SLQs are Expensive! Warning, a Bit Numbers-Technical....
124Spider
Posts: 855 ✭✭✭✭✭
Being a numbers guy at heart, I keep all sorts of data on my collections, including and especially mean value of the coins in each collection, median value of the coins in each collection, and the standard deviation of those values.
The collections relevant to this post are: Lincoln wheat cents; buffalo nickels; Mercury dimes; standing Liberty quarters; walking Liberty half dollars; Morgan dollars and peace dollars.
I have amassed each collection under the same general rules for how much I'm willing to spend, and on what I'm willing to spend that money, so it's reasonable to say that there is no significant bias in favor of any one collection. To the contrary, in the most recent round of upgrades, I've been slower about upgrading SLQs than the others. And it's worth noting that all collections are "complete" (as I define that, which does not include obscure varieties or, in the case of Morgan dollars, the 1895 proof), except that I don't have a 1916 SLQ or an 1893-S Morgan dollar.
I've always had the feeling that SLQs, top to bottom, are more expensive than the others, but never paid attention to the data I have. Now I have paid attention, and it seems pretty conclusive.
The median value of my SLQ collection is significantly higher than the median value of all the other collections. The mean value is lower than that of buffalo nickels, WLHD and Morgans. And the standard deviation is lower than most of the others (indicating that there are fewer outliers--high and low--in the SLQs than in the others, given that I don't have the 1916 SLQ which would greatly increase the standard deviation as the 1918/7-D totally skews the standard deviation of the buffalo nickels.
I think the real reason for this is that the series is a short series, ending in 1930. All the other series--except for Morgans, which are different because there are so many common dates there for other reasons--go significantly beyond 1930, when coins in general seem to be significantly less expensive than they were in 1930 and before; WLHD are a rather stark illustration of that, but it's true of all my series).
Comments
There aren't that many stoppers in the series if you don't get Uncs in Full Head. The problem is that the lower graded coins usually aren't much to look at.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Certainly, most are reasonably affordable in low grades (although there are six that aren't--1916, 1919-D, 1919-S, 1921, 1923-S and 1927-S). But, even more than in most series, SLQs in high grades are beautiful coins, but they are flat (literally and figuratively) and unattractive in anything below about 45 (IMO, of course). And almost all of the coins in the series get pretty expensive in AU50 and above; unlike all the other series I mentioned, there are very, very few SLQs that one can get in high grade for under US$100.
Yes, the median (middle value) is not influenced much by outliers (a few relative high values), but the mean (average value) is.
And the standard deviation is also influenced by outliers.
In general, for a symmetric distribution, the median will equal the mean, although in a finite sample the values will differ.
The distribution of coin prices is more like lognormal than normal, so it's not symmetric. But the log(price) might be close to symmetric.
In lower grades the Buffalo nickels are all fairly low value except the keys (1913-S Type II, 1937-D 3 legged, 1918/7-D, 1916 DDO). So that makes those 4 (if included in your set definition) outliers; high prices.
In lower grades, the Standing Liberty quarters scarcer dates (with 1916 and I assume 1918/7-D excluded) mentioned do not jump in relative value as high as the Buffalo keys, so you get that lower standard deviation. But being silver coins, most are more valuable than the Buffalo nickels in these low grades, which makes the median higher.
It's not the low N (number of coins) that makes the median SLQ higher than the mean SLQ. It's the relative (ratio) values of the outliers relative to the median value.
Or perhaps more relevant, it is your set definition that causes the SLQ statistical properties to be different than the Buffalo. When you exclude the outliers in SLQ more than the Buffalo, it creates these effects.
One thing is certainly true. As a type coin SLQ are super expensive compared to other 20th century coins, with MS 64 averaging $350 and MS 65 500 or so in non FH.
I like SLQ's. Always did.
But you are correct in that putting a little wear on them creates an unappealing looking coin.
Add to that the coins with flat-as-pancake heads and you come up with decent looking specimens being hard to locate.
It's a no-brainer why the series was ended before its time, as the quality of strike could not be made any better.
Pete
SLQ's to me, are one of the nicest looking coins in Unc, while being one of the ugliest coins in lower circulated grades.
I can't think of another series where this is so pronounced.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
There was too much detail in too small a coin. The raised date also wore off fairly quickly once circulated. As a kid, I'd find IHCs, Lincolns in the teens, all Mercs and Walkers with full dates (ditto re Buffalo Nickels from the 1930s, earlier, not so much), but rarely would I find a full dated SLQ (the few Barber coins I found were in better shape than the SLQs).
Whomever created the FH designation for SLQs didn't like people over 40 very much. The only consistently well struck FH dates I've seen are the 17 P Type 1, and the early P mint Type 2 coins. A branch mint coin of the series with a hammered FH strike is very rare.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I'm not a collector of this series, but I am always interested in price trends.
So I guess my Big Question would be....what are your data points regarding mean/median saying about the curent pricing and recent pricing trend for the coins ? Are they overvalued ? Undervalued ?
Coins have rebounded price-wise since 2020....is this the case with yours ? Are they matching, lagging, or outperforming ?
Finally, how did yours do from 2010-20...I know many other coins (i.e., Franklins) got killed even though the PCGS 3000 and other measurements were down over that time, they just did worse.
I have only been buying them for three years, so I have no useful data on trends. Certainly, the better dates in the higher grades are more expensive now than they were three years ago, but that's all I have.
As far as "overpriced" or "underpriced," that's not a game I play. If coins are selling, they're not, by definition, "overpriced." And I think it's somewhere between silly and folly to pretend that any of us can time the market, knowing when it's going to rise or fall.
A few years ago I ranked Liberty Standing Quarters by their populations in the MS grades hoping to find dates that would be considered undervalued. I discovered they pretty much were correctly valued in terms of their populations. I would imagine that's pretty much the case today.
One of my favorite coins. I put together a set (minus the 1916 and the error date) with the basic criteria that it must have a clear date. I would rather have part of the shield missing if it had a clear date. I saw some better circulated SLQ’s where the dates we’re barely readable, but I stayed away from those. I have them in a library of coins album (I love those albums). After 1925 they are AU, before 1925, VF to XF with clear dates. That was so much fun hunting for those coins on eBay 15 years ago