Home U.S. Coin Forum

JA key dates

2»

Comments

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,181 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @OnlyGoldIsMoney said:
    1842 $2.50 (50 to 60 known according to PCGS) 37 slabbed by PCGS in all grades. CAC has stickered 6. Of those 6 I have this XF45 and the F12 in the CAC pop report.

    Very nice! I love the color and originality.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,181 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Leeroybrown said:
    Absolutely Gazes. I agree!

    I also believe that cac has a lot to do with identifying quality coins... not just those undergraded, etc.

    I would go out on a limb to say that 7,8 outta 10 coins are above average quality (A or B coins)

    Quality within a grade says nothing about rarity or scarcity which is what is being discussed when the term "key" is used.

  • CrustyCrusty Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @Leeroybrown said:
    Absolutely Gazes. I agree!

    I also believe that cac has a lot to do with identifying quality coins... not just those undergraded, etc.

    I would go out on a limb to say that 7,8 outta 10 coins are above average quality (A or B coins)

    Quality within a grade says nothing about rarity or scarcity which is what is being discussed when the term "key" is used.

    Totally disagree with you cameonut2011. Try building a PQ set of circulated Seated Dollars and tell me they are not scarce/rare. Sure if you don’t care about quality you can slop a set together(will still take years).

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 36,959 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Crusty said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @Leeroybrown said:
    Absolutely Gazes. I agree!

    I also believe that cac has a lot to do with identifying quality coins... not just those undergraded, etc.

    I would go out on a limb to say that 7,8 outta 10 coins are above average quality (A or B coins)

    Quality within a grade says nothing about rarity or scarcity which is what is being discussed when the term "key" is used.

    Totally disagree with you cameonut2011. Try building a PQ set of circulated Seated Dollars and tell me they are not scarce/rare. Sure if you don’t care about quality you can slop a set together(will still take years).

    I think cameo's point is over the use of the word"key". It's not usually applied to condition rarities.

    All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.

  • CrustyCrusty Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Crusty said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @Leeroybrown said:
    Absolutely Gazes. I agree!

    I also believe that cac has a lot to do with identifying quality coins... not just those undergraded, etc.

    I would go out on a limb to say that 7,8 outta 10 coins are above average quality (A or B coins)

    Quality within a grade says nothing about rarity or scarcity which is what is being discussed when the term "key" is used.

    Totally disagree with you cameonut2011. Try building a PQ set of circulated Seated Dollars and tell me they are not scarce/rare. Sure if you don’t care about quality you can slop a set together(will still take years).

    I think cameo's point is over the use of the word"key". It's not usually applied to condition rarities.

    Understood... But maybe it should for example take the 1856 $.... Its a better date in the series but I have never heard anyone call it a key or even semikey. It can be found without to much difficulty (less then wholesome) but to find a nice original piece takes many years. This is a prime example of how a search of the CAC database shows just how tough it is. There are (11) CAC approved across all grades. Only (6) of those are circulated. I know where 4 of them are and have made offers of thousands above market value. I was assured the current owners will die with them. Just checking the pcgs and NGC population reports is deceiving for people wanting a PQ example. So is a PQ 1856$ a key? Absolutely!

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 15,016 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Crusty said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Crusty said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @Leeroybrown said:
    Absolutely Gazes. I agree!

    I also believe that cac has a lot to do with identifying quality coins... not just those undergraded, etc.

    I would go out on a limb to say that 7,8 outta 10 coins are above average quality (A or B coins)

    Quality within a grade says nothing about rarity or scarcity which is what is being discussed when the term "key" is used.

    Totally disagree with you cameonut2011. Try building a PQ set of circulated Seated Dollars and tell me they are not scarce/rare. Sure if you don’t care about quality you can slop a set together(will still take years).

    I think cameo's point is over the use of the word"key". It's not usually applied to condition rarities.

    Understood... But maybe it should for example take the 1856 $.... Its a better date in the series but I have never heard anyone call it a key or even semikey. It can be found without to much difficulty (less then wholesome) but to find a nice original piece takes many years. This is a prime example of how a search of the CAC database shows just how tough it is. There are (11) CAC approved across all grades. Only (6) of those are circulated. I know where 4 of them are and have made offers of thousands above market value. I was assured the current owners will die with them. Just checking the pcgs and NGC population reports is deceiving for people wanting a PQ example. So is a PQ 1856$ a key? Absolutely!

    While I think I understand your point, you seem to be attempting to change the long standing definition of “key”.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 23,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The 1856-c graded 55 looks processed and is part of the problem... Not the solution.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 23,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No issues with the 1842 2 1/2...

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • fivecentsfivecents Posts: 11,207 ✭✭✭✭✭

    CAC POP report would always be high for key date coins over the more common coins. Apples to oranges. imo

  • GazesGazes Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @fivecents said:
    CAC POP report would always be high for key date coins over the more common coins. Apples to oranges. imo

    I think you are wrong for instance with gold coins. A large majority of all gold coins brings a premium with a JA's approval. Regardless of whether they are common or a key date, they are likely to be sent to JA.

    Also going back to my OP. The 1911-D, the key date still only has 9 approved by CAC in MS 65--not alot. The 1914-D stands out for only having 4 approved in Gem. The common 1908 QE in ms-65 has 108 approved by CAC.

    Again, i think these stats are a good starting point for further research. My personal feeling is that a 1911-D 2.5 indian pcgs 65 cac is fairly priced around 65,000 to 80,000. I think the 1914-D pcgs cac 65 is underpriced at 28,000.

    Another thing to think about with these numbers are the significance to those who want to build the best pcgs/cac registry sets.

  • CrustyCrusty Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @fivecents said:
    CAC POP report would always be high for key date coins over the more common coins. Apples to oranges. imo

    Five cents..... Have you seen the "high" numbers for "Key” SLDs? When you get into truly scare/rare coins (I believe most PQ SLDs are) it’s safe to assume most have been to CAC. Morgan’s on the other hand are much different. Yes the 93s is the "key" but there are almost 600 approved by CAC across all grades. I could find one in a seconds notice with a click of the mouse. The same can’t be said for 80% of the dates in the SLD series.



  • CrustyCrusty Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Pickwickjr -You know where I’m at when and if.....

  • LeeroybrownLeeroybrown Posts: 491 ✭✭✭✭✭

    wow... look at the cac population on the 73-cc vs. the 93-s... yikes. A slight different in "rarity"...

  • PickwickjrPickwickjr Posts: 557 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Crusty said:
    @Pickwickjr -You know where I’m at when and if.....

    My wife knows who to call an offer my coins to if something was ever to happen to me. 😎

  • roadrunnerroadrunner Posts: 28,313 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 24, 2020 8:28AM

    @Pickwickjr said:

    @Crusty said:
    @Pickwickjr -You know where I’m at when and if.....

    My wife knows who to call an offer my coins to if something was ever to happen to me. 😎

    You know how that works? When that time finally comes, the other party is either gone from the hobby as well, has amnesia concerning any old offers that may have made, or no longer has the money to buy....or you just hear crickets. I don't know how many times I went back to both collectors or dealers who wanted 1st shot if I ever was letting a particular great coin go. I can't recall a single time where they ended up buying. There were always reasons" why they couldn't. And this is particularly true of the person/dealer that sold you the coin. Time has a way of changing things. Markets and tastes change....even grading standards. This goes down into the common myths of coin lore. In the coin biz there is "today"....and that's it.

    As far as the discussion with less than key date coins not appearing in CAC reports, I agree with the premise that relatively few "nice" examples exist....especially for Seated coinage. The 1853-0 quarter is a perfect example. Many slabbed Uncs are sort of scudzy, un-appealing, or messed with. The date tends to come somewhat poorly made. Few were saved in high grade....they overly circulated even into the 1940's....common as dirt....probably most being mistaken with the more common 1853 Philly A&R. Hence there's only a lone MS64 CAC to go after....a similar story for most New Orleans seated quarters. The 11-d vs 14 gem $2-1/2 makes sense to me. Any worthy gem example of either has been sent to the TPGs and CAC. It's not surprising at all that the 14 comes up scarcer. Due to low mintage the 11-d was "overly saved" at time of issue.

    Barbarous Relic No More, LSCC -GoldSeek--shadow stats--SafeHaven--321gold
  • PickwickjrPickwickjr Posts: 557 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That’s funny but true!
    In the end it doesn’t matter to me. It’s only money and that can’t buy happiness. I get a lot of enjoyment out of my collection. Who knows each of my kids may end up with some nice coins added to there collection. They all like looking at what I show them. They each have a few albums , plus some nice type coins.

  • roadrunnerroadrunner Posts: 28,313 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 24, 2020 8:50AM

    @fivecents said:
    CAC POP report would always be high for key date coins over the more common coins. Apples to oranges. imo

    That's part of the problem. We're still discovering what the Key date coins really are....especially when you factor in at which point in the grading scale they land, and how nice for that particular grade(s). By the mid to later 1990's we were finally figuring out via the pop reports what dates weren't as "key" as we thought....especially in unc or gem condition. Many secondary better dates were showing up a lot less often than mintages would suggest. To those that collected the series for years they already knew all this....the general market did not. Being an overall "key" date by total surviving specimens is the original definition (09-s VDB, 55/55 dd, 1916-d merc, 1901-s 25c, 1893-s $, etc.). It's not the only the interpretation.

    Maybe a better definition for Key date is the "scarcest coin in the series considering all surviving specimens....usually the highest priced....and generally always available with a phone call." Now when you start looking at semi-keys and scarcer dates in particular grades....toss most of that out the window. And finding worthy specimens is usually lots tougher than finding keys.

    Barbarous Relic No More, LSCC -GoldSeek--shadow stats--SafeHaven--321gold
  • OnlyGoldIsMoneyOnlyGoldIsMoney Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coinkat said:
    The 1856-c graded 55 looks processed and is part of the problem... Not the solution.

    The 1856-C is one case where you need to know the series. Here is what Doug WInter says about this particular issue:

    "SURFACES: Every example I have seen shows the following characteristics. There is roughness on much of the portrait which resembles some sort of micro-granularity. An area of roughness is seen at the first star and there is a crescent of granularity which runs from Liberty’s chin to the second star. Roughness is also seen outside the first four stars towards the denticles. On the reverse there is granularity around much of the eagle, especially below the left wing."

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 23,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    From the image provided, The1856-c looks to have been dipped to enhance lustre. It does not have the look of an original coin. The strike of the coin and its overall characteristics associated with the strike is not the issue. I suspect it had a far more pleasing natural look at some earlier time before it was graded. That look is gone... That is the problem.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,181 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Crusty said:

    @fivecents said:
    CAC POP report would always be high for key date coins over the more common coins. Apples to oranges. imo

    Five cents..... Have you seen the "high" numbers for "Key” SLDs? When you get into truly scare/rare coins (I believe most PQ SLDs are) it’s safe to assume most have been to CAC. Morgan’s on the other hand are much different. Yes the 93s is the "key" but there are almost 600 approved by CAC across all grades. I could find one in a seconds notice with a click of the mouse. The same can’t be said for 80% of the dates in the SLD series.



    While it may be an indicator of lack of quality problem free coins, it could also be a simple difference in grading standards. If a coin in a 65 holder fails to sticker but stickers in a 64+ holder, the coins are equivalent even if the label and sticker aren't.

    Original problem free SLD are tough with and without stickers. The TPG population reports are skewed from 30+ years of resubmissions. CAC's is less skewed.

  • shishshish Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭✭✭

    For the LSD series I would change your first statement to read: While it is an indicator of lack of quality problem free coins, there is a simple difference in grading standards that accounts for some coins not being approved by CAC.

    Your second statement is dead on.

    Liberty Seated and Trade Dollar Specialist
  • jayPemjayPem Posts: 4,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

  • TomBTomB Posts: 22,097 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think I understand where you are going with your initial question, but it might be too fine a point to tease out given dual TPGs, resubmissions, possibly logarithmic valuations between issues and both TPG and CAC market-hobby penetration and acceptance.

    However, you may be able to get a more general feel for a question such as "what series am I more likely to be able to find really choice coins in holders?" by looking at gold CAC sticker populations for series vs. green CAC sticker populations and then reckoning a CAC success rate by series. Overall, I believe the CAC success rate is something like 44% and one can adjust that up (likely Morgan dollars) or down (likely early Federal coinage) as desired. By asking this question you generate a far deeper pool of data and, while it wouldn't answer the question in the OP, it might give insight into what is in the market.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file