@NeophyteNumismatist said:
I love half cents, so I am biased. But, I think as a group the whole denomination is under rated and doesn't get the love it should.
@PerryHall said:
Any coin that I'm trying to sell to a coin dealer.
It's amazing, the difference between an AU details and a gem BU is who's trying to sell it to who. I used to see it a lot more when I was younger than I do now. I'm not sure what's changed, me or the hobby.
@PerryHall said:
Any coin that I'm trying to sell to a coin dealer.
It's amazing, the difference between an AU details and a gem BU is who's trying to sell it to who. I used to see it a lot more when I was younger than I do now. I'm not sure what's changed, me or the hobby.
What changed is that professional third party grading services have leveled the playing field.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Voltaire: Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero.
@cladking said:
And I don't think of it so much as a "die" variety as an "unintentional type coin". It is the only post-'79 dime without a mint mark.
How many collectors really care about that, other than you? Why would type set collectors want to pay the current price to buy a duplicate type of a coin they can buy as a "BU' for 50c or less?
So why do you think people collect coins?
Your question is another subject entirely. Your post is one of many expressing the opinion that coins with a disproportionately low preference (for a variety of reasons) are "underappreciated" or should be more "popular" which is mostly a code word that the coin should be more valuable.
The 1982 NM dime is primarily of interest to clad FDR dime collectors and secondly, probably those who buy common 20th century US key dates where this coin qualifies by reputation. Maybe also to a limited extent as a speculative or impulse purchase.
The FDR clad dime probably has the lowest preference among all pre-SQ series (that's what the Heritage data supports though it's not fully representative) and this coin isn't competitive at its current price to more than a very limited pct. of the remaining US collector base. It's not included in any recognized type sets, any more than my example (1853 US Assay Territorial gold) which is why no one is going to buy it for this purpose.
The 2017-S US Mint 225th Anniversary Enhanced Uncirculated Set.
Still available for under $30.
Mintage of 211 thousand.
Lowest mintage Lincoln Shield cent (less than half the mintage of the 1909-S VDB).
Lowest mintage modern obverse Jefferson nickel (less than 1/10 the mintage of the 1950-D).
Lowest mintage ATB quarters.
I know these coins aren't cheap but find it a lot more interesting than Liberty Head 10s or 20s.
California Fractional Gold coins get even less love.
I find the story behind California fractional gold to be fascinating!
But my bit of research makes the history behind them somewhat ambiguous--there are reliable sources that indicate that they rarely (or never) actually circulated, making them perhaps more of a curiosity than a historically-interesting coin. So I've never bought one, despite being interested.
And I love the history behind the 2 cent piece. First coin to carry the "In God We Trust" motto. If an early pattern of the coin with Washington on it would have circulated, it would have been the first to do so. No former president was on a u.s. circulating coin until the Lincoln cent. The previous unused motto's before IGWT were, "God and Our Country" and "God Our Trust".
"Ain't None of Them play like him (Bix Beiderbecke) Yet." Louis Armstrong
I know these coins aren't cheap but find it a lot more interesting than Liberty Head 10s or 20s.
California Fractional Gold coins get even less love.
I find the story behind California fractional gold to be fascinating!
But my bit of research makes the history behind them somewhat ambiguous--there are reliable sources that indicate that they rarely (or never) actually circulated, making them perhaps more of a curiosity than a historically-interesting coin. So I've never bought one, despite being interested.
From what I've read, the Period 1 California Fractional Gold Coins (1852-1856) circulated briefly as money due to the coin shortage in the San Francisco area at that time and many were quickly pulled from circulation and saved as novelties and souvenirs. Many of the Period 1 coins show signs of brief circulation and grade XF and AU. Also, these coins were mentioned in a contemporary newspaper article and several of these coins were recovered from the Central America shipwreck. These coins were made from natural gold directly from the gold fields and are quite historic in my opinion. Since the San Francisco mint which opened in 1854 was able to put enough coins in circulation, production of these private issues stopped by 1856. Demand was so great for these coins as souvenirs and for use in jewelry that production resumed in 1859 (Period 2) and continued until 1882 when the Secret Service shut them down. The Period 3 coins were produced after 1882 and were backdated to hide the fact that they were illegal. PCGS Coin Facts has a lot of information on these coins including information for each type and date by BG number. If you ever decide to buy one, I suggest getting one already slabbed by PCGS or one of the other major grading services.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Voltaire: Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero.
Your question is another subject entirely. Your post is one of many expressing the opinion that coins with a disproportionately low preference (for a variety of reasons) are "underappreciated" or should be more "popular" which is mostly a code word that the coin should be more valuable.
People collect coins because they are interested in coins and like to collect. So why wouldn't a coin collector want an '82-NMM?
You always seem to think it's only natural that modern coins attract so little demand. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps one collector is too many but if there were a single collector then this would bolster the argument that the scarce '82 coin gets little love.
The 1982 NM dime is primarily of interest to clad FDR dime collectors and secondly, probably those who buy common 20th century US key dates where this coin qualifies by reputation. Maybe also to a limited extent as a speculative or impulse purchase.
Silver and clad dime collectors might have an interest in it though almost every collection of dimes since 1964 ends with the 1964 dime. There are very few clad collectors. Nobody seems to notice that attrition and dilution has made many clad dates virtually unavailable and if you do find one in circulation it will be heavily worn and cull. Some of these dates are in mint sets with extremely high attrition and are usually tarnished if still in the set.
However some of the scarcest and rarest US coins just happen to be clad dimes. The list is long enough that I have to believe there are a few collectors trying to assemble scarce clad dime collections.
The FDR clad dime probably has the lowest preference among all pre-SQ series (that's what the Heritage data supports though it's not fully representative) and this coin isn't competitive at its current price to more than a very limited pct. of the remaining US collector base. It's not included in any recognized type sets, any more than my example (1853 US Assay Territorial gold) which is why no one is going to buy it for this purpose.
The last few years has seen some growth in the demand for clad dimes but it's still very anemic. I've sold a very large percentage of my dimes.
@gumby1234 said:
The 1982 NO P dime absolutely gets no love.
When this coin was first reported I made a beeline to Sandusky Ohio fearful that there'd be dozens of people in line ahead of me at the town's only coin shop. I waited outside for the shop to open at noon but no line ever materialized. The proprietor told me I was his first and only customer.
I ran into the dealer at shows from time to time and he had the companion piece to the coin I selected for years and years. It was a very handsome coin as well and I should have purchased it. It was just as clean with the same luster but it had a small strike weakness. It was probably made within a few dozen pieces of my specimen. They could have been consecutive,
Seated quarters in general are overlooked. That said, the 1849 Philly is a sleeper. The 49-o is a top 10 rarity and the 49 is almost as scarce but goes for around the same price as the other late 40's Philly quarters. A quick search on ebay shows 3 49-o's and 8 49's for comparison.
There are a lot of great moderns that get no respect.
The most dramatic in my experience is the '84-(P) cent. Here's a coin collected by millions but I've seen a grand total of 1 nice Gem with pleasing surfaces in 30 years of searching. I've looked at many many BU rolls and significant numbers of mint sets. Roll coins have plating issues and marking and mint set coins have ugly wavy surfaces.
I wager if I found a few rolls of nice Gems there'd be no line to buy one.
People collect coins because they are interested in coins and like to collect. So why wouldn't a coin collector want an '82-NMM?
That's not the point.
It's that one, there isn't any reason to claim this coin is "unloved" when it's not even close to "cheap" for its actual collectible attributes which is what this thread is actually about. And two, why would anyone consider it "necessary" as a distinct type for a type set which was your claim in a prior post?
You always seem to think it's only natural that modern coins attract so little demand. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps one collector is too many but if there were a single collector then this would bolster the argument that the scarce '82 coin gets little love.
There is little demand measured by the price level for FDR clad dimes due to the coin's attributes, something you refuse to accept.
However some of the scarcest and rarest US coins just happen to be clad dimes. The list is long enough that I have to believe there are a few collectors trying to assemble scarce clad dime collections.
Yes, and each one is due to some specialization (directed primarily to "No S" proofs) or what's typed on a TPG label.
I guess you could make this thread more meaningful by flipping the question: "What are the current loved coins?" And everything else, by definition would be unloved so the answer to this thread could be, all coins except... [insert whatever's hot].
FWIW, I have no idea what's hot in the coin market right now...
In regards to California gold, just be aware that PCGS makes mistakes on them. There are several attribution mistakes even on their Coinfacts website. I have a folder of photos showing mistakes made by both NGC and PCGS. Most are attribution errors. One grading error was of a BG # in MS65 showing two holes drilled completely through it at the top. No details grade, etc. just MS65. PCGS has also certified Cal tokens as BG numbers which is a very elementary mistake. I have tried to communicate to PCGS their mistakes, but I have never received a reply. I have even tried going through their Dealer CS.
They are scarce, as most album sets for sale leave that space blank or fill it with a large date. Some fill it with a 70-S small date PROOF, which seems to be more common than a decent looking MS.
Judging from the lack of interest in the latest poll of Classic Commemorative type coins - gold commemoratives. The two $50 Pan Pacific are always popular as wishlist coins; but, the other 11 don't have the attraction.
I know these coins aren't cheap but find it a lot more interesting than Liberty Head 10s or 20s.
California Fractional Gold coins get even less love.
I find the story behind California fractional gold to be fascinating!
But my bit of research makes the history behind them somewhat ambiguous--there are reliable sources that indicate that they rarely (or never) actually circulated, making them perhaps more of a curiosity than a historically-interesting coin. So I've never bought one, despite being interested.
From what I've read, the Period 1 California Fractional Gold Coins (1852-1856) circulated briefly as money due to the coin shortage in the San Francisco area at that time and many were quickly pulled from circulation and saved as novelties and souvenirs. Many of the Period 1 coins show signs of brief circulation and grade XF and AU. Also, these coins were mentioned in a contemporary newspaper article and several of these coins were recovered from the Central America shipwreck. These coins were made from natural gold directly from the gold fields and are quite historic in my opinion. Since the San Francisco mint which opened in 1854 was able to put enough coins in circulation, production of these private issues stopped by 1856. Demand was so great for these coins as souvenirs and for use in jewelry that production resumed in 1859 (Period 2) and continued until 1882 when the Secret Service shut them down. The Period 3 coins were produced after 1882 and were backdated to hide the fact that they were illegal. PCGS Coin Facts has a lot of information on these coins including information for each type and date by BG number. If you ever decide to buy one, I suggest getting one already slabbed by PCGS or one of the other major grading services.
Complete agreement with Perry Hall. Period 1 did indeed circulate and I have multiple 53, 55 & 58 examples as well as a single VF35 and a single XF40 (both period 1 dollars). There is also great bang for the buck with many rarities and very small populations extant.
PCGS Coin facts and excellent reference materials are available to learn about these small denominations.
@lkenefic said:
Middle Date Large Cents... 1816 to 1839
The earlier Draped Bust series gets the most love. Ms. Liberty depicted with long flowing hair and a carefree whimsical look... the Middle Dates depict Ms. Liberty as the matured aunt that pinches your cheeks and tells you how much you've grown since the last time she saw you...
I used to own one, but still want to find the right one for type. There is an "ugly charm" I find in this design. Maybe the depiction of Liberty is so bad that I find it oddly compelling.
As quoted from the NGC site: "Dr. William Sheldon, author of the standard reference for cents struck from 1793 to 1814, scathingly remarked that the figure of Liberty on these coins “resembled the head of an obese ward boss instead of a lady.”"
The 1937 dime in the Cherrypickers Guide (DDO FS-101) doesn’t get much love. PCGS won’t attribute it, and it’s description was pulled in the latest edition of the guide for “lack of collector interest.”
This despite the fact that the doubling on the date is visually almost identical to the far more accepted 1937-S 10c DDO.
Comments
The W cents, especially the two proofs.
Any coin that I'm trying to sell to a coin dealer.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Voltaire: Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero.
+1
The W quarters series. 95% of the forum members and dealers at a coin show couldn't care less about them.🙄
That's good. So you should be able to get them real cheap.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
It's amazing, the difference between an AU details and a gem BU is who's trying to sell it to who. I used to see it a lot more when I was younger than I do now. I'm not sure what's changed, me or the hobby.
Glenna Goodacre's beautifully designed coin, the Sacagawea dollar (2000-2008), is mostly unloved and underappreciated.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
All the small dollars are. Very few people like them, want them or use them.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
There are a lot of coins that don't get love. The 2 cent copper.
The 3 cent silver
The 3 cent nickel
But what doesn't get a lot of love on here are raw coins.
I think we do a disservice to the coins you can actually touch,
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
The 83 DDR
What changed is that professional third party grading services have leveled the playing field.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Voltaire: Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero.
It’s that misaligned left eye.
1940-S RPM-001 Jefferson (BU)
Steel pennies (BU)
1925-D Mercury Dime (XF45 - AU55)
2000 Massachusetts Inno dollar
If we were all the same, the world would be an incredibly boring place.
Tommy
I have to vote for my fave series: Flying Eagles. There’s so much packed into this short 3 year period that many collectors are unaware of.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
I think gold dollars, for a classic gold coin that is still obtainable, their small size just kills any attention.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Your question is another subject entirely. Your post is one of many expressing the opinion that coins with a disproportionately low preference (for a variety of reasons) are "underappreciated" or should be more "popular" which is mostly a code word that the coin should be more valuable.
The 1982 NM dime is primarily of interest to clad FDR dime collectors and secondly, probably those who buy common 20th century US key dates where this coin qualifies by reputation. Maybe also to a limited extent as a speculative or impulse purchase.
The FDR clad dime probably has the lowest preference among all pre-SQ series (that's what the Heritage data supports though it's not fully representative) and this coin isn't competitive at its current price to more than a very limited pct. of the remaining US collector base. It's not included in any recognized type sets, any more than my example (1853 US Assay Territorial gold) which is why no one is going to buy it for this purpose.
Anything i have for sale….
The 2017-S US Mint 225th Anniversary Enhanced Uncirculated Set.
Still available for under $30.
Mintage of 211 thousand.
Lowest mintage Lincoln Shield cent (less than half the mintage of the 1909-S VDB).
Lowest mintage modern obverse Jefferson nickel (less than 1/10 the mintage of the 1950-D).
Lowest mintage ATB quarters.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Any coin used in makeready.
Love it or scrap it !
I really can't reply honestly as it seems to be a question for the elders.
What ?
I find the story behind California fractional gold to be fascinating!
But my bit of research makes the history behind them somewhat ambiguous--there are reliable sources that indicate that they rarely (or never) actually circulated, making them perhaps more of a curiosity than a historically-interesting coin. So I've never bought one, despite being interested.
And I love the history behind the 2 cent piece. First coin to carry the "In God We Trust" motto. If an early pattern of the coin with Washington on it would have circulated, it would have been the first to do so. No former president was on a u.s. circulating coin until the Lincoln cent. The previous unused motto's before IGWT were, "God and Our Country" and "God Our Trust".
Louis Armstrong
From what I've read, the Period 1 California Fractional Gold Coins (1852-1856) circulated briefly as money due to the coin shortage in the San Francisco area at that time and many were quickly pulled from circulation and saved as novelties and souvenirs. Many of the Period 1 coins show signs of brief circulation and grade XF and AU. Also, these coins were mentioned in a contemporary newspaper article and several of these coins were recovered from the Central America shipwreck. These coins were made from natural gold directly from the gold fields and are quite historic in my opinion. Since the San Francisco mint which opened in 1854 was able to put enough coins in circulation, production of these private issues stopped by 1856. Demand was so great for these coins as souvenirs and for use in jewelry that production resumed in 1859 (Period 2) and continued until 1882 when the Secret Service shut them down. The Period 3 coins were produced after 1882 and were backdated to hide the fact that they were illegal. PCGS Coin Facts has a lot of information on these coins including information for each type and date by BG number. If you ever decide to buy one, I suggest getting one already slabbed by PCGS or one of the other major grading services.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Voltaire: Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero.
I was going to say that, but at least in my collection they do.
People collect coins because they are interested in coins and like to collect. So why wouldn't a coin collector want an '82-NMM?
You always seem to think it's only natural that modern coins attract so little demand. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps one collector is too many but if there were a single collector then this would bolster the argument that the scarce '82 coin gets little love.
Silver and clad dime collectors might have an interest in it though almost every collection of dimes since 1964 ends with the 1964 dime. There are very few clad collectors. Nobody seems to notice that attrition and dilution has made many clad dates virtually unavailable and if you do find one in circulation it will be heavily worn and cull. Some of these dates are in mint sets with extremely high attrition and are usually tarnished if still in the set.
However some of the scarcest and rarest US coins just happen to be clad dimes. The list is long enough that I have to believe there are a few collectors trying to assemble scarce clad dime collections.
The last few years has seen some growth in the demand for clad dimes but it's still very anemic. I've sold a very large percentage of my dimes.
When this coin was first reported I made a beeline to Sandusky Ohio fearful that there'd be dozens of people in line ahead of me at the town's only coin shop. I waited outside for the shop to open at noon but no line ever materialized. The proprietor told me I was his first and only customer.
I ran into the dealer at shows from time to time and he had the companion piece to the coin I selected for years and years. It was a very handsome coin as well and I should have purchased it. It was just as clean with the same luster but it had a small strike weakness. It was probably made within a few dozen pieces of my specimen. They could have been consecutive,
Seated quarters in general are overlooked. That said, the 1849 Philly is a sleeper. The 49-o is a top 10 rarity and the 49 is almost as scarce but goes for around the same price as the other late 40's Philly quarters. A quick search on ebay shows 3 49-o's and 8 49's for comparison.
There are a lot of great moderns that get no respect.
The most dramatic in my experience is the '84-(P) cent. Here's a coin collected by millions but I've seen a grand total of 1 nice Gem with pleasing surfaces in 30 years of searching. I've looked at many many BU rolls and significant numbers of mint sets. Roll coins have plating issues and marking and mint set coins have ugly wavy surfaces.
I wager if I found a few rolls of nice Gems there'd be no line to buy one.
That's not the point.
It's that one, there isn't any reason to claim this coin is "unloved" when it's not even close to "cheap" for its actual collectible attributes which is what this thread is actually about. And two, why would anyone consider it "necessary" as a distinct type for a type set which was your claim in a prior post?
There is little demand measured by the price level for FDR clad dimes due to the coin's attributes, something you refuse to accept.
Yes, and each one is due to some specialization (directed primarily to "No S" proofs) or what's typed on a TPG label.
All the stuff I sent to Ian today.
BST is my underrating gauge.
I guess you could make this thread more meaningful by flipping the question: "What are the current loved coins?" And everything else, by definition would be unloved so the answer to this thread could be, all coins except... [insert whatever's hot].
FWIW, I have no idea what's hot in the coin market right now...
two out of these three or arguably ... all three
@ebaybuyer2 Yeah that 64-s quarter is the rarest S mint seated quarter in my opinion.
cant talk about scarce S mint quarters without mentioning the 71s and 72s
My area is rather small but I have always thought Trade dollars were treated like the ugly step sister of seated Coins. James
1926-S Mercury dime PCGS MS64 FB.
I would have to say the 1982-P Lincoln Cent with a mintage 10,712,525,000
That is 10 BILLION, 712 MILLION, 525,0000 pcs!!!!!
What in the heck do we do with all these pennies?????
Well we all know some wind up in parking lots.
In regards to California gold, just be aware that PCGS makes mistakes on them. There are several attribution mistakes even on their Coinfacts website. I have a folder of photos showing mistakes made by both NGC and PCGS. Most are attribution errors. One grading error was of a BG # in MS65 showing two holes drilled completely through it at the top. No details grade, etc. just MS65. PCGS has also certified Cal tokens as BG numbers which is a very elementary mistake. I have tried to communicate to PCGS their mistakes, but I have never received a reply. I have even tried going through their Dealer CS.
My key, semi-key Mercs & 16 SLQ
They must be getting some love -- they routinely go for $50 a pop on ebay in BU RB condition.
Perhaps.
All though I did just pick these two up on eBay a week or so ago and paid $36.00 plus free shipping.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/166660540415
peacockcoins
Nice picks, Braddick.
They are scarce, as most album sets for sale leave that space blank or fill it with a large date. Some fill it with a 70-S small date PROOF, which seems to be more common than a decent looking MS.
Judging from the lack of interest in the latest poll of Classic Commemorative type coins - gold commemoratives. The two $50 Pan Pacific are always popular as wishlist coins; but, the other 11 don't have the attraction.
Complete agreement with Perry Hall. Period 1 did indeed circulate and I have multiple 53, 55 & 58 examples as well as a single VF35 and a single XF40 (both period 1 dollars). There is also great bang for the buck with many rarities and very small populations extant.
PCGS Coin facts and excellent reference materials are available to learn about these small denominations.
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/category/california-fractional-gold-1852-1882/1659
https://www.allbookstores.com/California-Pioneer-Fractional-Gold-Walter/9780943161907
Top 10 Cal Fractional Type Set
successful BST with Ankurj, BigAl, Bullsitter, CommemKing, DCW(7), Elmerfusterpuck, Joelewis, Mach1ne, Minuteman810430, Modcrewman, Nankraut, Nederveit2, Philographer(5), Realgator, Silverpop, SurfinxHI, TomB and Yorkshireman(3)
I used to own one, but still want to find the right one for type. There is an "ugly charm" I find in this design. Maybe the depiction of Liberty is so bad that I find it oddly compelling.
As quoted from the NGC site: "Dr. William Sheldon, author of the standard reference for cents struck from 1793 to 1814, scathingly remarked that the figure of Liberty on these coins “resembled the head of an obese ward boss instead of a lady.”"
The 1937 dime in the Cherrypickers Guide (DDO FS-101) doesn’t get much love. PCGS won’t attribute it, and it’s description was pulled in the latest edition of the guide for “lack of collector interest.”
This despite the fact that the doubling on the date is visually almost identical to the far more accepted 1937-S 10c DDO.
Mine. They all seem to sell lower than comparable coins on ebay
Early H10C’s, except the 1792.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian