cladking, you constantly state purely on anecdotal basis about how rare certain moderns are. You may or may not be right. I can't say I definitely know any better, I'm just basing it on math and the fact that relatively speaking, these modern pops have already exploded, probably well beyond peak demand, and the only reason we won't all get a front seat to see just how much more common they are is that no one cares to even try to make them anymore. That in and of itself is a damning indictment of these coins.
Anecdotal evidence!?
I've seen virtually every die that made something like '82-P quarters. Most I've seen several die states and many I've seen BU examples. I didn't always keep count or use scientific methodology to estimate incidence but I've certainly gained enough experience to say that this coin is almost certainly rare in true Gem. Indeed, I've seen a grand total of zero coins that were well struck by good dies and in pristine condition. Indeed, I've seen almost no dies or strikes even on circ coins that might have been Gems.
This isn't "anecdotal evidence", this is "experience".
As things are now there just aren't any hoards of moderns like this because they were unavailable in 1982, nobody saved them, and now if there had been any they'd be chewed up by circulation. Fewer than 100,000 of these survive in Unc yet it sells for a fraction of similarly "scarce" older coins. Most of the coins look like junk but the few that are nicer do not have large premiums as would exist if these were old coins that mostly looked like junk. Indeed, few old coins do look like junk. You just don't see many "MS-50" barber dimes.
That the demand is "too low" is not a value judgement. It is merely an observation that that people who hate a coin will not collect it and that anything at all that isn't in wide demand can not experience a proper price discovery. How do we know what a near-gem '82 quarter is worth if the demand is "too low" to find a balance between the tiny supply and a tinier demand?
All my coins will probably be sold before collectors wake up or the newbies create enough demand. I don't much care any longer except it would make the lower end coins a lot easier to unload. Of course I'll keep a few with a lot of potential and little current value for my family but they can always spend them without disturbing me very much.
I have no regrets. I met a lot of great people and had a lot of fun with my pass time and hope to have more years of enjoyment. I put too much emphasis on profit and but I'll have a tiny bit even after expenses. I lost the "opportunity costs" but wouldn't have had the opportunity to enjoy it so much anywhere else.
@cladking said:
That the demand is "too low" is not a value judgement. It is merely an observation that that people who hate a coin will not collect it and that anything at all that isn't in wide demand can not experience a proper price discovery. How do we know what a near-gem '82 quarter is worth if the demand is "too low" to find a balance between the tiny supply and a tinier demand?
"Too low" based on what? What you think the demand should be? We know what a near-gem '82 quarter is worth by looking at what people are willing to pay for them. Demand and value is what it is, not what you want it to be.
Regardless of how many may possibly be out there, I think the equation is value of enjoyment vs. when more might appear. If one needs to wait a generation or more for those rolls to be slabbed and pops to go up, it may not be worth waiting
@FSF said:
cladking, concerning the 82 quarter, I will acknowledge that that specifically is a relatively scarcer date in really high grade. In fact, it was kind of thought of that way before slabbed moderns were even really being collected. But your posts have painted with a broader brush now and in the past, and your comments specifically here in regard to this coin feel that way to me.
The '82-P quarter is hardly the only modern coin that's worth collecting. It's merely the toughest in true Gem but there are others that are exceedingly difficult like the '76 type I Ike. There are lots of clad quarters that are fun and difficult even in just Gem. Near-Gems are attractive but there's a strong tendency for low grade coins (like chBU) to look bad. Even when they are still nice and shiny (many aren't) they just have terrible strikes from worn dies and too many scratches and marks.
The finest coins made in these years almost all went into mint sets but I wager only about 25% of mint set '76 tI Ikes can be wholesaled as chBU. The rest are just too junky or are tarnished.
Yes! I believe all moderns are a lot of fun to collect but I NEVER said ANYONE should collect them. People should collect what they like and that appeals to them. Not all moderns are rare in Gem and many are very "common. There are probably more than 100,000 '72-D quarters in Gem or better. It doesn't make them a chore to collect, merely common. It doesn't reduce the enjoyment of collecting these just because some dates are easy. Besides if you want a challenge even '72-D quarters present a huge challenge; try finding one with all four numbers of the date fully struck!!!
The fun of collecting for most people is getting to meet and talk to people and finding the coins for your collection. It really doesn't matter whether you collect gold, clad, or even aluminum tokens there are always rarities and always common items. Rarities bring more satisfaction but not more enjoyment per se.
But in order to determine the value of a coin for which ten specimens are known there have to be more than 10 people who want it.
Not necessarily, in other low survivor, thin demand markets you can have people that impact the market just by owning a few. Also the 10 people don’t have to be collectors. They can be dealers that won’t sell below a certain amount.
@FSF said:
You're the one that injected that coin into this thread and talked about it ad nauseam. And you've brought up that specific date too many times.
Actually I was responding to this statement by you;
"IMO, moderns like this trade on supplying the registry."-FSF
I took this to mean that moderns which are valuable only for the registry get their value from this.
I maintain that the registry actually hurts demand for rare moderns. If people realized that true Gem moderns can be rare there would be far more interest and this interest might have developed by now. The registry distorts not only the market itself but, more importantly, it creates perception that all moderns are common except in the highest grades. People actually believe that MS-65 quarters are common since rarities list in Redbook for $15.
Redbook doesn't sell coins and if they did they wouldn't sell for $15.
But in order to determine the value of a coin for which ten specimens are known there have to be more than 10 people who want it.
Not necessarily, in other low survivor, thin demand markets you can have people that impact the market just by owning a few. Also the 10 people don’t have to be collectors. They can be dealers that won’t sell below a certain amount.
Quite true.
But it's still hard to try to corner the market without being pretty obvious once the coins are graded.
I once imagined I could corner the ch BU '69-P quarter market. Of course, I was wrong. The coins are too widely distributed.
But in order to determine the value of a coin for which ten specimens are known there have to be more than 10 people who want it.
Not necessarily, in other low survivor, thin demand markets you can have people that impact the market just by owning a few. Also the 10 people don’t have to be collectors. They can be dealers that won’t sell below a certain amount.
I might add that one of these days some dealer or promoter might try snapping up something like chBU Ikes or scarcer date quarters. It simply wouldn't take much cash to stand these markets on their ears. An outsider would find a way to mess it up but anyone familiar with moderns could probably make a go of it. Most people probably don't realize it but the wholesale price of chBU Ikes right now is $50 per roll!!! Some are much higher. So long as anyone is buying this price can continue to increase. Everyone is so sure that moderns exist by the millions just waiting for higher prices but the fact is there aren't many Gems in rolls and there aren't many rolls. The only thing that there's plenty of is a lack of demand.
The RedBook doesn't list values for all TPG grades. It could but if it did, probably not what you think it "should be" anyway. On the few occasions I have checked eBay completed sales, the prices were all over the place even in the same grade, exactly as should be expected.
Of value is a price "guide" if it is inaccurate and doesn't list coins that do trade? They can list a 1969 quarter in Gem as being a $5 coin forever but the fact is if you desire a well made and pristine '69 quarter you probably aren't going to find it at anywhere near this level. Dies were poor, strikes were worse, and then the coins were beaten up. Coins made for circulation were even worse and there might not be a single Gem in all the original rolls that survive.
The primary point I was trying to make is that there is no reason to expect collectors to care about your point. Late date Mercury dimes cost about $20 in PCGS MS-66 while many (most?) clad dimes sell in the vicinity of $5 to $10. Even if the Mercury is 10 times as common, both can be bought any time.
Collectors do not collect in a vacuum where they are going to ignore what I am telling you. You don't see this as our post exchanges make it evident you don't understand collector motivation.
Ultimately the only things that matter from a price perspective are demand and supply. If there were a tenth as many people demanding a 1969 quarter in Gem as a '39 merc in Gem than the quarter would have a higher value.
I thought it would happen long ago but I still believe that someday the clad quarter will have more demand than the mercury dime. This will happen because a whole generation raised on clad is coming to the fore right now. It just doesn't matter what any of us believe. Price is set by supply and demand and at this time the prices in the guides are stifling the markets. This will resolve itself one way or the other; either the guides will get corrected or they will become obsolete.
I'm not trying to argue with you. I know what you believe.
Price guides are obsolete in the internet age, right now and not some unknown date in the future. This isn't 1965 or even 1995, so how can you possibly think otherwise?
The prices I observed in my eBay searches were the "real" price at the time of my search, not some made up number in a price guide, including the Red Book. You didn't describe an "advanced collector who will know what I am telling you. The collector you described is an uninformed novice, as no advanced collector needs to rely on any price guide.
To the extent what you claim is true, it just means that this (prospective) collector has a very weak affinity for what they buy or collecting generally; nothing else. That's evident for (US) moderns generally, since up to 99% of these collectors transition to other coinage as their primary focus as soon as their budget increases "noticeably". I am not trying to be "elitist", but the sums we are discussing are spent by low budget collectors on all kinds of other consumption activities, all the time.
The reason you don't see what I am telling you is because you are biased. I have had the same conversations with you on world coinage where apparently, the coinage you describe as "modern" is "accurately" priced when the almost universally inflated Krause price supposedly supports your claims but is otherwise "too low" if you disagree with it. In reality, all are just "made up".
As for your demographic claim, we haven't discussed this before here but I will tell anyone else reading my post that there is effectively no demonstrated correlation between a collector's preferences and their age. I think a lot of collectors probably believe it somewhat but it's predominantly budget considerations (voluntary or not), liquidity preference and lack of knowledge. In the 1960's, it was also this minor thing we have today called the internet which wasn't available. I doubt anyone is interested in this subject but if they are, I can explain it in another thread.
That the demand is "too low" is not a value judgement. It is merely an observation that that people who hate a coin will not collect it and that anything at all that isn't in wide demand can not experience a proper price discovery. How do we know what a near-gem '82 quarter is worth if the demand is "too low" to find a balance between the tiny supply and a tinier demand?
Here you go again claiming US moderns are "hated". Do the probable hundreds of thousands of active collectors really hate this coinage? How about the potential millions of casual ones? The answer is no, as not paying the prices you think these coins should be worth hardly means anyone "hates" it.
Most coins aren't in wide demand, including practically every single one I own in all the series I collect. How do you reconcile this to your claim? The prices are higher than most US moderns but it's evident there are very few really trying to compete for it, or else I wouldn't be able to own the coins I do.
As for anecdotal evidence, that's exactly what your prior experience is in the sense that it isn't statistically representative. Additionally, you are using your quality standards, not a TPGs such as PCGS which is the baseline for everyone else, despite "gradeflation". PCGS has assigned an MS-68 to one 82-P quarter and MS-67 to 30 others at this time, though some duplicates may exist in the latter.
The reason you don't see what I am telling you is because you are biased. I have had the same conversations with you on world coinage where apparently, the coinage you describe as "modern" is "accurately" priced when the almost universally inflated Krause price supposedly supports your claims but is otherwise "too low" if you disagree with it. In reality, all are just "made up".
Back when Krause listed the mid-'50's Chinese aluminum coins for a few dollars just a few years ago I said that this price was wrong and it was stifling the market because there was almost no demand and NO KNOWLEDGEABLE seller would sell at this level. Now that they list at up to $900 it's not my contention the price must be right. I'm merely saying this price is more in line with the observed scarcity of the coins. It's neither my job to know or say what the proper price is a the current level of demand nor even to estimate the amount of demand. I DON'T KNOW! I only know the coins were unavailable. It's the exact same way with thousands of other moderns. Many coins have always been unavailable and now that there's a TINY demand prices on some of them are skyrocketing. There's a real wholesale market on some of this stuff and I'm selling into it. I'm selling because of my age, not because I think prices have topped out. I didn't know where prices were going 50 years ago and I don't know now either but the fact that a wholesale market exists on some of these coins suggests the demand is not so tiny as it was a few years ago. Since I am aware of nobody who collects this stuff and there;'s no anecdotal evidence to suggest they are "popular" it follows the demand is still rather muted.
Some of these coins are amazingly unavailable. People merely BELIEVE coins made in the millions must be common but the reality is countless billions of coins have been converted into refrigerators and washing machines in the last half century. The reality is people didn't save uncirculated or circulated coins like a '50-E E German 10p or a 1971 Soviet 15k. Some of the world moderns are remarkably scarce and the few survivors are probably in a can in someone's basement or at the bottom of a junk drawer. Many of these will get discarded long before the owner or anyone else knows it's rare.
As for your demographic claim, we haven't discussed this before here but I will tell anyone else reading my post that there is effectively no demonstrated correlation between a collector's preferences and their age. I think a lot of collectors probably believe it somewhat but it's predominantly budget considerations (voluntary or not), liquidity preference and lack of knowledge. In the 1960's, it was also this minor thing we have today called the internet which wasn't available. I doubt anyone is interested in this subject but if they are, I can explain it in another thread.
I've mentioned this many times but you dismiss it. The new generation of collectors simply don't care if a coin is gold, silver, or pot metal. They are interested in coins first and metals after. That we drive away collectors who have an interest in modern "junk" is irrelevant and merely skews what we observe. Not everybody quits collecting states coins when someone tells them they are just common junk. They just quit talking about it on message boards like this one.
@cladking said:
Back when Krause listed the mid-'50's Chinese aluminum coins for a few dollars just a few years ago I said that this price was wrong and it was stifling the market because there was almost no demand and NO KNOWLEDGEABLE seller would sell at this level. Now that they list at up to $900 it's not my contention the price must be right. I'm merely saying this price is more in line with the observed scarcity of the coins.
The reason you don't see what I am telling you is because you are biased. I have had the same conversations with you on world coinage where apparently, the coinage you describe as "modern" is "accurately" priced when the almost universally inflated Krause price supposedly supports your claims but is otherwise "too low" if you disagree with it. In reality, all are just "made up".
Back when Krause listed the mid-'50's Chinese aluminum coins for a few dollars just a few years ago I said that this price was wrong and it was stifling the market because there was almost no demand and NO KNOWLEDGEABLE seller would sell at this level. Now that they list at up to $900 it's not my contention the price must be right. I'm merely saying this price is more in line with the observed scarcity of the coins. It's neither my job to know or say what the proper price is a the current level of demand nor even to estimate the amount of demand. I DON'T KNOW! I only know the coins were unavailable. It's the exact same way with thousands of other moderns. Many coins have always been unavailable and now that there's a TINY demand prices on some of them are skyrocketing. There's a real wholesale market on some of this stuff and I'm selling into it. I'm selling because of my age, not because I think prices have topped out. I didn't know where prices were going 50 years ago and I don't know now either but the fact that a wholesale market exists on some of these coins suggests the demand is not so tiny as it was a few years ago. Since I am aware of nobody who collects this stuff and there;'s no anecdotal evidence to suggest they are "popular" it follows the demand is still rather muted.
Some of these coins are amazingly unavailable. People merely BELIEVE coins made in the millions must be common but the reality is countless billions of coins have been converted into refrigerators and washing machines in the last half century. The reality is people didn't save uncirculated or circulated coins like a '50-E E German 10p or a 1971 Soviet 15k. Some of the world moderns are remarkably scarce and the few survivors are probably in a can in someone's basement or at the bottom of a junk drawer. Many of these will get discarded long before the owner or anyone else knows it's rare.
I saw that you replied to my other post where I mentioned Chinese PRC but was out of the country and didn't reply since the thread was no longer active.
Your contention is wrong on the scarcity of these Chinese coins, as I already pointed the TPG population data out to you showing how incredibly common, except as the condition census coin. You are ignoring this evidence - again - just as you do practically every single time I contradict one of your claims.
The reason why you are wrong - again - is because you place more reliability on your anecdotal personal experience or of those you know than independently verifiable evidence and common sense. You couldn't find these coins and everyone you knew couldn't either, so therefore it must be "rare". I have already demonstrated to you that world "moderns" are almost universally more common than the preceding coinage even in better quality, often by a substantial margin. Most earlier coinage isn't remotely actually rare or even scarce either, even in better grades. The exceptions are likely in countries with extended traditions of collecting where these "moderns" are probably sometimes scarcer than the immediately preceding (post WWI) coinage. Second, also scarce in obscure countries with no formal collecting due to populations and economics where the mintages were very low by US standards.
In our last discussion, you didn't contradict me when I told you that these Soviet coins almost certainly exist with at least several thousand in CH UNC or better. I have found every single date of this denomination in "gem" dated 1966-1974 on every single eBay search. That isn't rare but you justify your claim by using an unsubstantiated correlation to the population.
I always find it interesting to read other people's perspectives. My experience is that most younger collectors are bullion stackers, into toned coins, or looking for quick flips to make extra money.
Back to @BryceM 's coin... Since this is a type set and he replaced a Connecticut with a Connecticut, it suggests to me there is a special reason that he chose this particular state issue as opposed to a cheaper one. Is it the design you like or a connection to the state of Connecticut?
As for your demographic claim, we haven't discussed this before here but I will tell anyone else reading my post that there is effectively no demonstrated correlation between a collector's preferences and their age. I think a lot of collectors probably believe it somewhat but it's predominantly budget considerations (voluntary or not), liquidity preference and lack of knowledge. In the 1960's, it was also this minor thing we have today called the internet which wasn't available. I doubt anyone is interested in this subject but if they are, I can explain it in another thread.
I've mentioned this many times but you dismiss it. The new generation of collectors simply don't care if a coin is gold, silver, or pot metal. They are interested in coins first and metals after. That we drive away collectors who have an interest in modern "junk" is irrelevant and merely skews what we observe. Not everybody quits collecting states coins when someone tells them they are just common junk. They just quit talking about it on message boards like this one.
I dismiss your claim because you having nothing to back it up other than your personal preference. There is absolutely no evidence that collector preferences are correlated to a collector's age, not in the 1960's which is your baseline for when everything was right in coin collecting and not now.
As I told you before, this claim of yours is actually the presumption that collectors are supposed to prefer the coinage they used in circulation when they were younger. That's the basis of your nostalgia claim. So, since (US) collectors supposedly preferred the coinage in circulation then, they are equally required to actually prefer it now. Nostalgia on occasion retroactively explains why a particular collector may prefer a coin or series but it has no predictability on the price level generally.
Your claim is also wrong on collector perception for the metal preference. If you were correct, then there is no possibility for the current preference between (world) NCLT and all recent circulating coinage. Same thing for Washington quarters where I told you that Heritage has sold 15 and 32 times as many silver versus clad valued between $101 and $1000 and over $1,000.
@cladking said:
Back when Krause listed the mid-'50's Chinese aluminum coins for a few dollars just a few years ago I said that this price was wrong and it was stifling the market because there was almost no demand and NO KNOWLEDGEABLE seller would sell at this level. Now that they list at up to $900 it's not my contention the price must be right. I'm merely saying this price is more in line with the observed scarcity of the coins.
What date/denomination(s) are these?
The aluminum issues are 1, 2, and 5 fen. I kindda like the early 1, 2, and 5 Jiao and the 1 Yuan as well but have no idea if these are common or not. Some appear in the UN sets so probably are common.
Your contention is wrong on the scarcity of these Chinese coins, as I already pointed the TPG population data out to you showing how incredibly common, except as the condition census coin. You are ignoring this evidence - again - just as you do practically every single time I contradict one of your claims.
The reason why you are wrong - again - is because you place more reliability on your anecdotal personal experience or of those you know than independently verifiable evidence and common sense. You couldn't find these coins and everyone you knew couldn't either, so therefore it must be "rare". I have already demonstrated to you that world "moderns" are almost universally more common than the preceding coinage even in better quality, often by a substantial margin. Most earlier coinage isn't remotely actually rare or even scarce either, even in better grades. The exceptions are likely in countries with extended traditions of collecting where these "moderns" are probably sometimes scarcer than the immediately preceding (post WWI) coinage. Second, also scarce in obscure countries with no formal collecting due to populations and economics where the mintages were very low by US standards.
It's certainly true that I had no road guides and relied mostly on anecdotal evidence. Krause just listed all moderns for 20c or $2 and were done with it. Availability was not correlated to Krause prices nor to mintages.
I've always known some common modern coins might be rarely seen and some scarcer issues might show up more often. This would be caused by the nature of distribution of coins nobody cared about. A few dollars could buy rolls and rolls of new coins and they could all be released in a small geographical area. I personally have some rolls of such coins that are rarely seen. They are probably common simply because I have rolls.
But higher denominations are unlikely to show up this way. Who would want to tie up lots of money in something like Portuguese 10E coins and then sell them at a huge loss to unwilling buyers?
So far most of the coins from "major" countries I believed were scarce now have high price tags. By "major" I am referring to high population countries with fast growing economies and middle classes. The exception is Brazil and I assume it's just a matter of time until their moderns increase. I don't know because collecting Brazil is tough. It's hard to get meaningful sample sizes.
I still expect a lot more to get "popular". British and Irish decimals, for instance, are pretty tough in some instances but sell for about the same as the later date and far more common mint set coins.
Mint sets always mean more supply at least for the coins in the mint sets. If there were 5000 mint sets there are probably still 2500 of each coin available. Some mint set packaging destroys the coins (Like US and Japan) but even a few mint sets make almost any coin available.
In our last discussion, you didn't contradict me when I told you that these Soviet coins almost certainly exist with at least several thousand in CH UNC or better. I have found every single date of this denomination in "gem" dated 1966-1974 on every single eBay search. That isn't rare but you justify your claim by using an unsubstantiated correlation to the population.
I always estimate surviving populations much high than other people. Several hundred to a few thousand of most of these does not seem unreasonable. But just because a coin exists does not necessarily affect either the demand nor the available supply. Coins can be stashed away for decades or centuries no matter what the price does and then they can be destroyed before even coming to market. Supply and demand are about specific demand and available supply. If someone can't afford a choice 15k he might buy an XF or use a 10k in his type set instead. Coins end up in the possession of the collector who values them most after they become available to the market.
I would remind you that in the early '60's an XF 1950-D nickel was worth about $290 in today's money. There were 2,000,000 of them in even higher grade. You seem to be telling me that a coin today with a population of a few hundred or a few thousand is somehow limited in price because it will never be rare. I'm telling you that "rarity" is more a perception than it is a census. There's no magic price that ever balances supply and demand and there's no fixed level at which collectors will start or stop buying and there's no fixed level at which a coin becomes "rare" in collectors' minds. Each collector is different and the collectors coming up now don't care about metallic content as much as you do and they don't care about "rarity scales". Few younger collectors can afford rare bust half dollars anyway and certainly not in Gem.
I believe almost all moderns will get at least a little attention over the coming decades and this attention will highlight which are common and which are rare. Even more esoteric countries like Fiji will see as much interest in their moderns as in their high priced "classics". Since some of the moderns are probably much scarcer they will probably have higher prices.
I simply don't agree with you that only "legitimately" rare coins can get high prices. This is not my experience. I saw the '50-D nickel and common Gem Morgans go through the roof. Iv'e seen unique coins that have a hard time selling for $50. Collectors simply don't build collections based on anyone else's perception of scarcity.
FWIW, an MS67 sold on eBay recently along with three other graded 2 fens (1961 MS62 & MS64, 1962 MS63) for less than $200, with 10 bidders participating. Wouldn't you think the price would have been higher, if the coin is actually worth what the catalog says?
@MasonG said:
I see that the 1963 2 fen catalogs $900 in MS66.
FWIW, an MS67 sold on eBay recently along with three other graded 2 fens (1961 MS62 & MS64, 1962 MS63) for less than $200, with 10 bidders participating. Wouldn't you think the price would have been higher, if the coin is actually worth what the catalog says?
All I've ever said is that 20c or $2 is an unreasonable price for an unobtainable coin. Now that they are obtainable I don't know what the proper price is. I believe this same applies to an MS-65 '82-P or an MS-67 CT-D.
@MasonG said:
I see that the 1963 2 fen catalogs $900 in MS66.
FWIW, an MS67 sold on eBay recently along with three other graded 2 fens (1961 MS62 & MS64, 1962 MS63) for less than $200, with 10 bidders participating. Wouldn't you think the price would have been higher, if the coin is actually worth what the catalog says?
It's a little surprising to me that there were ten bidders. I never knew even one person who was interested in any coin like this before about 1999.
@cladking said:
All I've ever said is that 20c or $2 is an unreasonable price for an unobtainable coin. Now that they are obtainable I don't know what the proper price is.
Somewhere between 20 cents and $200, apparently. Are you aware of any that have been sold for anything close to $900?
@cladking said:
It's a little surprising to me that there were ten bidders.
That would appear to indicate that the catalog value is somewhat out of whack, wouldn't you think?
@cladking said:
Now that they are obtainable I don't know what the proper price is. I believe this same applies to an MS-65 '82-P or an MS-67 CT-D.
Based on my experience, those values are irrelevant to what a majority of collectors are interested in. I joined the local coin club about 25 years ago and in all the time I've been a member, there hasn't been even one collector of modern US coinage who is putting together a set of slabbed coins. What are people looking for? Something that is nice enough for a Dansco album. There will always be those who compete in the registry but I don't think there will ever be a time when the majority of "regular collectors" will be insisting on gem coins for their collection, and not willing to settle for something less.
Bryce, achieving #3 status on the 20th Century Type Set is a very significant accomplishment, but getting to #2, if that might be your focus, will require a point increase of 0.78. A one point increase on a SLH will increase your point count 1 / 99 or 0.01.
If you want to manage improvements to your collection on a financial basis, you can always compute the $$ / point as a guide. In your case you acquired your SLH for $480. So the upgrade was $480 / .01 = $48,000 / point. I am sure that you can get much more bang for the buck with other coins in this series. But the cost of getting to #2 will be prohibitive to most sane collectors, which I am sure that you already realize.
But great sets seem to be built one brick at a time, and you are improving a great set........and hopefully the day will come where you can acquire a coin that has much more impact to your registry set. I am pretty sure that you already know the roadmap to that goal.
@MasonG said:
What are people looking for? Something that is nice enough for a Dansco album. There will always be those who compete in the registry but I don't think there will ever be a time when the majority of "regular collectors" will be insisting on gem coins for their collection, and not willing to settle for something less.
>
In my opinion most chBU and lower grade clad are ugly because they have poor strikes from bad dies. Not even all near-gems are attractive though most are.
I believe if these ever get popular only near-gem and higher will get significant demand.
This has nothing to do with registries and grading. It has to do with generally low quality in modern times and with some dates even low quality is rather scarce.
@cameonut2011 said:
Back to @BryceM 's coin... Since this is a type set and he replaced a Connecticut with a Connecticut, it suggests to me there is a special reason that he chose this particular state issue as opposed to a cheaper one. Is it the design you like or a connection to the state of Connecticut?
Well, it’s a 20th Century type set, so most SHQs are ineligible. Besides, I’ve always liked the Charter Oak, even though the one on the CT commem is probably better.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
Bryce, achieving #3 status on the 20th Century Type Set is a very significant accomplishment, but getting to #2, if that might be your focus, will require a point increase of 0.78. A one point increase on a SLH will increase your point count 1 / 99 or 0.01.
If you want to manage improvements to your collection on a financial basis, you can always compute the $$ / point as a guide. In your case you acquired your SLH for $480. So the upgrade was $480 / .01 = $48,000 / point. I am sure that you can get much more bang for the buck with other coins in this series. But the cost of getting to #2 will be prohibitive to most sane collectors, which I am sure that you already realize.
But great sets seem to be built one brick at a time, and you are improving a great set........and hopefully the day will come where you can acquire a coin that has much more impact to your registry set. I am pretty sure that you already know the roadmap to that goal.
OINK
I used to be #2 until Hansen came along..... My goal has always been to make it as nice as possible while never pandering for registry points. If I wanted to do that, I’d use SMS Kennedys. I’d like the set better if they left out the Silver Ikes and other coins that didn’t really circulate.
I’ve had the opportunity to upgrade many of the coins in the set, but I see no reason to replace a coin I love with one that is graded higher. Take a look at the Indian cent, Barber Quarter, and Type I SLQ for examples of this. Higher graded coins come up all the time, but I really gotta like them to even consider them.
The whole $/point thing is a bit over the top for a hobby I think. I bought this SHQ because the old one bugged me. Mostly, it’s stuff that doesn’t photograph well.
Finally, to suit @RogerB , I’ll consider renaming the thread “Perceptions on buying a SHQ in a TPG holder at a grade that is currently somewhat unusual but on the upper end of the TPG pop reports.”
I’m pretty sure almost every type of coin imaginable has been sold on television. Also, it seems that the US Mint “sold” every US Federal coin in existence.
Well, I enjoy coins with my 2x grandpa book reader magnifier, or with eyeballs only. I can’t tell the difference, not really, between ms64-66. And ms66 - 68 all looks fabulous to me. Paying big money for one grading point is just playing the registry game and nothing more. You ever see guess the grade on these boards? Guesses are all over the place which means no one here can accurately grade either.
I no longer buy coins for registry competition and I notice now that I actually enjoy the coins (because I don’t care what PCGS’s opinion is) and I haven’t flushed as much money down the drain either. Two big wins.
If you enjoy the coin, then you did well. Only you know that.
“Same thing for Washington quarters where I told you that Heritage has sold 15 and 32 times as many silver versus clad valued between $101 and $1000 and over $1,000.”
What point is being made by this comparison?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@ARCO said:
Well, I enjoy coins with my 2x grandpa book reader magnifier, or with eyeballs only. I can’t tell the difference, not really, between ms64-66. And ms66 - 68 all looks fabulous to me. Paying big money for one grading point is just playing the registry game and nothing more. You ever see guess the grade on these boards? Guesses are all over the place which means no one here can accurately grade either.
Nobody, not even people who are usually pretty close on "guess the grade", can grade from a photo.
I don't believe the graders often miss by more than a single grade level even though I don't agree with the definitions they use for grading. Especially with moderns I believe they wholly overweight the hits, underweight attractiveness, and grossly underweight die and strike quality. But, using the definitions they employ their grading is mostly spot-on, especially with moderns.
They sure undergraded a monster dime of mine recently, though.
It's certainly true that I had no road guides and relied mostly on anecdotal evidence. Krause just listed all moderns for 20c or $2 and were done with it. Availability was not correlated to Krause prices nor to mintages.
I've always known some common modern coins might be rarely seen and some scarcer issues might show up more often. This would be caused by the nature of distribution of coins nobody cared about. A few dollars could buy rolls and rolls of new coins and they could all be released in a small geographical area. I personally have some rolls of such coins that are rarely seen. They are probably common simply because I have rolls.
But higher denominations are unlikely to show up this way. Who would want to tie up lots of money in something like Portuguese 10E coins and then sell them at a huge loss to unwilling buyers?
So far most of the coins from "major" countries I believed were scarce now have high price tags. By "major" I am referring to high population countries with fast growing economies and middle classes. The exception is Brazil and I assume it's just a matter of time until their moderns increase. I don't know because collecting Brazil is tough. It's hard to get meaningful sample sizes.
I still expect a lot more to get "popular". British and Irish decimals, for instance, are pretty tough in some instances but sell for about the same as the later date and far more common mint set coins.
Mint sets always mean more supply at least for the coins in the mint sets. If there were 5000 mint sets there are probably still 2500 of each coin available. Some mint set packaging destroys the coins (Like US and Japan) but even a few mint sets make almost any coin available.
In our last discussion, you didn't contradict me when I told you that these Soviet coins almost certainly exist with at least several thousand in CH UNC or better. I have found every single date of this denomination in "gem" dated 1966-1974 on every single eBay search. That isn't rare but you justify your claim by using an unsubstantiated correlation to the population.
I always estimate surviving populations much high than other people. Several hundred to a few thousand of most of these does not seem unreasonable. But just because a coin exists does not necessarily affect either the demand nor the available supply. Coins can be stashed away for decades or centuries no matter what the price does and then they can be destroyed before even coming to market. Supply and demand are about specific demand and available supply. If someone can't afford a choice 15k he might buy an XF or use a 10k in his type set instead. Coins end up in the possession of the collector who values them most after they become available to the market.
I would remind you that in the early '60's an XF 1950-D nickel was worth about $290 in today's money. There were 2,000,000 of them in even higher grade. You seem to be telling me that a coin today with a population of a few hundred or a few thousand is somehow limited in price because it will never be rare. I'm telling you that "rarity" is more a perception than it is a census. There's no magic price that ever balances supply and demand and there's no fixed level at which collectors will start or stop buying and there's no fixed level at which a coin becomes "rare" in collectors' minds. Each collector is different and the collectors coming up now don't care about metallic content as much as you do and they don't care about "rarity scales". Few younger collectors can afford rare bust half dollars anyway and certainly not in Gem.
I believe almost all moderns will get at least a little attention over the coming decades and this attention will highlight which are common and which are rare. Even more esoteric countries like Fiji will see as much interest in their moderns as in their high priced "classics". Since some of the moderns are probably much scarcer they will probably have higher prices.
I simply don't agree with you that only "legitimately" rare coins can get high prices. This is not my experience. I saw the '50-D nickel and common Gem Morgans go through the roof. Iv'e seen unique coins that have a hard time selling for $50. Collectors simply don't build collections based on anyone else's perception of scarcity.
>
A lot in your post, so I may not address all of it.
The primary point I am trying to make is almost certainly not that scarce, relative to most other coins. Sure, it may be scarcer than most collectors believe since most probably look at the mintages but not versus most they actually want to buy. You keep on using your personal experience when it isn't representative.
I arrive at my conclusions and inferences by a combination of available data and known factors which presumably impact survival rates. For US coinage: the TPG populations, PCGS Coin Facts, auction listings which on occasion comes from survey data. For world coinage: TPG data, initial mintages (where available), evidence of collecting then and now, appearance in prominent collections (for the series), guesstimate of economics and population at the time, and travel and communication limitations. It isn't scientific but it isn't based upon what I want either.
You cannot use the 1950-D Jefferson nickel as a point of comparison. You know it was hoarded due to rampant speculation and has no bearing on this coinage. As another example, look at what happened to the South Africa 2008 Mandela 90th BD 5R. Also crashed and all except for the MS-69 are almost certainly going to be worth less than the grading fee eventually.
The only reason the 1950-D nickel reached it's price was first, due to speculation. And second, also at least somewhat due to the limited communication of the time. Same applies to the South Africa coin. Some of these coins may sell at above average premiums as the 1950-D nickel and SA 5R do despite the average scarcity but it won't be financially material.
By "major countries", I was referring to those with established collecting. not the developing world: Anglo countries and Western Europe mostly. I was also referring to the predecessor coinage you describe as "classic", presumably the inter war period between WWI and WWII. I agree that the post WWII coinage you call "modern" may be scarcer than this coinage much of the time but seldom otherwise. Additionally, there is no reason to believe that hardly any of this coinage will be worth any noticeable amount due to the scarcity since most non-US coinage ("world" and ancient) mostly sells at nominal prices anyway.
As for an obscure country like Fiji, you mentioned it once before, during our initial discussion in 2013. Your argument here basically comes down to someone having to pay what you think it should be worth simply because it exists. Some of these coins might actually be worth more than you think, as I doubt you know the value either.
@wondercoin said:
“Same thing for Washington quarters where I told you that Heritage has sold 15 and 32 times as many silver versus clad valued between $101 and $1000 and over $1,000.”
What point is being made by this comparison?
Wondercoin
>
The point is that the metal content obviously is a factor in the preference between the silver and base metal coinage. The reason I used Washington quarters (1932-1998) is that the coins are otherwise identical: same design and same size. It's apparent that the metal content has no bearing on 1793 chain cents and more examples than can be cited here.
Collectors probably incorrectly believe that clad quarters are more common in better grades than it is but for the most part, don't care. It's not relevant for the coins you collect and sell but this is due to a generic preference in US collecting, not specific to this series. I have never claimed that the metal preference is the most relevant factor for condition census coins or specialization, even though to my knowledge the silver still usually sells for more than clad.
I presume you haven't read my prior post exchanges with cladking. I disagree with his claim that collectors will view the metal content as he claims or at least implies in the future. I was born in 1965 and every collector under about 60 has only seen and used clad in commerce. This is three generations of collectors where the data shows that collectively, they overwhelmingly prefer silver over clad. This preference has nothing to do with a collectors age or what coinage they used in circulation. Most clad quarters sell at nominal prices and tens of thousands at least (easily) from these three generations can afford to buy practically every single clad quarter, if they wanted it.
This topic is brought up from time to time here and ATS. Usually ends up pessimists are correct. Remember when proof 70 Ikes were 3 to 4k not too long ago ? I was one who said no and still say no. I found the finer known coins to be the Pf 69 Star Ultra Cameos ! I think these Statehood quarters in high grade have nowhere to go but down. I also think the MS 68 coin should go back to PCGS. Quarters are smaller coins and should not have those scrapes especially on strictly technically graded coins. Compare to some MS 67 1946 and 1947 coins and yes I know clad coins may show the hits more than silver coins but don't be the one to take the hit for the grading services.
@fiftysevener said:
I also think the MS 68 coin should go back to PCGS. Quarters are smaller coins and should not have those scrapes especially on strictly technically graded coins. Compare to some MS 67 1946 and 1947 coins and yes I know clad coins may show the hits more than silver coins but don't be the one to take the hit for the grading services.
Better than comparing to different years, compare to other 1999 Connecticut MS68s. There are a few on CoinFacts. If you want to compare other years, you should at least compare clad, not silver.
@cladking said:
I would remind you that in the early '60's an XF 1950-D nickel was worth about $290 in today's money.
That would be $35 in 1962, which seems unlikely. BU pieces were selling for $25 near their peak in the mid 60s and were down to $12 by the end of the decade.
@cladking said:
I would remind you that in the early '60's an XF 1950-D nickel was worth about $290 in today's money.
That would be $35 in 1962, which seems unlikely. BU pieces were selling for $25 near their peak in the mid 60s and were down to $12 by the end of the decade.
>
It's more than unlikely. It's practically impossible.
I doubt anyone on this forum is even aware of the national mania in the South Africa 2008 Mandela BD 5 Rand, the example I have used here. Literally the closest thing anyone will ever see in coin "collecting" resembling the 1630's Dutch Tulip craze. Much worse than the 1980's US TPG bubble driven by Wall Street speculation, though the money involved was presumably less. TPG also made it possible but it was driven by "coin brokers" marketing to willfully ignorant "investors, none of whom I would call collectors. These people must have bought this coin by the hundreds or even thousands in some instances given how incredibly common it is. Not sure if it is still there, but on the South African Coin Company website, they used to brag that they sold one of the then two (now 13) MS-69 for Rand 2.3MM which was $338,000 at the then exchange rate. The TPG populations were huge even then and now number over 230,000 with 260+ in MS-68 and 40,000+ in MS-67.
This occurred when the coin came out and lasted a few years, up to about YE 2011 when prices peaked for South African coinage generally.
With today's much better communication, the chances of any coin replicating this performance retrospectively (that is, years after issuance) is effective zilch. There are or may be a few coins selling at what I would describe as bubble level prices (such as the 1995-W ASE) but it's evident that there is also substantial collector demand from affluent buyers.
Comments
Totally agree.
Anecdotal evidence!?
I've seen virtually every die that made something like '82-P quarters. Most I've seen several die states and many I've seen BU examples. I didn't always keep count or use scientific methodology to estimate incidence but I've certainly gained enough experience to say that this coin is almost certainly rare in true Gem. Indeed, I've seen a grand total of zero coins that were well struck by good dies and in pristine condition. Indeed, I've seen almost no dies or strikes even on circ coins that might have been Gems.
This isn't "anecdotal evidence", this is "experience".
As things are now there just aren't any hoards of moderns like this because they were unavailable in 1982, nobody saved them, and now if there had been any they'd be chewed up by circulation. Fewer than 100,000 of these survive in Unc yet it sells for a fraction of similarly "scarce" older coins. Most of the coins look like junk but the few that are nicer do not have large premiums as would exist if these were old coins that mostly looked like junk. Indeed, few old coins do look like junk. You just don't see many "MS-50" barber dimes.
That the demand is "too low" is not a value judgement. It is merely an observation that that people who hate a coin will not collect it and that anything at all that isn't in wide demand can not experience a proper price discovery. How do we know what a near-gem '82 quarter is worth if the demand is "too low" to find a balance between the tiny supply and a tinier demand?
All my coins will probably be sold before collectors wake up or the newbies create enough demand. I don't much care any longer except it would make the lower end coins a lot easier to unload. Of course I'll keep a few with a lot of potential and little current value for my family but they can always spend them without disturbing me very much.
I have no regrets. I met a lot of great people and had a lot of fun with my pass time and hope to have more years of enjoyment. I put too much emphasis on profit and but I'll have a tiny bit even after expenses. I lost the "opportunity costs" but wouldn't have had the opportunity to enjoy it so much anywhere else.
"Too low" based on what? What you think the demand should be? We know what a near-gem '82 quarter is worth by looking at what people are willing to pay for them. Demand and value is what it is, not what you want it to be.
Regardless of how many may possibly be out there, I think the equation is value of enjoyment vs. when more might appear. If one needs to wait a generation or more for those rolls to be slabbed and pops to go up, it may not be worth waiting
The '82-P quarter is hardly the only modern coin that's worth collecting. It's merely the toughest in true Gem but there are others that are exceedingly difficult like the '76 type I Ike. There are lots of clad quarters that are fun and difficult even in just Gem. Near-Gems are attractive but there's a strong tendency for low grade coins (like chBU) to look bad. Even when they are still nice and shiny (many aren't) they just have terrible strikes from worn dies and too many scratches and marks.
The finest coins made in these years almost all went into mint sets but I wager only about 25% of mint set '76 tI Ikes can be wholesaled as chBU. The rest are just too junky or are tarnished.
Yes! I believe all moderns are a lot of fun to collect but I NEVER said ANYONE should collect them. People should collect what they like and that appeals to them. Not all moderns are rare in Gem and many are very "common. There are probably more than 100,000 '72-D quarters in Gem or better. It doesn't make them a chore to collect, merely common. It doesn't reduce the enjoyment of collecting these just because some dates are easy. Besides if you want a challenge even '72-D quarters present a huge challenge; try finding one with all four numbers of the date fully struck!!!
The fun of collecting for most people is getting to meet and talk to people and finding the coins for your collection. It really doesn't matter whether you collect gold, clad, or even aluminum tokens there are always rarities and always common items. Rarities bring more satisfaction but not more enjoyment per se.
It is what it is.
But in order to determine the value of a coin for which ten specimens are known there have to be more than 10 people who want it.
Not necessarily, in other low survivor, thin demand markets you can have people that impact the market just by owning a few. Also the 10 people don’t have to be collectors. They can be dealers that won’t sell below a certain amount.
Actually I was responding to this statement by you;
"IMO, moderns like this trade on supplying the registry."-FSF
I took this to mean that moderns which are valuable only for the registry get their value from this.
I maintain that the registry actually hurts demand for rare moderns. If people realized that true Gem moderns can be rare there would be far more interest and this interest might have developed by now. The registry distorts not only the market itself but, more importantly, it creates perception that all moderns are common except in the highest grades. People actually believe that MS-65 quarters are common since rarities list in Redbook for $15.
Redbook doesn't sell coins and if they did they wouldn't sell for $15.
Quite true.
But it's still hard to try to corner the market without being pretty obvious once the coins are graded.
I once imagined I could corner the ch BU '69-P quarter market. Of course, I was wrong. The coins are too widely distributed.
I might add that one of these days some dealer or promoter might try snapping up something like chBU Ikes or scarcer date quarters. It simply wouldn't take much cash to stand these markets on their ears. An outsider would find a way to mess it up but anyone familiar with moderns could probably make a go of it. Most people probably don't realize it but the wholesale price of chBU Ikes right now is $50 per roll!!! Some are much higher. So long as anyone is buying this price can continue to increase. Everyone is so sure that moderns exist by the millions just waiting for higher prices but the fact is there aren't many Gems in rolls and there aren't many rolls. The only thing that there's plenty of is a lack of demand.
I'm not trying to argue with you. I know what you believe.
Price guides are obsolete in the internet age, right now and not some unknown date in the future. This isn't 1965 or even 1995, so how can you possibly think otherwise?
The prices I observed in my eBay searches were the "real" price at the time of my search, not some made up number in a price guide, including the Red Book. You didn't describe an "advanced collector who will know what I am telling you. The collector you described is an uninformed novice, as no advanced collector needs to rely on any price guide.
To the extent what you claim is true, it just means that this (prospective) collector has a very weak affinity for what they buy or collecting generally; nothing else. That's evident for (US) moderns generally, since up to 99% of these collectors transition to other coinage as their primary focus as soon as their budget increases "noticeably". I am not trying to be "elitist", but the sums we are discussing are spent by low budget collectors on all kinds of other consumption activities, all the time.
The reason you don't see what I am telling you is because you are biased. I have had the same conversations with you on world coinage where apparently, the coinage you describe as "modern" is "accurately" priced when the almost universally inflated Krause price supposedly supports your claims but is otherwise "too low" if you disagree with it. In reality, all are just "made up".
As for your demographic claim, we haven't discussed this before here but I will tell anyone else reading my post that there is effectively no demonstrated correlation between a collector's preferences and their age. I think a lot of collectors probably believe it somewhat but it's predominantly budget considerations (voluntary or not), liquidity preference and lack of knowledge. In the 1960's, it was also this minor thing we have today called the internet which wasn't available. I doubt anyone is interested in this subject but if they are, I can explain it in another thread.
Here you go again claiming US moderns are "hated". Do the probable hundreds of thousands of active collectors really hate this coinage? How about the potential millions of casual ones? The answer is no, as not paying the prices you think these coins should be worth hardly means anyone "hates" it.
Most coins aren't in wide demand, including practically every single one I own in all the series I collect. How do you reconcile this to your claim? The prices are higher than most US moderns but it's evident there are very few really trying to compete for it, or else I wouldn't be able to own the coins I do.
As for anecdotal evidence, that's exactly what your prior experience is in the sense that it isn't statistically representative. Additionally, you are using your quality standards, not a TPGs such as PCGS which is the baseline for everyone else, despite "gradeflation". PCGS has assigned an MS-68 to one 82-P quarter and MS-67 to 30 others at this time, though some duplicates may exist in the latter.
Back when Krause listed the mid-'50's Chinese aluminum coins for a few dollars just a few years ago I said that this price was wrong and it was stifling the market because there was almost no demand and NO KNOWLEDGEABLE seller would sell at this level. Now that they list at up to $900 it's not my contention the price must be right. I'm merely saying this price is more in line with the observed scarcity of the coins. It's neither my job to know or say what the proper price is a the current level of demand nor even to estimate the amount of demand. I DON'T KNOW! I only know the coins were unavailable. It's the exact same way with thousands of other moderns. Many coins have always been unavailable and now that there's a TINY demand prices on some of them are skyrocketing. There's a real wholesale market on some of this stuff and I'm selling into it. I'm selling because of my age, not because I think prices have topped out. I didn't know where prices were going 50 years ago and I don't know now either but the fact that a wholesale market exists on some of these coins suggests the demand is not so tiny as it was a few years ago. Since I am aware of nobody who collects this stuff and there;'s no anecdotal evidence to suggest they are "popular" it follows the demand is still rather muted.
Some of these coins are amazingly unavailable. People merely BELIEVE coins made in the millions must be common but the reality is countless billions of coins have been converted into refrigerators and washing machines in the last half century. The reality is people didn't save uncirculated or circulated coins like a '50-E E German 10p or a 1971 Soviet 15k. Some of the world moderns are remarkably scarce and the few survivors are probably in a can in someone's basement or at the bottom of a junk drawer. Many of these will get discarded long before the owner or anyone else knows it's rare.
I've mentioned this many times but you dismiss it. The new generation of collectors simply don't care if a coin is gold, silver, or pot metal. They are interested in coins first and metals after. That we drive away collectors who have an interest in modern "junk" is irrelevant and merely skews what we observe. Not everybody quits collecting states coins when someone tells them they are just common junk. They just quit talking about it on message boards like this one.
What date/denomination(s) are these?
Sorry, but there are enough oxymorons in the thread title to make a batch of soup for the whole wagon train....and the caboose.
I saw that you replied to my other post where I mentioned Chinese PRC but was out of the country and didn't reply since the thread was no longer active.
Your contention is wrong on the scarcity of these Chinese coins, as I already pointed the TPG population data out to you showing how incredibly common, except as the condition census coin. You are ignoring this evidence - again - just as you do practically every single time I contradict one of your claims.
The reason why you are wrong - again - is because you place more reliability on your anecdotal personal experience or of those you know than independently verifiable evidence and common sense. You couldn't find these coins and everyone you knew couldn't either, so therefore it must be "rare". I have already demonstrated to you that world "moderns" are almost universally more common than the preceding coinage even in better quality, often by a substantial margin. Most earlier coinage isn't remotely actually rare or even scarce either, even in better grades. The exceptions are likely in countries with extended traditions of collecting where these "moderns" are probably sometimes scarcer than the immediately preceding (post WWI) coinage. Second, also scarce in obscure countries with no formal collecting due to populations and economics where the mintages were very low by US standards.
In our last discussion, you didn't contradict me when I told you that these Soviet coins almost certainly exist with at least several thousand in CH UNC or better. I have found every single date of this denomination in "gem" dated 1966-1974 on every single eBay search. That isn't rare but you justify your claim by using an unsubstantiated correlation to the population.
I always find it interesting to read other people's perspectives. My experience is that most younger collectors are bullion stackers, into toned coins, or looking for quick flips to make extra money.
Back to @BryceM 's coin... Since this is a type set and he replaced a Connecticut with a Connecticut, it suggests to me there is a special reason that he chose this particular state issue as opposed to a cheaper one. Is it the design you like or a connection to the state of Connecticut?
I dismiss your claim because you having nothing to back it up other than your personal preference. There is absolutely no evidence that collector preferences are correlated to a collector's age, not in the 1960's which is your baseline for when everything was right in coin collecting and not now.
As I told you before, this claim of yours is actually the presumption that collectors are supposed to prefer the coinage they used in circulation when they were younger. That's the basis of your nostalgia claim. So, since (US) collectors supposedly preferred the coinage in circulation then, they are equally required to actually prefer it now. Nostalgia on occasion retroactively explains why a particular collector may prefer a coin or series but it has no predictability on the price level generally.
Your claim is also wrong on collector perception for the metal preference. If you were correct, then there is no possibility for the current preference between (world) NCLT and all recent circulating coinage. Same thing for Washington quarters where I told you that Heritage has sold 15 and 32 times as many silver versus clad valued between $101 and $1000 and over $1,000.
The aluminum issues are 1, 2, and 5 fen. I kindda like the early 1, 2, and 5 Jiao and the 1 Yuan as well but have no idea if these are common or not. Some appear in the UN sets so probably are common.
It's certainly true that I had no road guides and relied mostly on anecdotal evidence. Krause just listed all moderns for 20c or $2 and were done with it. Availability was not correlated to Krause prices nor to mintages.
I've always known some common modern coins might be rarely seen and some scarcer issues might show up more often. This would be caused by the nature of distribution of coins nobody cared about. A few dollars could buy rolls and rolls of new coins and they could all be released in a small geographical area. I personally have some rolls of such coins that are rarely seen. They are probably common simply because I have rolls.
But higher denominations are unlikely to show up this way. Who would want to tie up lots of money in something like Portuguese 10E coins and then sell them at a huge loss to unwilling buyers?
So far most of the coins from "major" countries I believed were scarce now have high price tags. By "major" I am referring to high population countries with fast growing economies and middle classes. The exception is Brazil and I assume it's just a matter of time until their moderns increase. I don't know because collecting Brazil is tough. It's hard to get meaningful sample sizes.
I still expect a lot more to get "popular". British and Irish decimals, for instance, are pretty tough in some instances but sell for about the same as the later date and far more common mint set coins.
Mint sets always mean more supply at least for the coins in the mint sets. If there were 5000 mint sets there are probably still 2500 of each coin available. Some mint set packaging destroys the coins (Like US and Japan) but even a few mint sets make almost any coin available.
I always estimate surviving populations much high than other people. Several hundred to a few thousand of most of these does not seem unreasonable. But just because a coin exists does not necessarily affect either the demand nor the available supply. Coins can be stashed away for decades or centuries no matter what the price does and then they can be destroyed before even coming to market. Supply and demand are about specific demand and available supply. If someone can't afford a choice 15k he might buy an XF or use a 10k in his type set instead. Coins end up in the possession of the collector who values them most after they become available to the market.
I would remind you that in the early '60's an XF 1950-D nickel was worth about $290 in today's money. There were 2,000,000 of them in even higher grade. You seem to be telling me that a coin today with a population of a few hundred or a few thousand is somehow limited in price because it will never be rare. I'm telling you that "rarity" is more a perception than it is a census. There's no magic price that ever balances supply and demand and there's no fixed level at which collectors will start or stop buying and there's no fixed level at which a coin becomes "rare" in collectors' minds. Each collector is different and the collectors coming up now don't care about metallic content as much as you do and they don't care about "rarity scales". Few younger collectors can afford rare bust half dollars anyway and certainly not in Gem.
I believe almost all moderns will get at least a little attention over the coming decades and this attention will highlight which are common and which are rare. Even more esoteric countries like Fiji will see as much interest in their moderns as in their high priced "classics". Since some of the moderns are probably much scarcer they will probably have higher prices.
I simply don't agree with you that only "legitimately" rare coins can get high prices. This is not my experience. I saw the '50-D nickel and common Gem Morgans go through the roof. Iv'e seen unique coins that have a hard time selling for $50. Collectors simply don't build collections based on anyone else's perception of scarcity.
I see that the 1963 2 fen catalogs $900 in MS66.
FWIW, an MS67 sold on eBay recently along with three other graded 2 fens (1961 MS62 & MS64, 1962 MS63) for less than $200, with 10 bidders participating. Wouldn't you think the price would have been higher, if the coin is actually worth what the catalog says?
All I've ever said is that 20c or $2 is an unreasonable price for an unobtainable coin. Now that they are obtainable I don't know what the proper price is. I believe this same applies to an MS-65 '82-P or an MS-67 CT-D.
It's a little surprising to me that there were ten bidders. I never knew even one person who was interested in any coin like this before about 1999.
Somewhere between 20 cents and $200, apparently. Are you aware of any that have been sold for anything close to $900?
That would appear to indicate that the catalog value is somewhat out of whack, wouldn't you think?
Based on my experience, those values are irrelevant to what a majority of collectors are interested in. I joined the local coin club about 25 years ago and in all the time I've been a member, there hasn't been even one collector of modern US coinage who is putting together a set of slabbed coins. What are people looking for? Something that is nice enough for a Dansco album. There will always be those who compete in the registry but I don't think there will ever be a time when the majority of "regular collectors" will be insisting on gem coins for their collection, and not willing to settle for something less.
Bryce, achieving #3 status on the 20th Century Type Set is a very significant accomplishment, but getting to #2, if that might be your focus, will require a point increase of 0.78. A one point increase on a SLH will increase your point count 1 / 99 or 0.01.
If you want to manage improvements to your collection on a financial basis, you can always compute the $$ / point as a guide. In your case you acquired your SLH for $480. So the upgrade was $480 / .01 = $48,000 / point. I am sure that you can get much more bang for the buck with other coins in this series. But the cost of getting to #2 will be prohibitive to most sane collectors, which I am sure that you already realize.
But great sets seem to be built one brick at a time, and you are improving a great set........and hopefully the day will come where you can acquire a coin that has much more impact to your registry set. I am pretty sure that you already know the roadmap to that goal.
OINK
It would indicate there are at least 10 collectors for this coin!!
That's almost exactly ten more than five years ago.
>
In my opinion most chBU and lower grade clad are ugly because they have poor strikes from bad dies. Not even all near-gems are attractive though most are.
I believe if these ever get popular only near-gem and higher will get significant demand.
This has nothing to do with registries and grading. It has to do with generally low quality in modern times and with some dates even low quality is rather scarce.
Good luck with that.
I think you've about nailed it. People collect the coins, just not in the manner that cladking envisions.
Well, it’s a 20th Century type set, so most SHQs are ineligible. Besides, I’ve always liked the Charter Oak, even though the one on the CT commem is probably better.
I used to be #2 until Hansen came along.....
My goal has always been to make it as nice as possible while never pandering for registry points. If I wanted to do that, I’d use SMS Kennedys. I’d like the set better if they left out the Silver Ikes and other coins that didn’t really circulate.
I’ve had the opportunity to upgrade many of the coins in the set, but I see no reason to replace a coin I love with one that is graded higher. Take a look at the Indian cent, Barber Quarter, and Type I SLQ for examples of this. Higher graded coins come up all the time, but I really gotta like them to even consider them.
The whole $/point thing is a bit over the top for a hobby I think. I bought this SHQ because the old one bugged me. Mostly, it’s stuff that doesn’t photograph well.
Finally, to suit @RogerB , I’ll consider renaming the thread “Perceptions on buying a SHQ in a TPG holder at a grade that is currently somewhat unusual but on the upper end of the TPG pop reports.”
I would not collect any coins sold on television or by the U.S. Mint.
I’m pretty sure almost every type of coin imaginable has been sold on television. Also, it seems that the US Mint “sold” every US Federal coin in existence.
What’s left is a small pool to collect from.
Well, I enjoy coins with my 2x grandpa book reader magnifier, or with eyeballs only. I can’t tell the difference, not really, between ms64-66. And ms66 - 68 all looks fabulous to me. Paying big money for one grading point is just playing the registry game and nothing more. You ever see guess the grade on these boards? Guesses are all over the place which means no one here can accurately grade either.
I no longer buy coins for registry competition and I notice now that I actually enjoy the coins (because I don’t care what PCGS’s opinion is) and I haven’t flushed as much money down the drain either. Two big wins.
If you enjoy the coin, then you did well. Only you know that.
“Same thing for Washington quarters where I told you that Heritage has sold 15 and 32 times as many silver versus clad valued between $101 and $1000 and over $1,000.”
What point is being made by this comparison?
Wondercoin
Nobody, not even people who are usually pretty close on "guess the grade", can grade from a photo.
I don't believe the graders often miss by more than a single grade level even though I don't agree with the definitions they use for grading. Especially with moderns I believe they wholly overweight the hits, underweight attractiveness, and grossly underweight die and strike quality. But, using the definitions they employ their grading is mostly spot-on, especially with moderns.
They sure undergraded a monster dime of mine recently, though.
>
A lot in your post, so I may not address all of it.
The primary point I am trying to make is almost certainly not that scarce, relative to most other coins. Sure, it may be scarcer than most collectors believe since most probably look at the mintages but not versus most they actually want to buy. You keep on using your personal experience when it isn't representative.
I arrive at my conclusions and inferences by a combination of available data and known factors which presumably impact survival rates. For US coinage: the TPG populations, PCGS Coin Facts, auction listings which on occasion comes from survey data. For world coinage: TPG data, initial mintages (where available), evidence of collecting then and now, appearance in prominent collections (for the series), guesstimate of economics and population at the time, and travel and communication limitations. It isn't scientific but it isn't based upon what I want either.
You cannot use the 1950-D Jefferson nickel as a point of comparison. You know it was hoarded due to rampant speculation and has no bearing on this coinage. As another example, look at what happened to the South Africa 2008 Mandela 90th BD 5R. Also crashed and all except for the MS-69 are almost certainly going to be worth less than the grading fee eventually.
The only reason the 1950-D nickel reached it's price was first, due to speculation. And second, also at least somewhat due to the limited communication of the time. Same applies to the South Africa coin. Some of these coins may sell at above average premiums as the 1950-D nickel and SA 5R do despite the average scarcity but it won't be financially material.
By "major countries", I was referring to those with established collecting. not the developing world: Anglo countries and Western Europe mostly. I was also referring to the predecessor coinage you describe as "classic", presumably the inter war period between WWI and WWII. I agree that the post WWII coinage you call "modern" may be scarcer than this coinage much of the time but seldom otherwise. Additionally, there is no reason to believe that hardly any of this coinage will be worth any noticeable amount due to the scarcity since most non-US coinage ("world" and ancient) mostly sells at nominal prices anyway.
As for an obscure country like Fiji, you mentioned it once before, during our initial discussion in 2013. Your argument here basically comes down to someone having to pay what you think it should be worth simply because it exists. Some of these coins might actually be worth more than you think, as I doubt you know the value either.
>
The point is that the metal content obviously is a factor in the preference between the silver and base metal coinage. The reason I used Washington quarters (1932-1998) is that the coins are otherwise identical: same design and same size. It's apparent that the metal content has no bearing on 1793 chain cents and more examples than can be cited here.
Collectors probably incorrectly believe that clad quarters are more common in better grades than it is but for the most part, don't care. It's not relevant for the coins you collect and sell but this is due to a generic preference in US collecting, not specific to this series. I have never claimed that the metal preference is the most relevant factor for condition census coins or specialization, even though to my knowledge the silver still usually sells for more than clad.
I presume you haven't read my prior post exchanges with cladking. I disagree with his claim that collectors will view the metal content as he claims or at least implies in the future. I was born in 1965 and every collector under about 60 has only seen and used clad in commerce. This is three generations of collectors where the data shows that collectively, they overwhelmingly prefer silver over clad. This preference has nothing to do with a collectors age or what coinage they used in circulation. Most clad quarters sell at nominal prices and tens of thousands at least (easily) from these three generations can afford to buy practically every single clad quarter, if they wanted it.
This topic is brought up from time to time here and ATS. Usually ends up pessimists are correct. Remember when proof 70 Ikes were 3 to 4k not too long ago ? I was one who said no and still say no. I found the finer known coins to be the Pf 69 Star Ultra Cameos ! I think these Statehood quarters in high grade have nowhere to go but down. I also think the MS 68 coin should go back to PCGS. Quarters are smaller coins and should not have those scrapes especially on strictly technically graded coins. Compare to some MS 67 1946 and 1947 coins and yes I know clad coins may show the hits more than silver coins but don't be the one to take the hit for the grading services.
Better than comparing to different years, compare to other 1999 Connecticut MS68s. There are a few on CoinFacts. If you want to compare other years, you should at least compare clad, not silver.
That would be $35 in 1962, which seems unlikely. BU pieces were selling for $25 near their peak in the mid 60s and were down to $12 by the end of the decade.
>
It's more than unlikely. It's practically impossible.
I doubt anyone on this forum is even aware of the national mania in the South Africa 2008 Mandela BD 5 Rand, the example I have used here. Literally the closest thing anyone will ever see in coin "collecting" resembling the 1630's Dutch Tulip craze. Much worse than the 1980's US TPG bubble driven by Wall Street speculation, though the money involved was presumably less. TPG also made it possible but it was driven by "coin brokers" marketing to willfully ignorant "investors, none of whom I would call collectors. These people must have bought this coin by the hundreds or even thousands in some instances given how incredibly common it is. Not sure if it is still there, but on the South African Coin Company website, they used to brag that they sold one of the then two (now 13) MS-69 for Rand 2.3MM which was $338,000 at the then exchange rate. The TPG populations were huge even then and now number over 230,000 with 260+ in MS-68 and 40,000+ in MS-67.
This occurred when the coin came out and lasted a few years, up to about YE 2011 when prices peaked for South African coinage generally.
With today's much better communication, the chances of any coin replicating this performance retrospectively (that is, years after issuance) is effective zilch. There are or may be a few coins selling at what I would describe as bubble level prices (such as the 1995-W ASE) but it's evident that there is also substantial collector demand from affluent buyers.