At the dawn of 2020 I am rethinking my definition of Modern Crap.
Coinstartled
Posts: 10,135 ✭✭✭✭✭
Apologies first to those that flee to a safe space upon hearing the term, but it is time honored here on the forum.
At any rate, I figured MC to be all circulating and non precious metal proof equivalent produced post 1964. We can debate the 40% silver Kennedy's and other such details but 1964/65 is my cutoff on the category. Silver and gold and platinum commemes and bullion are not included and for the record I have owned a couple Goodacre sacs and error coins that fall within the MC cohort.
At any rate, a 1965 Washington quarter will be 55 years old a week from now That is double nickels for the guys that like to say double nickels all the time.
So thinking back to 1965 when I started a mini hoard of Franklin half dollars, My grandfather was my age now. So if he were referring to say Modern Crap automobiles that were 55 years old, he would be talking about the Model T Ford.
So clearly Modern" does not fit anymore and maybe "Mid Century Crap" or "Post Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show Crap" might work better.
And as you mull this over, remember that Ringo Starr will turn 80 this upcoming year.
Comments
The analogy with the Model T is a bit flawed. No car produced 55 years later remotely resembled it. A 1965 dime or nickel doesn't look all that different from the 2019 editions. As a rule, clad coinage holds no interest for me. Part of the problem is I'm a die hard toning lover, and silver tones much more beautifully. So, 1965 is still my effective starting date for "modern" coins, although I don't refer to them as "crap".
I agree, lumping all post-1964 US coinage into the modern category is making increasingly less sense. Maybe we should start using 1999 and the Statehood Quarters as the start of the new "modern" era in US numismatics. It did spark the most recent boom in coin collecting among the general public, similar to the roll hunting era of the 1960's. With that change, the clad coins can finally be integrated with their silver counterparts to form complete collections of the long running "Dead Presidents" series.
Of course, I'm mostly a dark sider, so for me anything after 1600 is Modern Crap.
I get where you’re coming from. I do think there should be a new term. Maybe “modern classics” to refer to 1965-1982. Then modern 1983 and up. I use 1982 for the cut off considering the last of the copper cents and in recognition of the first commemorative half in years at that point. Sure, they don’t look much different but the variety of mint offered products shot up after that with the prestige sets and dollars, more commemoratives and bullion coins.
The OP's cut off of 64/65 has always been my MC cut off. And as always, no offense. I will admit there is SOME MC that I like.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
To some people, and sometimes I think I am one of them, modern crap started sometime around the time dates were put on coins. Some put it at the demise of the walking half, others at 1965, and some may say 1999 with the state quarter program.
i have learned not to use the term 'Modern Crap' Just because I do not like it does not make it crap.
It is like art
just because you do not like does not make it Not Art
Just because you like it does not make it art
collect what you like and let others collect what they like
I still define MC to be anything post 1964. 55 years is a long time though so it does make you think. Maybe because there has been no significant change to circulating coinage or maybe we are all just becoming a bunch of ancient blue hairs.
Instead of using (and/or worrying about) names for coinage of whatever time period, why not simply refer to the age/date? For example, why not describe quarters from the 60’s as - get ready - “quarters from the 60’s”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
FWIW, PCGS has a Modern submission tier. Coins dated 1965 or later are eligible. So, there's that...
BIG difference between a 1964 and a 1965 quarter. Can't compare real money to toilet paper.
MC? I use the same criteria as Justice Potter Stewart.
Fine, then just note the date of the coin, without assigning a label to it. Labeling coinage can work both ways - what YOU consider to be “real money”, someone else might think of as “toilet paper”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I hope that no coins were offended by my insensitivity.
When I started collecting I considered Franklin halves to be MC because they were still coming out every year.
So 1999 was the end of modern crap and the beginning of total crap era?
sounds about right.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
I read on the Internet that post 1965 coins are called "Modern Crap" so it must be true.
Everything posted on the internet is true.
Dudes just like to stereotype, Feld.
We got to get the DimeMan in on this conversation... it’s missing some real anarchy.
Beyond arbitrary labeling, I'm guessing that the OP's point is that if the demarcation date of MC can be justifiably moved (in his mind, at least), he might be willing to collect coins of a certain era that he'd hitherto found unworthy of consideration.
I've been lurking. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't call any coin crap anymore. Someone out here likes everything and I don't want to offend anyone. As far as modern Coins I put the break at Silver and Clad.
@CoinJunkie said:
It is simpler than that. Modern denotes recent, or as the cool guys said in the 1960's, Mod.
It is just that 55 years is a long time ago and the term no longer fits.
I have been a collector of modern gold commens and have owned several silver Eagles. So it is not an issue or era but rather metal content.
As a side note I picked up these eagles recently. It was supposed to be a Secret Santa gift on a high roller forum but it will have to wait till next year.
Well, as @Moxie15 noted above, "modern" and "recent" are relative terms. So I think "modern" is entirely appropriate for certain things which are 55 years old, depending on the context. Maybe stuff minted after 1997 could be dubbed "postmodern"...
Haven't given this much thought for years, but at one time 1934 and after was considered "Modern Crap".
But no difference between a 1964 nickel and a 1965 nickel.
Why should the composition change matter to where you classify the coin? Not all coins of any period had the same composition. Would you argue over the use of the term Federal coinage to include gold, silver and copper? You are trying to define a period of time, not a value.
55 years is NOT a long time. You don't need to resort to the classical definition of post-1600 either. People have no problem lumping the entire 19th century into a collecting period, for example. How many periods do you want to break the 20th century into? Why can't the modern period be 55 years old?
For example, would you separate the Morgan series into a different period than the Peace series since 1878 to 1935 is a 58 year run? Would you break up large cents into 2 different periods since they span 65 years? Early classic, mid classic, late classic?
This is a fun discussion.
In, perhaps, 10-20+ years it (all metallic, paper, other materials) will have a new/old nomenclature of “non-digital” coins and notes.
It’s all good and will adapt.
The mint is making plenty of “modern crap” these days, and some it costs thousands of dollars. There is more “honest history” to be learned from a 1965 quarter, than there is from that overpriced stuff that is hot of the presses. In few years, much of it will be worth a fraction of today’s prices.
@Coinstartled where is this "high roller" forum? I want to get rolled.
One mans modern crap is another mans modern treasure I feel we in numismatics can respect one another’s collecting habits to shed these labels
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/publishedset/209923
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/album/209923
So am I.
Modern crap as opposed to widgets? I consider any coin intended for circulation, i.e., not commems, that have a dead president on them to be MC. That being said, I prefer a copper cent to a zinc and Ag to clad. And I do have some MC clad that I like, but not very many pieces. I'm thinking of 82/83 stuff that didn't have mint sets.
Successful transactions here and ATS with: jwitten, Rob41281, bajjerfan, cucamongacoin, Jim F., physics-fan3.14, x2rider, Wahoo554, Weather11am, Relaxn, jimineez1, Ronyahski, Bliggity, SurfinxHI, McGrump (thru BAJJERFAN), ms71, Downtown1974, ad4400
"So it is not an issue or era but rather metal content."
This.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Maybe it should be for coins that do have intrinsic value, and are just not an IOU from the goberment!
SCDD
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Congress could change the law and use current presidents on our modern crap. That'd be cool.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Sure, Trump on coins wouldn't cause any problems at all...
I just do not care..... I collect coins... If a coin interests me, I may add it to my collection...If not, I move on. I could be interested in the date, the design, the metal or just the appearance ....My choice, my collection. I do not disparage others choices and I believe we should all enjoy what each of us find to be of interest. I also realize that for many, these little distinctions are important... so be it. I have far more interesting things to focus on....
Cheers, RickO
Back to the OP's analogy, in 1969, I bought my first car, a 1930 Model A. It was 39 years old, and I still have it. It was definitely old, garnered looks, etc. Rare, but not unique, as there were 3 of us at my high school in Los Angeles that had 1930 Model A's. They were definitely high on the collectable scale.
I still have that car, and yes, I get asked if I am the original owner.
In 1969, Mustangs were everywhere, and common as dirt. I picked up a 1965 in 1970 for free, as it was wrecked.
Fast Forward. 2007, I finally picked up my "dream car" a 1968 Shelby GT500. It was a neat "driver" in 1969, when I got the Model A, so maybe MC ?? Ironically, it was 39 years old, same age as my Model A when I bought it.
Now, the 1930 Model A is dated. Yes, it is neat, but among the young (under 50 or even 60) no one really cares about it because no one has a "tie" to that era. They did not have one in high school, there was not one hanging around at Uncle Pete's house, etc. The Shelby though, at this time, is still pure Magic, as Ford still makes the Mustang and the Shelby.
So now it is 2019. Who is excited about a 39 year old car?
How about a 1980 Dodge Aspen?
The value of the metal to make a clad quarter in 2007 before the LME default was higher than the value of the metal in any quarter in circulation in 1935.
Is this difference between "real money" and "toilet paper" real or illusory?
Total world debt in 1965 was a tiny fraction of what it will be in 2020.
One might think that if the debt bomb ever goes off that 1935 quarter will be better to own than a 1965 but then that MS-66 '35-S quarter would probably worth about the same as a 1964. If somehow it doesn't go off the '65 might be the better bet. And the best bet might be trading in old coins for '64 dimes and quarters (BU, of course).
The question here is whether there's a difference between optimism or pessimism more than whether there is a difference in the collectability of silver and clad. The '64 represents the end of the era of plentiful silver and the '65 of the advent of an age of scarce silver. The '64 was an era when huge numbers of new coins were set aside. Few coins were set aside after this.
My timescale thinking is normally archaeological (thousands of years), geological (millions of years), or galactic (billions of years). So a cut off of 55 years to me is not really define 'modern'. My general collecting cutoff for 'too young' is the US civil war, but I have dallied in younger numismatics and now collecting barber quarters and halves. Anything younger? Occasionally.
Best, SH
Gosh, I was thinking it was ever since they put denominations of the coins other than the rim.
I sent a link. New member party is tonight.
For me, MC is the start of the Spaghetti Hair / Ultra Flat looking coins circa late 1980s-90s.
My Jefferson Registry:
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/alltimeset/191115
I'll take your MC anytime Santa
Modern Crap is worth more than old crap ....
Should we have a discussion on everyone’s definition of old crap?
Modern Crap-
Everything minted after the coins I collect.........
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
I like the Clad Era. It’s always amazing to me how many coin collectors seem to disfavor clad coins. Makes me happy, though. A lot cheaper to buy some nice clad dimes and quarters as long as so many collectors consider clad beneath them. Please send me your (uncirculated) MC!
For Jefferson nickels I would say that the cutoff between "classic" Jeffersons and modern Jeffersons would be when they started putting the mint mark on the obverse.
I ave had the tern Modern Crap in my signature line for years.
I use it with love.
It is something I picked up here in the forum.
To the OP's point I do think (in my mind at least) there is a difference between coins before 1964/1965 and coin after.
I also think there is a difference between coins from 1965 to 1999 and the coins after 1999.
When I refer to Modern Crap, I am talking about coins after 1999. Which I do collect.
I also have folders full of the pre 1965 coins.
I think they are all great in their own light.
Just my two cents.
Mercury
I enjoy cherrypicking die varieties from any era, but get the most sense of accomplishment from modern varieties. The mintage numbers for modern dates are much higher, so simply finding a single die variety, such as a doubled die, can be quite challenging. If you want to make it even more of a challenge, try finding one that is free of rolling marks or other problems. If you really want to be challenged, try finding an UNC.