there's something so coooool about that fact.
When I see a properly graded Fine of VF 16-D dime with just the right amount of toning, I get excited. I suspect others from all age groups feel the same way, and yes, even consider it a "good" or even "great" value. One day, I'll buy one of these. Perhaps I'll wait for the key date doomsday that some are predicting and get it at a super duper value. Maybe I'll get some at the local flea market, thrown in with a bunch of dateless Buffalo nickels. But how long should I wait?
I'm sure the intelligent, logical collector will give me an exact date.
Where'd they all go? I do not believe they were incirculation in the 60's. My dad was saving ROLLS and BAGS of mercs from our 2000+ washer and dryer route from the 50's onward. I never found one in his accumulations. I never found one in the two retail cash registers I was allowed to pick from in elementary school. I started at 8 years old. I read the red book and searched for value. They weren't out there 54 years ago in circulation. There are guys on this board who were searching in the 50's. They'd have a feel for what was available.
I do not believe they made it to the melts of the 60's onward.
Don Kagin probably knows because Art had him searching Lincoln bags in the mid 50's.
<< <i>So a majority of the freshly graded 1916-D dimes are nothing more than recycled crackouts? Really? If that's truly the case, the "grade-and-flip" attitude is even more extreme for classic coins than it is for modern coin speculators seeking the perfect MS70.
>>
Besides some obvious low-lying fruit such as F/AG/G examples, I do believe your statement here to be true.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
El Contador: <<With the exception of the 01 S and 13 S quarter which immediately come to mind, I don't think there are many key date 20th century coins. There are many popular 20th century coins which have been bid up because people want them (ie, the 09 S VDB cent), but I don't consider them to be particularly scarce.>>
The 1901-S and 1913-S quarters are not rare. More importantly, there seems to be some confusion over the concept of a key date. My belief is that most collectors define key dates as those that are widely recognized as relatively scarce and are needed to complete sets. The 1909-S VDB and 1914-D Lincolns are relatively very scarce and are needed to complete sets. The 1877 is the scarcest copper Indian Cent and is certainly needed for a set. 1916 and 1918/7-S SLQs are certainly key dates, as are 1921 and 1921-S Walkers. The total number of 1916-D dimes is small as a percentage of the number of collectors who are assembling sets of Mercs by date (and mint location). Is there a reason to believe that a key date is or should be a rarity in absolute terms?
Roadrunner: << Roadrunner was trying to show direct linkage between various denominations of both bust and seated coinage, something very few have done at one time under the same market conditions.>>
I do not completely understand this remark. Please further explain Roadrunner's objectives in this regard.
It was just at the time I was analyzing them I like the 1802 better, especially in higher grades.
Acknowleged, one of my points, which Roadrunner said as well, was that there are fewer 1802s in high grades to like, so there are more high grade 1801s to write about, including three that were recently 'in the news'!
Key Date Coins: 1801 Draped Bust, Heraldic Eagle Half Dollars
Roadrunner: << Those dates will always be popular because bust halves and particularly draped bust halves are a very popular and historical series. I didn't find anything in Analyst's research that I disagreed with.>>
Good, I feel smarter now. Seriously, please publicly disagree, when you really do disagree in your mind. I welcome discussions including debates, which can lead to additional knowledge. One purpose of this forum, I hope, is to provide a setting where ideas, theories and conclusions may be challenged by others who have carefully thought about the subject matter. I thank David Hall, Don Willis and others at PCGS for enabling reasonably free and open, public discussions.
Roadrunner: << I figured out very quickly in 1974 that 20th century "key" dates were not so key when compared to 19th century semi-key dates.
Roadrunner is saying that 19th century semi-keys are often rarer than 20th century keys. I, too, am puzzled as to why more collectors are not drawn to 19th century series. For every one person who collects Liberty Seated Dimes, there are more than a thousand people who collect Mercs.
Roadrunner: << Part of the problem with using only a dime to dime comparison is that there a lot less of them that are really scarce (compared to the quarters). It also makes the dimes a more completable set.>>
Mostly for this reason, I believe that more people collect Liberty Seated Dimes by date (including mints). Also, half dollars are less difficult to collect than Liberty Seated Quarters. Personally, I find the design of the Liberty Seated Quarter to be especially attractive.
Key Date Coins for Less Than $2500 – Part 1: Copper
<< <i>Roadrunner is saying that 19th century semi-keys are often rarer than 20th century keys. I, too, am puzzled as to why more collectors are not drawn to 19th century series. For every one person who collects Liberty Seated Dimes, there are more than a thousand people who collect Mercs. >>
Mainly because collectors within a wide budget range can realistically complete a Mercury dime set. This is not the case when it comes to Liberty Seated dimes. Even in the lowest grades, this set is way too expensive.
Liberty Seated coins are unattractive in low circulated grades, but in my opinion, G-4 Mercury dimes are aesthetically pleasing. These are just some of the factors that move the "average" date/mm collector into other series.
<< <i>
<< <i>Roadrunner is saying that 19th century semi-keys are often rarer than 20th century keys. I, too, am puzzled as to why more collectors are not drawn to 19th century series. For every one person who collects Liberty Seated Dimes, there are more than a thousand people who collect Mercs. >>
Mainly because collectors within a wide budget range can realistically complete a Mercury dime set. This is not the case when it comes to Liberty Seated dimes. Even in the lowest grades, this set is way too expensive.
Liberty Seated coins are unattractive in low circulated grades, but in my opinion, G-4 Mercury dimes are aesthetically pleasing. These are just some of the factors that move the "average" date/mm collector into other series. >>
I don't find any design particularly pleasing in Good-4 condition, and certainly not Mercs. I've never considered completing ANY set that had expensive/overrated key dates in the mix. So if I were doing a seated dime set, I'd probably pass on all the rare CC dimes, the 60-0, and maybe even the 85-s. I'd focus on the mid-tier dates in nice F-VF (XF if affordable). That would still be a 90-95% complete set with a lot of cool coins. Better yet, I'd shoot for a complete set of S mints, maybe even the O mints (while kicking and dragging myself to buy a 60-0 or 85-s). You can to do a "set" any way you like. My Merc dime set would focus on the mint marks of the teens and twenties in circ grades VF-XF while ignoring the 16-d. I'd do the same with Barber quarters leaving out the 3 keys and going after all the other O and S mints in choice circ condition. That seems to be what most collectors are going after these days....with many of them buying every single nice VF-AU semi-scarce O and S mint they run across. You can always buy a Good 1901-s....but maybe not so for an XF 1897-s.
Frankly, complete sets of anything seated were always too expensive for me, especially in higher grades. And I never wanted a set of slugs either. Any set I've tried to build is a set of underrated coins. I'm happy with that. It doesn't tie up as much money and hopefully gives you some additional upside. As far as 19th century "keys," I've figured that 80% of the seated quarter set is rarer than the 1901-s quarter. That's what got me into them in the first place back in 1974. Being "expensive" is a relative thing. I had wonderful looking, full original Good 6 1842-0 sd quarter a few years back. It was a great looking low grade coin. If it were just an 1843-P it wouldn't have looked so good.....lol. I'm sure a Good 4 1870-cc 25c looks nice to its owner too. The Good 1894-s dime is a "looker" too. I like Good Barber coins before the Mercs, Walkers, SLQ's.
What is a fundamental flaw in the premise here is that a "Key date" that costs $10,000 has little correlation to price movement (in percentage) as a "Key Date" that costs $100. Apples and oranges.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Roadrunner is saying that 19th century semi-keys are often rarer than 20th century keys. I, too, am puzzled as to why more collectors are not drawn to 19th century series. For every one person who collects Liberty Seated Dimes, there are more than a thousand people who collect Mercs. >>
Mainly because collectors within a wide budget range can realistically complete a Mercury dime set. This is not the case when it comes to Liberty Seated dimes. Even in the lowest grades, this set is way too expensive.
Liberty Seated coins are unattractive in low circulated grades, but in my opinion, G-4 Mercury dimes are aesthetically pleasing. These are just some of the factors that move the "average" date/mm collector into other series. >>
I don't find any design particularly pleasing in Good-4 condition, and certainly not Mercs. I've never considered completing ANY set that had expensive/overrated key dates in the mix. So if I were doing a seated dime set, I'd probably pass on all the rare CC dimes, the 60-0, and maybe even the 85-s. I'd focus on the mid-tier dates in nice F-VF (XF if affordable). That would still be a 90-95% complete set with a lot of cool coins. Better yet, I'd shoot for a complete set of S mints, maybe even the O mints (while kicking and dragging myself to buy a 60-0 or 85-s). You can to do a "set" any way you like. My Merc dime set would focus on the mint marks of the teens and twenties in circ grades VF-XF while ignoring the 16-d. I'd do the same with Barber quarters leaving out the 3 keys and going after all the other O and S mints in choice circ condition. That seems to be what most collectors are going after these days....with many of them buying every single nice VF-AU semi-scarce O and S mint they run across. You can always buy a Good 1901-s....but maybe not so for an XF 1897-s.
Frankly, complete sets of anything seated were always too expensive for me, especially in higher grades. And I never wanted a set of slugs either. Any set I've tried to build is a set of underrated coins. I'm happy with that. It doesn't tie up as much money and hopefully gives you some additional upside. As far as 19th century "keys," I've figured that 80% of the seated quarter set is rarer than the 1901-s quarter. That's what got me into them in the first place back in 1974. Being "expensive" is a relative thing. I had wonderful looking, full original Good 6 1842-0 sd quarter a few years back. It was a great looking low grade coin. If it were just an 1843-P it wouldn't have looked so good.....lol. I'm sure a Good 4 1870-cc 25c looks nice to its owner too. The Good 1894-s dime is a "looker" too. I like Good Barber coins before the Mercs, Walkers, SLQ's. >>
Fair enough and to each his own.
Our collecting strategies differ, because I like complete date/mm sets or type set specimens. Regarding the so-called "overrated" 16-D, if I could afford a sharp XF 16-D with superior eye-appeal, I'd pay the price, even at current levels. I could easily hold out for a similarly priced and far more elusive Liberty Seated coin, but I still come back to the 16-D. Is there something wrong with me? Am I one of those naive, impressionable collectors who is subject to hype and popular trends? Am I flushing my money down the toilet? Blissfully ignorant? Stubbornly planted in a bygone era? Well, maybe I am, but I don't think so.
I used to collect draped bust dimes by die variety. Compare the 1804 dime population with 1916-D dime pops. For that matter, compare 1800-1803 extant dimes to 1916-D dimes. The 1800-1803 dimes are rare, but not considered key dates because of the slightly more rare 1804 dimes, although they are as rare as 1794 dollars. For collectors who want a truly rare US Mint coin at a relatively cheap price, buy a 1800-1803 dime - if you can find one.
<< <i>...Our collecting strategies differ, because I like complete date/mm sets or type set specimens. Regarding the so-called "overrated" 16-D, if I could afford a sharp XF 16-D with superior eye-appeal, I'd pay the price, even at current levels. I could easily hold out for a similarly priced and far more elusive Liberty Seated coin, but I still come back to the 16-D. Is there something wrong with me? Am I one of those naive, impressionable collectors who is subject to hype and popular trends? Am I flushing my money down the toilet? Blissfully ignorant? Stubbornly planted in a bygone era? Well, maybe I am, but I don't think so. >>
The availability of nice 1916-d 10c XF's is clearly limited. Going after one of those certainly makes good sense to me. And no doubt you are not alone in the quest for a killer looking XF. Good luck on that.
Interesting that Nysoto had the same experiences as I did with the 1794 half. Despite the mintage, 1st year of type, linkage with the rare 1794 dollar, it just showed up more often than the 1802 half. So logically in 1975 I was looking for a nice 1802 half, and not a 1794. The 1974 Coin World trends in EF showed a 1794 at $1900, the 1801 at $675, and the 1802 at $450. That was a no brainer to me, the scarcer coin was the cheapest. The 1794 had the lowest mintage too. Also for $675 was a 1901-s quarter in EF. And an 1874-cc dime in EF was $700 (priced well under the 71-cc or 73-cc at $1000 each). The 1893-s $ in EF was also $650. 1916 25c in EF was $550. 1870-cc quarter in EF was $800. The 1916-d 10c in EF was $350. There certainly were a lot of key dates in that $500-$800 range. The 1874-cc dime was the clear winner of that grouping (50X). In hindsight, the 1794 half was a better deal than the 1802 half (20X vs. 15X since 1974) because of the huge popularity increase in type coin/1st year of issue demand.
Overdate: <<So a majority of the freshly graded 1916-D dimes are nothing more than recycled crackouts?
Yes, the vast majority are probably crackouts. I am unaware of a hoard of 1916-D dimes emerging in a very long time. Have any forum members heard of a hoard of raw 1916-D dimes being submitted for grading at any point during the last fifteen years?
Really? If that's truly the case, the "grade-and-flip" attitude is even more extreme for classic coins than it is for modern coin speculators seeking the perfect MS70.>>
For a very long time, I have been discussing issues relating to grade-inflation and coin doctoring. Although Scott Travers and Laura Sperber have certainly contributed greatly to a public understanding of these topics, no one has written more about grade-inflation and coin doctoring than I have. Rather than write negative articles, I often blend pertinent references to grade-inflation and coin doctoring into articles that focus on newsworthy events or collecting strategies.
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
AMRC:<<Price is a proxy for rarity + demand. Not sure why anyone would call a coin worth $100 a "key-date" as I think it misses the mark.>>
I am puzzled by this remark. which I really do not understand. I hope that AMRC is not saying that a coin has to be both rare and expensive to be a key date. If we were talking about rarities, we would refer to them as rarities; if we were talking abut expensive coins, we could refer to them as such. A key date is not necessarily rare or expensive. As I intended this thread to be a discussion of key dates, I was hoping that there was a concensus, roughly, regarding the definition of a key date.
My belief is that almost all veteran collectors define key dates as those that are widely recognized as relatively scarce and are needed to complete sets. A relatively scarce coin may be common in absolute terms.
Are Many Classic U.S. Coins Common?
The 1909-S VDB and 1914-D Lincolns are relatively very scarce and are needed to complete sets, although a 1914-D could be found for less than $150. 1916 and 1918/7-S SLQs are certainly key dates, as are 1921 and 1921-D Walkers, even though a 1921 could probably be bought for less than $100. The total number of 1921 Walkers is small as a percentage of the number of collectors who are assembling sets of Walkers by date (and mint location). Although an 1864-Small Motto Two Cent Piece in Good-04 or AG-03 could be purchased for less than $100, it is a key date. Is AMRC saying that these are not key dates?
Between Heritage and E-Bay, anyone with a funded checkbook could fill the trunk of a car with 'key date' coins pretty quickly.
<< <i>With the advent of the Internet is key-date really a valid term anymore?
Between Heritage and E-Bay, anyone with a funded checkbook could fill the trunk of a car with 'key date' coins pretty quickly. >>
But most of the other dates in these series are so common, sellers don't even bother listing them individually. If the key dates could fill the trunk of a car, then the other dates could fill a dozen barges, three large islands and 50 built-in pools.
Furthermore, the high values of key dates brings them all out into the light, giving the illusion of quantity.
<< <i>Overdate: <<So a majority of the freshly graded 1916-D dimes are nothing more than recycled crackouts?
Yes, the vast majority are probably crackouts. I am unaware of a hoard of 1916-D dimes emerging in a very long time. Have any forum members heard of a hoard of raw 1916-D dimes being submitted for grading at any point during the last fifteen years? >>
Crackouts and hoards do not exhaust the possibilities. Many “old-time” raw sets and individual coins exist that have been off the numismatic market for decades, that are now being inherited, sold to dealers and then submitted for grading. A few hundred 1916-D dimes per year returning to numismatic channels is not an unreasonable number, given the size of the collecting community at the time these sets were assembled, and the popularity of collecting contemporary coins by date and mintmark during that period in numismatic history.
It also isn’t likely that a static supply of 1916-D dimes will endlessly be cracked out and resubmitted for the possibility of an upgrade. There are many non-borderline dimes that have already achieved their appropriate grades, and are not viable candidates for resubmission. Dimes on the grading borderline may be submitted multiple times, but eventually they will either achieve the desired grade (and not be resubmitted again), or the submitter will give up. In the absence of a steady supply of fresh raw 1916-D dimes, the crackout game must eventually end.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>It also isn’t likely that a static supply of 1916-D dimes will endlessly be cracked out and resubmitted for the possibility of an upgrade. There are many non-borderline dimes that have already achieved their appropriate grades, and are not viable candidates for resubmission. Dimes on the grading borderline may be submitted multiple times, but eventually they will either achieve the desired grade (and not be resubmitted again), or the submitter will give up. In the absence of a steady supply of fresh raw 1916-D dimes, the crackout game must eventually end. >>
Not really. It may end for the owner AT THAT TIME but then it is sold and the next person is left unaware of the coin's airline miles and truck miles with the USPS/FEDEXUPS....etc...then the game starts all over again with the new owner.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Overdate: << It also isn’t likely that a static supply of 1916-D dimes will endlessly be cracked out and resubmitted for the possibility of an upgrade.>>
In regard to many coin issues, this is exactly what has been happening over the last twenty-five years. I admit, however, that I have not extensively researched 1916-D dimes. Overdate's counter-points have triggered further thoughts in my mind about 1916-D dimes. I will further analyze 1916-D dimes. When I put forth my remarks above, I had forgotten that such a substantial % of PCGS certified 1916-D dimes are in very low grades.
In any event, coins that have been certified in the past are cracked out on mulitple occasions. In another recent thread, a chart was published that provided evidence of grade-inflation of Commem $1 gold pieces. Roadrunner demonstrated that, from 1989 to the present, the relative populations of MS-61, MS-62 and MS-63 Commem Gold Dollars actually WENT WAY DOWN, while the relativve populations of MS-65, MS-66 and MS-67 coins all very much increased! AngryTurtle incorporated such data in a clear chart.
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=945713
Overdate: There are many non-borderline dimes that have already achieved their appropriate grades, and are not viable candidates for resubmission.
This remark ignores grade-inflation. A coin that most most experts called MS-64 in 1995 may be called MS-66 by the same experts now.
Overdate: .. may be submitted multiple times, but eventually they will either achieve the desired grade (and not be resubmitted again), or the submitter will give up. In the absence of a steady supply of fresh raw 1916-D dimes, the crackout game must eventually end.
Keyman: <<Not really. It may end for the owner AT THAT TIME but then it is sold and the next person is left unaware of the coin's airline miles and truck miles .. then the game starts all over again with the new owner.>>
Yes, the crackout game will continue for a while. For the benefit of coin collecting, though, we should all think about how mainstream grading practices may evolve over time.
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
<< <i>
<< <i>It also isn’t likely that a static supply of 1916-D dimes will endlessly be cracked out and resubmitted for the possibility of an upgrade. There are many non-borderline dimes that have already achieved their appropriate grades, and are not viable candidates for resubmission. Dimes on the grading borderline may be submitted multiple times, but eventually they will either achieve the desired grade (and not be resubmitted again), or the submitter will give up. In the absence of a steady supply of fresh raw 1916-D dimes, the crackout game must eventually end. >>
Not really. It may end for the owner AT THAT TIME but then it is sold and the next person is left unaware of the coin's airline miles and truck miles with the USPS/FEDEXUPS....etc...then the game starts all over again with the new owner. >>
And every little tweak to the grading system (*, +, secure, etc.) ensures a stream of resubmits. A 1916-d dime with a shot from G4 to G6 (or an AG3 to G4) will continue to see those coins resubmitted by someone who thinks they see an opportunity. Considering that on any day of the week different graders with slightly different opinions can grade a coin differently, then resubmits will occur until every permutation has been exhausted. I think a big plus in the support of key date pricing are the dealers themselves. As long as those guys are willing to inventory thousands of specimens while waiting for a buyer, they act as interim-collectors. 10,000 dealers holding 5K-10K of the coins? It's quite possible. And while B&M's may be in permanent decline, the proliferation of Ebay dealers without that store overhead might be much more willing to stock a 16-d dime with the hopes of flipping it in a few weeks/months. These days, it's hard to draw the line from on-line dealer vs. collector.
In contrast, the Seated coins were esoteric, comprising long series with many rare coins as stoppers, overall expensive in contrast to the 20th century series especially since all of the coins would have to be purchased, and the series are filled with odd particulars such as tall dates, small dates, with drapery, without drapery, with arrows and without.
The result of course is that while Roadrunner may have marveled over a 42-o quarter, most collectors would not have had a clue about it and that is probably still true today.
CG
<< <i>Overdate: There are many non-borderline dimes that have already achieved their appropriate grades, and are not viable candidates for resubmission.
This remark ignores grade-inflation. A coin that most most experts called MS-64 in 1995 may be called MS-66 by the same experts now. >>
1916-D dimes grading MS64 or higher represent only 2.6% of the PCGS-graded total. Even if they were all a single coin resubmitted 180 times, they would not substantially change the overall number graded. Furthermore, grade inflation is a limited-time phenomenon. If a coin jumps from MS64 to MS66, it's not likely to be resubmitted again during periods of grade consistency or tightening. Unless grade inflation is a never-ending process, with all coins tending toward an eventual MS70, the resubmission game must end at some point.
Meanwhile, VG or lower 1916-D dimes total 78% of the PCGS-graded population. Certainly some are borderline and worth resubmitting a time or two, but the rewards for success are much less. A one-point bump in grade for an MS63 or higher coin is worth several thousand dollars. A one-level bump in grade for a FR02 through VG08 coin is worth around $200 to $400. How many times will a low-grade, non-borderline 1916-D be resubmitted under these circumstances? The risk/reward ratio doesn't justify it.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>....The result of course is that while Roadrunner may have marveled over a 42-o quarter, most collectors would not have had a clue about it and that is probably still true today.
CG >>
I did marvel at that in 1974. While you could buy a good 1842-0 sd quarter for $13 back then (if you found one or $50 for an XF). A good 09-s vdb would have cost you $80-$100. Today? They are priced very similarly around $600-$700. In higher grades the 42-0 costs several times more. I agree most collectors don't have a clue. Invariably, any raw ones I see at the local shows attributed as small daters are actually the regular date variety. I suspect the odds of any B&M dealer ever having handled one of these is about as likely as them having had a 1794 dollar come through the shop. I don't recall ever finding one on the cheap back in those days.
<< <i>.... Unless grade inflation is a never-ending process, with all coins tending toward an eventual MS70, the resubmission game must end at some point............Meanwhile, VG or lower 1916-D dimes total 78% of the PCGS-graded population. Certainly some are borderline and worth resubmitting a time or two, but the rewards for success are much less. A one-point bump in grade for an MS63 or higher coin is worth several thousand dollars. A one-level bump in grade for a FR02 through VG08 coin is worth around $200 to $400. How many times will a low-grade, non-borderline 1916-D be resubmitted under these circumstances? The risk/reward ratio doesn't justify it. >>
After nearly 30 years, it would appear that grade inflation is never ending. While that might not matter all that much for FR-Good 1916-d dimes, it matters for coins that are generally found in VF-UNC/PF condition. If grade inflation should slow to a crawl, or resubmissions nearly end, then that would be a convenient time to reinvent the grading system. The grading services expanding into world coins and other collectibles might just be able to soften the blow and prevent a need to reinvent the system.
If you're going by price guides the price bumps in the FR-VG grades might appear modest. But that won't necessarily help you buy them. Check on Ebay and other dealer sites and see what they're asking for them. When I checked I was shocked that a VG could be priced at 2X the price of a G. Premiums were significant between lower end and higher end Good 4's. These guys aren't paying attention to price guides, rather the quality of the coins. And the slightest bump in details, originality, and stickers results in considerable rise in the asking price whether listed on the holder or not. As long as those guys are getting their asking prices, there's no end to trying to find quality specimens in all the lower grades and getting them stickered or bumped. As Keyman64 has noted, as long as there's a constant turnover in ownership, it's a new ball game on every ownership change. A choice G6 specimen may never stop being submitted as long as there's a shot at a VG8. The bell curve would suggest that 1/3 of all specimens in any grade range (FR, AG, Good) are nicer than the norm. Those several thousand coins have the potential of being resubmitted every 1-10 years, depending on the turnover in ownership. I suspect most won't go anywhere. But the owners will still try.
PCGS price guide shows enough of a price jump between FR-VG grades (20-40% each) to warrant resubmitting a choice specimen. All the bumps from grades 3-4, 4-6, and 6-8 are all in the + 35-40% range ($200 to $400). Very attractive for $30 resubmits. Even the $125 jump from a FR2 to AG3 is +28%. For any new owner these would be attractive upgrades with little downside. Ironically, the % spreads in the Good-VG range are superior to those in the Mint State (no FB) grades. Go figure. I never would have figured that. I suppose that's a reflection of the huge demand for these in the AG-VG range....and indifference to anything by gem FB coins (ie top REG sets). From F12 to VF20, and VF20 to XF40 the jump is about 45-49% each. In the mint state ranges a MS62 (non-FB) to 65 jump is approx 50%. That's interesting considering a bump from F to VF is the same amount.
<< <i>A choice G6 specimen may never stop being submitted as long as there's a shot at a VG8. The bell curve would suggest that 1/3 of all specimens in any grade range (FR, AG, Good) are nicer than the norm. Those several thousand coins have the potential of being resubmitted every 1-10 years, depending on the turnover in ownership. >>
If the G6 specimen is truly choice, it will stop being submitted as soon as it comes back as a VG8. Although 1/3 of all specimens in any grade range are nicer than the norm, this holds true only if each coin has been submitted only once. Whenever "nicer than the norm" coins are resubmitted and receive higher grades, they become "marginal" coins at their new grade level. Thus over time, a lot fewer than 1/3 of specimens in any grade range will remain "nicer than the norm" and a lot more than 1/3 will barely qualify. This should cut way down on the number of resubmissions.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
6,611 non fb at pcgs
3,811 non fb at ngc
371 fb at pcgs
200 fb at ngc
for a total of 10,993
Consider re submissions over the the years and the amount raw out there I would guess 11,000-15,000 is a really good guess (between 4-5% of the mintage)