I only have experience with Seated and Trade Dollars. That experience is limited to just 4 going on 5 years and only deals with circulated pieces so that is what I’ll discuss. The Liberty Seated Dollar series has many dates that are extremely tough to find with CAC approval (same with Trade Dollars). Why??? Well.... for starters there simply isn’t a lot that exist (certainly not enough to meet demand) The ones that do, usually command a very big premium (more so then most other series). And even with the higher premiums they command when sold it isn’t enough to entice collectors to sell them into the market. The reason for that is people who collect PQ Seated dollars have seen enough problem LSDs flood the market that it becomes clear once a PQ coin is sold it could be a decade or more before another PQ example hits the market. More than half the dates have less then 30 coins approved (across all grade ranges). To me they are all key dates. Forget about the 1851,1852,1873cc the three keys in the series...Try finding a nice original 1854,1855,1856,1857,1859,1860(one actually just listed today on eBay well above any price guide .... and he will get it) 1861,1862,1863 the list goes on and on...For those that say they don’t need a sticker to tell them it’s an "A" Seated Dollar. Please show me yours without a CAC sticker on it. I doubt anyone will have any to share.
The main point I have read against @Gazes idea. Is that we don’t really know how many coins have not been submitted to CAC for approval so who cares about the CAC population report. My response would be it depends on the series you collect. If you collect Morgan dollars I don’t think a CAC sticker has the same demand as Seated dollars (nor should it) That series has hundreds of millions to choose from and I’d imagine due to the lower cost per coin most have never been slabbed let alone been seen by CAC. So chances are you can be picky and find any coin you want at any given time. Point being there is many more Morgan’s out there that has not been through CAC compared to LSDs where JA has probably seen 70% or more of the certified examples.
@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.
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 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, even when irrefutably accurate.
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!
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.
1856 is a date I really like. I own three examples. One is in my dollar set. One is in my type set and I won’t part with them either. I have an ogh I’ll post today for sale. I can’t blame the person your talking about that won’t sell them.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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."
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Comments
I only have experience with Seated and Trade Dollars. That experience is limited to just 4 going on 5 years and only deals with circulated pieces so that is what I’ll discuss. The Liberty Seated Dollar series has many dates that are extremely tough to find with CAC approval (same with Trade Dollars). Why??? Well.... for starters there simply isn’t a lot that exist (certainly not enough to meet demand) The ones that do, usually command a very big premium (more so then most other series). And even with the higher premiums they command when sold it isn’t enough to entice collectors to sell them into the market. The reason for that is people who collect PQ Seated dollars have seen enough problem LSDs flood the market that it becomes clear once a PQ coin is sold it could be a decade or more before another PQ example hits the market. More than half the dates have less then 30 coins approved (across all grade ranges). To me they are all key dates. Forget about the 1851,1852,1873cc the three keys in the series...Try finding a nice original 1854,1855,1856,1857,1859,1860(one actually just listed today on eBay well above any price guide .... and he will get it) 1861,1862,1863 the list goes on and on...For those that say they don’t need a sticker to tell them it’s an "A" Seated Dollar. Please show me yours without a CAC sticker on it. I doubt anyone will have any to share.
The main point I have read against @Gazes idea. Is that we don’t really know how many coins have not been submitted to CAC for approval so who cares about the CAC population report. My response would be it depends on the series you collect. If you collect Morgan dollars I don’t think a CAC sticker has the same demand as Seated dollars (nor should it) That series has hundreds of millions to choose from and I’d imagine due to the lower cost per coin most have never been slabbed let alone been seen by CAC. So chances are you can be picky and find any coin you want at any given time. Point being there is many more Morgan’s out there that has not been through CAC compared to LSDs where JA has probably seen 70% or more of the certified examples.
Very nice! I love the color and originality.
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, even when irrefutably accurate.
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.
1856 is a date I really like. I own three examples. One is in my dollar set. One is in my type set and I won’t part with them either. I have an ogh I’ll post today for sale. I can’t blame the person your talking about that won’t sell them.
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.
No issues with the 1842 2 1/2...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
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.
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.
@Pickwickjr -You know where I’m at when and if.....
wow... look at the cac population on the 73-cc vs. the 93-s... yikes. A slight different in "rarity"...
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.
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.
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.
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."
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
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.
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.
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.
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.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson