I imagine TDN that you obviously could relate to this article as you examine your collection. Please share what insights you gained after 34 years. A particular date way off the mark? Would you have been a key source of info if written today? Is the author still around?
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Interesting but pompous and his humor is not funny.
Rare, yes,
Rare + demand = ???
Sadly, this is a series that, as a series, IMHO, is consigned to the dump. Too many coins made of unobtanium, so a "complete series" is impossible, so no one will ever attempt it.
Therefore, just single date mint examples will be collected, and how many people will fight over a particular example to have bragging rights on a series heading to obscurity.
Other than having a "nice" one for a type set, not a lot of "collectors" will want to collect multiple examples. The number of people that "remember" this coin, in other than coin dealers' displays, is heading to zero.
@tradedollarnut said:
Uhm....there were just recently three essentially complete sets on the Registry. One just got broken up and sold.
Hey TDN. Good to know you have successfully put together a set of unobtanium from the "dump."
And not only that, you built your set of "unobtanium" in a mere 5-6 years. Not a bad success story. I guess seated dollars have been headed to "obscurity" since 1873.
I found Bruce A's articles from the 1980's as one of the few worth reading in that entire decade. Maurice Rosen's RNA was the only other one as I recall. I actually like Bruce's humor and satire. Guess that makes me a dolt...lol.
It only takes 1 or 2 people looking for top pops in the seated dollars to make them "worthwhile." And it doesn't hurt that in many cases there aren't more than 1-2 choice/gem coins in existence for many of the dates in the series. I have this particular article of Bruce's and have gone back and re-read it several times over the years. Buying gem seated dollars of any date in the 1970's or early 1980's wasn't a bad idea....as even the most common would be worth $60K by 1989. Not a bad return if you were able to pick one up for $750 (the Hayes 1866) to $4,000 in the 1970's. I had a few chances and for some reason didn't go for it. One in particular was a gem 1854 $ at the 1976 Stacks summer ANA auction that sold for around $3600. That was the best MS seated dollar I had seen up to that point. Would love to see it again 40 yrs later to see if it was still as nice as I recall. Other than one reed mark I recall that coin as being nearly flawless. And $3600 for a /choice gem seated in 1976 was a TON of money....recall that was the bottom of the rare coin market pull back from 1975-1976 with gold having been crushed from $195 to $103/oz. Even at the James Stack auction in March 1977 a superb gem 1901-s 25c only fetched $5500 (grade 67 today). $3K-$5K was a lot of money back then.
Gem SD's In demand? You bet! After seeing how well gem seated dollars did from 1982-1990 I was determined to someday buy a gem if the opportunity presented itself again. It did, in 2003. I was able to get one for $19,500 by sheer luck and fortune...1/3 of the 1989 price peak. And unlike most type coins in 2003, seated dollar pops really didn't expand all that much from 1989-2003....and tight grading standards on them held firm. At that time I was convinced they would go back to $50K-$60K again. And they did....in only 3-4 yrs. Gem seated dollars are needed for gem 19th century type sets. Finding a MS64 is no big deal. But, finding an all there, all original, solid for the grade MS65 gem not locked up in a registry set is a LOT harder.
Bruce's article did underestimate the rarity of even the hoard dates of 59-0 and 60-0 seated dollars in gem. Go find one....especially a toner. They are rare too. There's no such thing as a "common date" true gem MS65 seated dollar. Magnificent coins that get everyone's attention when they show up. PCGS is the strictest by far on gem seated dollars. Other holders often command up to 50% less. While there might be 125-200 "holdered" MS65 or better seated dollars, I suspect the actual number of "worthy" ones is probably under 100.
Old articles were often written in a style that many now find awkward or even condescending. Yet, do we read them for their style, or substance? Material from 1983 and earlier can contain nuggets of good information, if one uses them as guides to more modern scholarship.
The first rule is: challenge every statement of "fact." Where did it come from? What validates the source? Many older articles and books fail on this criteria alone because they do not document sources for their alleged "facts."
Second, look for repetition from previous writers - are opinions original, formed by analysis of data or simply copied.
Third, list the author's opinions and then compare with more modern writers.
Fourth, how do the raw data differ between the author and modern scholarship.
There are other things to look for in getting good information about of old articles, but these four will do for the present.
Interesting and fun pre-PCGS article from 1983. Some notes:
It talks about rarity and R*A*R*I*T*Y but in the context of condition rarity. This article doesn't seem to talk about absolute rarity.
Is the following on freshness still the case? "in the same ten year period there has been one or less appearance of such dates as 1845, 1846-O, 1850, 1850-O, 1855, 1859-S, 1871-CC, 1872-S, 1873-CC and others."
It mentions grading standards as being based on eye appeal: "Today, the grade of MS-65 is based more on overall “eye appeal” than any particular set of rigid objective standards."
It mentions inconsistency in grading. Are Gem coins as rare as they were now that we are in the era of TPGs?
Of course, any Gem BU SD collection would be a beauty to see!
I just want to complain about the characterization of 1983 as "old." I started writing for Coin World in 1974.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
"I just want to complain about the characterization of 1983 as "old." I started writing for Coin World in 1974." How about "progressively antique" ....?
@Zoins said:
Interesting and fun pre-PCGS article from 1983. Some notes:
"Today, the grade of MS-65 is based more on overall “eye appeal” than any particular set of rigid objective standards."
4. It mentions inconsistency in grading. Are Gem coins as rare as they were now that we are in the era of TPGs?
Unlike the other smaller denominations is seated, the dollars are graded more strictly imo, and eye appeal is not quite as critical. Too many marks and/or hairlines just don't get that "pass" that they do with other the other denominations. So that reasoning might be because the MS65 seated dollars go for 4X to 10X an MS64. There can't be any hint of problem surfaces....not for $50K. The 64 to 65 spread in other seated denominations is more like 2X....a far lower TPG risk in giving a 64++ half dime through half an MS65 grade. I still think that PCGS MS65 seated dollars are held to a higher standard than say a MS65 seated quarter or half dollar. You don't need anything more than neutral eye appeal to get an MS65 seated dollar. But if there are too many marks, you don't get it. Toners are something you often see in proof seated dollars, not so much gem business strikes. First thing I consider when I see a toner gem MS seated dollar is if it were ever dipped.
As far as gem seated dollars, there are certainly more in the market today than 30-50 yrs ago. Slabbing, a dozen big, long time collections coming to market and higher prices have drawn them out of hiding. You almost never saw these in the 1970's and early 1980's. And if your local dealer claimed to have a gem, or you saw one at a coin show, you'd be lucky if that same coin made MS63 today. In watching my local shops over the past 40 years, I don't recall ever seen a MS64 or better quality seated dollar. I wouldn't be surprised if they did show up that they immediately were sold under the radar to want lists or put away by those same dealers.
''1866-P No Motto (Proof only issue)
There are only two examples traceable of this great rarity. One was stolen from the Dupont Collection years ago and has not surfaced since. The other appeared in the Winner Delp Sale (Stack’s) in 1972. Stack’s called it “perhaps the rarest U.S. silver coin.” The coin was purchased by A-Mark at Delp Auction, and sold to New England Rare Coin Galleries in 1975.
An excellent argument can be made that this coin is a regular issue, and that without it no collection can be truly complete. In fact, I corresponded with Louis Eliasberg about it in the mid-‘70s, since there was no 1866 No Motto Dollar in his collection.
Regular issue, Pattern, transitional piece – by any label it is still extremely RAR*E, as none are currently known aside from the NERRCG piece.''
Scanned briefly over this article. The above snippet from the writing was intriguing, to say the least. A good amount of numismatic history and research. Love the information gathered there. Reading is half the fun. The rest of the fun is learning, discovering, dreaming and hoping to acquire just a small sample of our past... to pass on to the next generation.
In defense of mustangmanbob's opinion, he's right on that this is a very limited, ephemeral series, demanding wealth status that 99% of collectors cannot compete in, if one is thinking of completing it by date and mm. For the great unwashed, a simple XF-AU or even low-MS common O or P-mint late date will more than suffice.
@originalisbest said:
In defense of mustangmanbob's opinion, he's right on that this is a very limited, ephemeral series, demanding wealth status that 99% of collectors cannot compete in, if one is thinking of completing it by date and mm. For the great unwashed, a simple XF-AU or even low-MS common O or P-mint late date will more than suffice.
You're kidding right? Other than the 2nd sentence in Mustangmanbob's post (ie "rare,yes") I cannot find another factual statement concerning seated dollars. I'd be willing to bet that if a collector has one seated dollar, they are more than likely to have more. And since when is not being able to complete a set keeping collectors from collecting them? I never could complete a full seated quarter set when I started in 1974, and never intended to. I'd have been happy with a 2/3 set of the dates I liked and could afford. When was I going to get an 1873-cc NA? And since when is not being able to afford an 1870-s dollar going to keep a G-XF collector from doing "their set" and finding most of the other ones? There's no "magical" extra value applied to a "full" set when dealers attempt to buy it. They just add up all the parts, factor in profits, and make an offer. You think if I presented a VF/XF set of seated dollars for sale only lacking the 5-8 most expensive coins that they would turn me away to the next dealer? Get real. Show up with just 10-20 different dated seated dollars and you'd be a fast friend of any buyer with half a brain. You could build an interesting set with each type, each mint, and each decade (1840, 46-0, 50-0, 55, 59-s, 59-0, 60-0, 62, 67, 70, 70-cc, 72-s).
One of the biggest myths of coin collecting is the "full set" myth perpetrated by the dealers. Imagine if the collectors boycotted all the key dates and collected only the other ones....the ones not run up in price over the past 10-20 years? The dealers would be stuck with a lot of useless "key" dates. My ideal Barber quarter set would be one with everything but the 01-s, 96-s, and 13-s...just the common dates and semi-keys in hard to find, orig XF/AU condition, especially the New Orleans and other S mints.
I'd bet a lot of Barber quarter collectors never end up with a 1901-s...probably most of them....never mind all 3 of the key S mints. Using that logic there's hardly any 18th or 19th century bust or seated coin sets being built, as most are not completable by the "unwashed masses." Even an SLQ set is not completable by most because of the overdate and/or 1916. You have to go to Washington quarters to find a set suitable for completion for your "unwashed masses." It doesn't take wealth to build a presentable set of F-XF seated dollars that is only 80-90% or more complete. No one forces anyone to buy all the rare CC's....or the 1851 and 1852. I find the other dates a lot more interesting any ways....and easier on the wallet. A nice set without the CC's, 51, 52, and no 70-s would be quite the challenge. The CC's probably aren't all that great a deal anyways.
I didn't know that coin collecting was only about "completing sets." The only set I ever completed was as a kid....the 1941-1964 circ Lincolns in the Whitman holder....worth about $15-$30 max today. I couldn't even complete a V-nickel set back than as I just couldn't afford the expensive 1885, 1886, or 1912-s. Another failed set as I was a few coins short.
There are a lot more people than you think building sets out there with no intention of ever being able to complete them....pretty much EVERY collector of seated half dimes, dime, quarters, halves, and dollars....most who probably don't consider themselves wealthy. Well, back to the "dump" to mine some nicer seated dollars. Just think, if an 1873-s silver dollar ever pops up there will only be 1 completable set in existence. All those other collectors with formerly complete sets (with 70-s) will join the unwashed masses. I wonder if Doctor Duckor's monstrous $20 Saint Gaudens set was considered diminished because he didn't have a 1933?
Actually for some of us, coin collecting is about completing sets (if reasonably attainable) and, if not, for me, a type coin will do nicely. You and I differ on the desirability of chasing "truly rare" but underappreciated coins while in the same breath turning up your nose at popular, traditional key dates because they're "too common." Well, I know what I can reasonably collect, and enjoy, and it doesn't usually involve paying through the nose for a given "truly" rare piece if I cannot complete the series -- if that's the case I'll seek out the best I can for type purposes and leave it at that. Problem I've run into with genuinely "rare" coins is that classic dealer axiom, the only thing rarer is finding someone who wants to buy it.
The classic key dates wax and wane in their popularity and price levels, like everything, but when it comes to liquidity, apart from gold bullion I've yet to see something as easy and predictable to sell as a nice 09-S VDB. Guess that makes me a sucker the dealers can see coming a mile away. Ah well!
You and I probably also differ on what constitutes "wealth", or at the very least, "disposable income." And I love the not-so-subtle jab at "complete set" enthusiasts, because their proud accomplishment of latter-day wheats is worth "$10 max" and is truly kid stuff.
Funny this, that turns quite a lot of people off of numismatics. Count me among them. Pffft.
You're right. Your post and MustangmanBob's posts do turn people off to numismatics as the both of you basically called all seated dollar collectors either wealthy, or unwashed masses. Quite sad. So what if your personal preferences are to complete a set? I just showed you that 99% of all seated collectors will never experience that feat in a date/mm set. And most don't care one iota............Pfffft. I don't turn up my nose at popular and expensive key dates. I just don't consider them the best use of my money. And that notion over the past 40 years has proven correct....as the semi-key dates in many 18th and 19th series have out performed the "key" dates as a rule. In other words, they are almost key dates yet not considered as such. Many of them were never considered key dates back then, yet today are.
Yes, there is great liquidity with many "commoner" key dates....just don't expect to buy them from here on out and make the kinds of returns they did from 1995-2008. They will be out-performed by the semi-key and scarce dates that have yet to be focused on. Anyone looking at key dates has to understand they are a favorite vehicle of dealers to trade back and forth among themselves, while raising the price. In the end, it just make is more expensive for the end user collector. Heck, from 1995-2008 we had numerous key date only specialist collectors/dealers whose only job was to hoard them and push their prices up. That's your "hobby"...not mine.
My "taking jabs" at complete sets is because your ilk in this thread has made that the apparent primary goal and/or justification to collect...or else your collecting pursuit is like going to the "dump." That's deplorable. 99% of seated collectors will never have a complete date/mm set. What does that make them? Or you don't have an answer for that because you never thought it through? What turns off people to collecting is being told their coins should be in the dump or the dustbin of numismatics. My completed Lincoln Whitman cent book 2 (technically not even a complete set) is a jab at your high and mighty complete set "standard," which if you haven't figured out yet, is not even adhered to by the vast majority of those who collect coins. I'm certainly not poking fun at anyone with a $30 complete set....after all that was me back when I was 12-14. I can appreciate any part of a set or the entirety. Makes no difference....since it usually only comes down to available cash. I'm not judging anyone because of how much cash they have, which you and MMB certainly did in your earlier posts while shredding all seated dollar collectors....and in implication....all seated collectors. After all you did agree with MMB's post.
Complete sets are nice. Most don't ever do it in anything but the simplest of sets, like I did as a kid. It doesn't mean set completion isn't a worthy goal, just that so few ever do it. Don't figure that the couple of hundred routine posters on this forum represent the world of coin collecting, because we don't. I never had the means at any age to complete the sets I would have targeted. But thanks for lumping all seated (and most bust coin) collectors into your historical dump/dustbin of numismatics.
Touchy. Rather, those who pursue very expensive sets -- types -- or even partial sets -- and who in so doing, turn up their noses at the "poor neophytes"/"dealers' dreams come true"/"holefillers" who pursue the dream of owning a 1909-S VDB (for example) as "overpaying for common 'key date' dreck" are the ones doing the majority of the dumping on dreams, IMO. There are, unfortunately, not a few of these types in all areas of numismatics.
It probably goes with the territory. Happily, I can choose which territories I choose to play in.
Bust and Seated coins are terrific. And for the vast majority of non-wealthy collectors, a type coin of some sort will do nicely. And it may well take quite a lot of saving to even get there. Let's not look down on those who enjoy completing easily-completable sets, and for whom a complete set (or even a partial one) (or even more than a single coin) from a distinctly-expensive series, has to remain a pipe dream. Well done on bringing the newbies into the fold!
Your full set only mentality drives people out from the get go. I'm telling newbie collectors don't be afraid to build partial sets of bust, seated, Barber, Morgans, Buffs, Walkers, Mercs, Lincolns, Indian cents, Lib nickels, etc. without feeling stressed to buy the more expensive key dates. Don't sweat them. Buy the coins in the grades you can afford even if FR02 or holed. Don't buy the key dates first in most instances. Step into it slow. If that's a PO-01 or FR-02, or even holed, so be it.
Don't look in the mirror, but your mentality is part of what is dragging down the hobby. Every coin has to be problem free and perfect for the grade or you won't touch it. It might have to have a sticker or be in a certain holder or you won't touch it. There are so many requirements there's hardly any coins that qualify. It's one of the reasons I pretty much put collecting back on the shelf 7 years ago. It's crazy. Most coins are now considered "unwashed masses" by the collecting elite. I choose not to play in that current sandbox, leaving more room for you.
Show me above where I looked down on inexpensive completed sets....and used the words "dump" and "dustbin." Pfffft. Anyone can see the hatchet job you 2 guys did on the seated fraternity and anything remotely related to them with similar expensive rarities sprinkled into the sets. Yes, you can choose what you collect. Which makes it odd that you decided to join in a seated bashathon this week. What, they can't collect what they like? Touchy? Indeed, when I run into such slanted opinions based on ignorance. Expensive sets? Most seated sets including dollar sets are anything but that. The seated quarter set is probably harder to complete than the dollars. They must be in the "dump" as well. Tell that to Rhedden.
I couldn't complete more than a $30 set. I therefore cannot feel anything about empathy for those who fall short on their sets. They have as much of my esteem as a full set builder does. Why should it be different?
I've saved this article for many years. As a lover of Seated Dollars, I am still amazed at the accuracy of Bruce's analysis. Back then there were only a few dealers who knew how difficult gem Seated Dollars were. Besides the people cited in his article, Dave Akers, Ed Milas, JD, David Hall, and a few others were ahead of their time and had a great appreciation of them. I've seen and handled many great coins but Bruce's set is still my favorite set...your Trade Dollars are right behind!
@mustangmanbob said:
Interesting but pompous and his humor is not funny.
Rare, yes,
Rare + demand = ???
Sadly, this is a series that, as a series, IMHO, is consigned to the dump. Too many coins made of unobtanium, so a "complete series" is impossible, so no one will ever attempt it.
Therefore, just single date mint examples will be collected, and how many people will fight over a particular example to have bragging rights on a series heading to obscurity.
Other than having a "nice" one for a type set, not a lot of "collectors" will want to collect multiple examples. The number of people that "remember" this coin, in other than coin dealers' displays, is heading to zero.
I do not find much of interest in your post. TDN has been a very valuable member of this forum, and as I can discern you seem to resent that he shares his knowledge of early and SL dollars. Not my interests, but I think are important to numismatic understanding, today and for collectors in the future.
Certainly the link shared market valuations about 30 years ago. But I think historical perspective is appropriate to investors and collectors in our hobby. Questioning the collectibility of the series sounds like **** envy to me.
Comments
informative and well written
Someday I hope to own one in mid AU condition.
I imagine TDN that you obviously could relate to this article as you examine your collection. Please share what insights you gained after 34 years. A particular date way off the mark? Would you have been a key source of info if written today? Is the author still around?
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
That piece is horribly written, gratuitously horrible; but, I will concede informative if the reader is willing to wade through it.
Interesting... with some nicely placed humor.... Cheers, RickO
Great read. Thanks.
how useful and accurate is the old Bolender book on Dollars??
Interesting but pompous and his humor is not funny.
Rare, yes,
Rare + demand = ???
Sadly, this is a series that, as a series, IMHO, is consigned to the dump. Too many coins made of unobtanium, so a "complete series" is impossible, so no one will ever attempt it.
Therefore, just single date mint examples will be collected, and how many people will fight over a particular example to have bragging rights on a series heading to obscurity.
Other than having a "nice" one for a type set, not a lot of "collectors" will want to collect multiple examples. The number of people that "remember" this coin, in other than coin dealers' displays, is heading to zero.
Uhm....there were just recently three essentially complete sets on the Registry. One just got broken up and sold.
Writing style aside, there is a lot of valuable information in this article.
Complete Set of Chopmarked Trade Dollars
Carson City Silver Dollars Complete 1870-1893http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=2722"
Hey TDN. Good to know you have successfully put together a set of unobtanium from the "dump."
And not only that, you built your set of "unobtanium" in a mere 5-6 years. Not a bad success story. I guess seated dollars have been headed to "obscurity" since 1873.
I found Bruce A's articles from the 1980's as one of the few worth reading in that entire decade. Maurice Rosen's RNA was the only other one as I recall. I actually like Bruce's humor and satire. Guess that makes me a dolt...lol.
It only takes 1 or 2 people looking for top pops in the seated dollars to make them "worthwhile." And it doesn't hurt that in many cases there aren't more than 1-2 choice/gem coins in existence for many of the dates in the series. I have this particular article of Bruce's and have gone back and re-read it several times over the years. Buying gem seated dollars of any date in the 1970's or early 1980's wasn't a bad idea....as even the most common would be worth $60K by 1989. Not a bad return if you were able to pick one up for $750 (the Hayes 1866) to $4,000 in the 1970's. I had a few chances and for some reason didn't go for it. One in particular was a gem 1854 $ at the 1976 Stacks summer ANA auction that sold for around $3600. That was the best MS seated dollar I had seen up to that point. Would love to see it again 40 yrs later to see if it was still as nice as I recall. Other than one reed mark I recall that coin as being nearly flawless. And $3600 for a /choice gem seated in 1976 was a TON of money....recall that was the bottom of the rare coin market pull back from 1975-1976 with gold having been crushed from $195 to $103/oz. Even at the James Stack auction in March 1977 a superb gem 1901-s 25c only fetched $5500 (grade 67 today). $3K-$5K was a lot of money back then.
Gem SD's In demand? You bet! After seeing how well gem seated dollars did from 1982-1990 I was determined to someday buy a gem if the opportunity presented itself again. It did, in 2003. I was able to get one for $19,500 by sheer luck and fortune...1/3 of the 1989 price peak. And unlike most type coins in 2003, seated dollar pops really didn't expand all that much from 1989-2003....and tight grading standards on them held firm. At that time I was convinced they would go back to $50K-$60K again. And they did....in only 3-4 yrs. Gem seated dollars are needed for gem 19th century type sets. Finding a MS64 is no big deal. But, finding an all there, all original, solid for the grade MS65 gem not locked up in a registry set is a LOT harder.
Bruce's article did underestimate the rarity of even the hoard dates of 59-0 and 60-0 seated dollars in gem. Go find one....especially a toner. They are rare too. There's no such thing as a "common date" true gem MS65 seated dollar. Magnificent coins that get everyone's attention when they show up. PCGS is the strictest by far on gem seated dollars. Other holders often command up to 50% less. While there might be 125-200 "holdered" MS65 or better seated dollars, I suspect the actual number of "worthy" ones is probably under 100.
Old articles were often written in a style that many now find awkward or even condescending. Yet, do we read them for their style, or substance? Material from 1983 and earlier can contain nuggets of good information, if one uses them as guides to more modern scholarship.
The first rule is: challenge every statement of "fact." Where did it come from? What validates the source? Many older articles and books fail on this criteria alone because they do not document sources for their alleged "facts."
Second, look for repetition from previous writers - are opinions original, formed by analysis of data or simply copied.
Third, list the author's opinions and then compare with more modern writers.
Fourth, how do the raw data differ between the author and modern scholarship.
There are other things to look for in getting good information about of old articles, but these four will do for the present.
Interesting and fun pre-PCGS article from 1983. Some notes:
Of course, any Gem BU SD collection would be a beauty to see!
I just want to complain about the characterization of 1983 as "old." I started writing for Coin World in 1974.
GREAT article. Thank you.
Agree RR.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
"I just want to complain about the characterization of 1983 as "old." I started writing for Coin World in 1974." How about "progressively antique" ....?
Unlike the other smaller denominations is seated, the dollars are graded more strictly imo, and eye appeal is not quite as critical. Too many marks and/or hairlines just don't get that "pass" that they do with other the other denominations. So that reasoning might be because the MS65 seated dollars go for 4X to 10X an MS64. There can't be any hint of problem surfaces....not for $50K. The 64 to 65 spread in other seated denominations is more like 2X....a far lower TPG risk in giving a 64++ half dime through half an MS65 grade. I still think that PCGS MS65 seated dollars are held to a higher standard than say a MS65 seated quarter or half dollar. You don't need anything more than neutral eye appeal to get an MS65 seated dollar. But if there are too many marks, you don't get it. Toners are something you often see in proof seated dollars, not so much gem business strikes. First thing I consider when I see a toner gem MS seated dollar is if it were ever dipped.
As far as gem seated dollars, there are certainly more in the market today than 30-50 yrs ago. Slabbing, a dozen big, long time collections coming to market and higher prices have drawn them out of hiding. You almost never saw these in the 1970's and early 1980's. And if your local dealer claimed to have a gem, or you saw one at a coin show, you'd be lucky if that same coin made MS63 today. In watching my local shops over the past 40 years, I don't recall ever seen a MS64 or better quality seated dollar. I wouldn't be surprised if they did show up that they immediately were sold under the radar to want lists or put away by those same dealers.
Classic vs. modern? You'd be a modern!
Interesting read. Thanks.
''1866-P No Motto (Proof only issue)
There are only two examples traceable of this great rarity. One was stolen from the Dupont Collection years ago and has not surfaced since. The other appeared in the Winner Delp Sale (Stack’s) in 1972. Stack’s called it “perhaps the rarest U.S. silver coin.” The coin was purchased by A-Mark at Delp Auction, and sold to New England Rare Coin Galleries in 1975.
An excellent argument can be made that this coin is a regular issue, and that without it no collection can be truly complete. In fact, I corresponded with Louis Eliasberg about it in the mid-‘70s, since there was no 1866 No Motto Dollar in his collection.
Regular issue, Pattern, transitional piece – by any label it is still extremely RAR*E, as none are currently known aside from the NERRCG piece.''
Scanned briefly over this article. The above snippet from the writing was intriguing, to say the least. A good amount of numismatic history and research. Love the information gathered there. Reading is half the fun. The rest of the fun is learning, discovering, dreaming and hoping to acquire just a small sample of our past... to pass on to the next generation.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
In defense of mustangmanbob's opinion, he's right on that this is a very limited, ephemeral series, demanding wealth status that 99% of collectors cannot compete in, if one is thinking of completing it by date and mm. For the great unwashed, a simple XF-AU or even low-MS common O or P-mint late date will more than suffice.
You're kidding right? Other than the 2nd sentence in Mustangmanbob's post (ie "rare,yes") I cannot find another factual statement concerning seated dollars. I'd be willing to bet that if a collector has one seated dollar, they are more than likely to have more. And since when is not being able to complete a set keeping collectors from collecting them? I never could complete a full seated quarter set when I started in 1974, and never intended to. I'd have been happy with a 2/3 set of the dates I liked and could afford. When was I going to get an 1873-cc NA? And since when is not being able to afford an 1870-s dollar going to keep a G-XF collector from doing "their set" and finding most of the other ones? There's no "magical" extra value applied to a "full" set when dealers attempt to buy it. They just add up all the parts, factor in profits, and make an offer. You think if I presented a VF/XF set of seated dollars for sale only lacking the 5-8 most expensive coins that they would turn me away to the next dealer? Get real. Show up with just 10-20 different dated seated dollars and you'd be a fast friend of any buyer with half a brain. You could build an interesting set with each type, each mint, and each decade (1840, 46-0, 50-0, 55, 59-s, 59-0, 60-0, 62, 67, 70, 70-cc, 72-s).
One of the biggest myths of coin collecting is the "full set" myth perpetrated by the dealers. Imagine if the collectors boycotted all the key dates and collected only the other ones....the ones not run up in price over the past 10-20 years? The dealers would be stuck with a lot of useless "key" dates. My ideal Barber quarter set would be one with everything but the 01-s, 96-s, and 13-s...just the common dates and semi-keys in hard to find, orig XF/AU condition, especially the New Orleans and other S mints.
I'd bet a lot of Barber quarter collectors never end up with a 1901-s...probably most of them....never mind all 3 of the key S mints. Using that logic there's hardly any 18th or 19th century bust or seated coin sets being built, as most are not completable by the "unwashed masses." Even an SLQ set is not completable by most because of the overdate and/or 1916. You have to go to Washington quarters to find a set suitable for completion for your "unwashed masses." It doesn't take wealth to build a presentable set of F-XF seated dollars that is only 80-90% or more complete. No one forces anyone to buy all the rare CC's....or the 1851 and 1852. I find the other dates a lot more interesting any ways....and easier on the wallet. A nice set without the CC's, 51, 52, and no 70-s would be quite the challenge. The CC's probably aren't all that great a deal anyways.
I didn't know that coin collecting was only about "completing sets." The only set I ever completed was as a kid....the 1941-1964 circ Lincolns in the Whitman holder....worth about $15-$30 max today. I couldn't even complete a V-nickel set back than as I just couldn't afford the expensive 1885, 1886, or 1912-s. Another failed set as I was a few coins short.
There are a lot more people than you think building sets out there with no intention of ever being able to complete them....pretty much EVERY collector of seated half dimes, dime, quarters, halves, and dollars....most who probably don't consider themselves wealthy. Well, back to the "dump" to mine some nicer seated dollars. Just think, if an 1873-s silver dollar ever pops up there will only be 1 completable set in existence. All those other collectors with formerly complete sets (with 70-s) will join the unwashed masses. I wonder if Doctor Duckor's monstrous $20 Saint Gaudens set was considered diminished because he didn't have a 1933?
Actually for some of us, coin collecting is about completing sets (if reasonably attainable) and, if not, for me, a type coin will do nicely. You and I differ on the desirability of chasing "truly rare" but underappreciated coins while in the same breath turning up your nose at popular, traditional key dates because they're "too common." Well, I know what I can reasonably collect, and enjoy, and it doesn't usually involve paying through the nose for a given "truly" rare piece if I cannot complete the series -- if that's the case I'll seek out the best I can for type purposes and leave it at that. Problem I've run into with genuinely "rare" coins is that classic dealer axiom, the only thing rarer is finding someone who wants to buy it.
The classic key dates wax and wane in their popularity and price levels, like everything, but when it comes to liquidity, apart from gold bullion I've yet to see something as easy and predictable to sell as a nice 09-S VDB. Guess that makes me a sucker the dealers can see coming a mile away. Ah well!
You and I probably also differ on what constitutes "wealth", or at the very least, "disposable income." And I love the not-so-subtle jab at "complete set" enthusiasts, because their proud accomplishment of latter-day wheats is worth "$10 max" and is truly kid stuff.
Funny this, that turns quite a lot of people off of numismatics. Count me among them. Pffft.
You're right. Your post and MustangmanBob's posts do turn people off to numismatics as the both of you basically called all seated dollar collectors either wealthy, or unwashed masses. Quite sad. So what if your personal preferences are to complete a set? I just showed you that 99% of all seated collectors will never experience that feat in a date/mm set. And most don't care one iota............Pfffft. I don't turn up my nose at popular and expensive key dates. I just don't consider them the best use of my money. And that notion over the past 40 years has proven correct....as the semi-key dates in many 18th and 19th series have out performed the "key" dates as a rule. In other words, they are almost key dates yet not considered as such. Many of them were never considered key dates back then, yet today are.
Yes, there is great liquidity with many "commoner" key dates....just don't expect to buy them from here on out and make the kinds of returns they did from 1995-2008. They will be out-performed by the semi-key and scarce dates that have yet to be focused on. Anyone looking at key dates has to understand they are a favorite vehicle of dealers to trade back and forth among themselves, while raising the price. In the end, it just make is more expensive for the end user collector. Heck, from 1995-2008 we had numerous key date only specialist collectors/dealers whose only job was to hoard them and push their prices up. That's your "hobby"...not mine.
My "taking jabs" at complete sets is because your ilk in this thread has made that the apparent primary goal and/or justification to collect...or else your collecting pursuit is like going to the "dump." That's deplorable. 99% of seated collectors will never have a complete date/mm set. What does that make them? Or you don't have an answer for that because you never thought it through? What turns off people to collecting is being told their coins should be in the dump or the dustbin of numismatics. My completed Lincoln Whitman cent book 2 (technically not even a complete set) is a jab at your high and mighty complete set "standard," which if you haven't figured out yet, is not even adhered to by the vast majority of those who collect coins. I'm certainly not poking fun at anyone with a $30 complete set....after all that was me back when I was 12-14. I can appreciate any part of a set or the entirety. Makes no difference....since it usually only comes down to available cash. I'm not judging anyone because of how much cash they have, which you and MMB certainly did in your earlier posts while shredding all seated dollar collectors....and in implication....all seated collectors. After all you did agree with MMB's post.
Complete sets are nice. Most don't ever do it in anything but the simplest of sets, like I did as a kid. It doesn't mean set completion isn't a worthy goal, just that so few ever do it. Don't figure that the couple of hundred routine posters on this forum represent the world of coin collecting, because we don't. I never had the means at any age to complete the sets I would have targeted. But thanks for lumping all seated (and most bust coin) collectors into your historical dump/dustbin of numismatics.
Touchy. Rather, those who pursue very expensive sets -- types -- or even partial sets -- and who in so doing, turn up their noses at the "poor neophytes"/"dealers' dreams come true"/"holefillers" who pursue the dream of owning a 1909-S VDB (for example) as "overpaying for common 'key date' dreck" are the ones doing the majority of the dumping on dreams, IMO. There are, unfortunately, not a few of these types in all areas of numismatics.
It probably goes with the territory. Happily, I can choose which territories I choose to play in.
Bust and Seated coins are terrific. And for the vast majority of non-wealthy collectors, a type coin of some sort will do nicely. And it may well take quite a lot of saving to even get there. Let's not look down on those who enjoy completing easily-completable sets, and for whom a complete set (or even a partial one) (or even more than a single coin) from a distinctly-expensive series, has to remain a pipe dream. Well done on bringing the newbies into the fold!
Your full set only mentality drives people out from the get go. I'm telling newbie collectors don't be afraid to build partial sets of bust, seated, Barber, Morgans, Buffs, Walkers, Mercs, Lincolns, Indian cents, Lib nickels, etc. without feeling stressed to buy the more expensive key dates. Don't sweat them. Buy the coins in the grades you can afford even if FR02 or holed. Don't buy the key dates first in most instances. Step into it slow. If that's a PO-01 or FR-02, or even holed, so be it.
Don't look in the mirror, but your mentality is part of what is dragging down the hobby. Every coin has to be problem free and perfect for the grade or you won't touch it. It might have to have a sticker or be in a certain holder or you won't touch it. There are so many requirements there's hardly any coins that qualify. It's one of the reasons I pretty much put collecting back on the shelf 7 years ago. It's crazy. Most coins are now considered "unwashed masses" by the collecting elite. I choose not to play in that current sandbox, leaving more room for you.
Show me above where I looked down on inexpensive completed sets....and used the words "dump" and "dustbin." Pfffft. Anyone can see the hatchet job you 2 guys did on the seated fraternity and anything remotely related to them with similar expensive rarities sprinkled into the sets. Yes, you can choose what you collect. Which makes it odd that you decided to join in a seated bashathon this week. What, they can't collect what they like? Touchy? Indeed, when I run into such slanted opinions based on ignorance. Expensive sets? Most seated sets including dollar sets are anything but that. The seated quarter set is probably harder to complete than the dollars. They must be in the "dump" as well. Tell that to Rhedden.
I couldn't complete more than a $30 set. I therefore cannot feel anything about empathy for those who fall short on their sets. They have as much of my esteem as a full set builder does. Why should it be different?
Well written. Thanks for sharing your collecting impressions of rarity and condition rarities.
I like the series
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I've saved this article for many years. As a lover of Seated Dollars, I am still amazed at the accuracy of Bruce's analysis. Back then there were only a few dealers who knew how difficult gem Seated Dollars were. Besides the people cited in his article, Dave Akers, Ed Milas, JD, David Hall, and a few others were ahead of their time and had a great appreciation of them. I've seen and handled many great coins but Bruce's set is still my favorite set...your Trade Dollars are right behind!
I do not find much of interest in your post. TDN has been a very valuable member of this forum, and as I can discern you seem to resent that he shares his knowledge of early and SL dollars. Not my interests, but I think are important to numismatic understanding, today and for collectors in the future.
Certainly the link shared market valuations about 30 years ago. But I think historical perspective is appropriate to investors and collectors in our hobby. Questioning the collectibility of the series sounds like **** envy to me.
OINK
Just to be clear, that article was written by Bruce Amspacher decades ago
"seated bashathon" RR, you rock!