So you keep telling me, because you keep on comparing these coins to 1933-1964 US coinage which is the most common circulating coinage in "high" quality on the planet. Your claims are a complete exaggeration. as there is no significance to any coin being scarcer versus this coinage.
One of my points is that coins don't suddenly stop suffering attrition just because the current moment has come to be. Coins like the '38-D half dollar were saved in significant quantities, even more than many moderns. But these coins suffered low attrition because they did have a premium. Their 50c or dollar premium in the early '50's was a lot of money so the coins were protected. If an owner dug out a roll and took it to the coin shop it would net most of this premium and the roll would be dispersed to collectors who paid an even larger premium. Only about 1% a year were lost or destroyed (degrade) and most of these through degradation.
Most '38-D half dollars were reasonably well made and most collectors would find the first one they encountered as being good enough for their set.
People didn't set aside '82-P quarters. People didn't collect clad quarters in 1982. There were fewer '82 quarters set aside than the '38 half dollar. Fewer. These coins still aren't protected by a premium because they purportedly wholesale at $6 each and the cost of selling them is higher than this premium. The corner coin shop won't buy them because... ...drum roll please.... ...people still don't collect many clad quarters. A $6 premium is hardly enough to get the coin encapsulated and placed in a safety deposit box.
Even though there were far fewer of the clad quarter saved and the attrition on it is far higher the coin is still has no real premium so is suffering extremely high attrition. Every collector doesn't have a roll of these but the odds of a roll surviving a collector's death are far lower than the odds of an 1804 dollar outliving a collector.
If and when people ever start collecting these coins it's not going to stop the attrition. It will merely cut in half because collectors take care of coins better than circulation, poor storage, or hoarders.
Even the common '34 - '64 coinage was saved in large numbers but almost none of the moderns were and with moderns there's another factor; very poor quality. While there aren't many '82 quarters in original condition many of these coins are really quite ugly. One of the many reasons these weren't saved is that most are ugly. They're STILL ugly and this won't change going forward. While MS-60's are not very common (did I mention these weren't saved) nice attractive well made specimens of what old time collectors thought of as typical are much scarcer. True Gems may not exist because these coins were poorly struck by worn dies and the number of coins saved so small. I've probably put more work into finding these than anyone else and I've never seen one. Nice MS-64 and better coins with mostly full strikes and limited marking are much "rarer" than any of the coins collectors dreamed of finding back when I started in 1957. Almost all of these coins sell for $6. And they cost more than $6 to market.
This is why they go for $100 on eBay I believe.
There are numerous moderns that are even more desirable and sell for even less.
Time just keeps flying. It's not a smooth even flight like a bird because we don't look at it all the time so we perceive it and all of its parts occurring in bounds and leaps. Most collectors haven't looked at any coins made after 1965 and when they do they'll see things have changed and these coins are not what they think they are. There are numerous scarcities that aren't even identified because so few collectors are seeking them. The markets are so highly inefficient that many scarcities still end up going into circulation.
Time never stops and only seems to slow down and speed up. To paraphrase John J Pittman "clad coins are being used up in circulation while mr and mrs collector sleep.". He said this almost 30 years ago which coincidentally is the life expectancy of a clad coin fresh off the dies.
Most are probably degraded as you have stated but a high enough proportion are presumably still in someone's collection. That's where most coins are in collections and "change jars". It's not where you, I, or anyone else can see it.
But you can see them and all you have to do is look. This is something I've been doing since 1965 so I just have a huge headstart on you. It is the subject of most of my posts when I observe things like modern collections almost never come into coin shops. People don't collect BU clads so they don't come into coin shops and on the rare occasion they do the dealer tells them to just spend the coins. You can see it in the pricing of nice Gem '84 cents with pleasing surfaces which may not exist but list for $12 a roll or 24c each. You can see it in samples of circulating dimes that should contain a certain number but every sample contains only 30% of that number. You can see it in how the handful of surviving mint sets still swamps the demand.
Everywhere you look you can see it. You're looking at the result of abuse and neglect and then predicting the past. I am well aware these coins are neglected but that's my point; There won't be any to neglect too much longer because they are gone. The new BU roll market is likely just a symptom of this. But the market can't survive unless it can restock and I seriously doubt owners of things like souvenir sets will be willing to cut them up for $6 each. It's just not going to happen nor are people going to cut a couple hundred 1968 mint sets to make one nice roll of dimes. Even were they willing the mint set market isn't deep enough any longer to withstand such pressure.
@cladking said:
Nice MS-64 and better coins with mostly full strikes and limited marking are much "rarer" than any of the coins collectors dreamed of finding back when I started in 1957. Almost all of these coins sell for $6. And they cost more than $6 to market.
This is why they go for $100 on eBay I believe.
It's an interesting topic and I know that the OP is as dedicated as they come, but the exhaustive analysis often seems to descend into contradictions.
What the above passage is telling me is that the clad quarters in question sell for $6, aren't worth selling for $6, and that's why they sell for $100 on ebay. 😵💫
To me, rolls and bags feed demand for singles, either current demand or anticipated future demand. If the availability of rolls is limited then the supply for singles will be limited. To determine value, add "demand" to the mix.
If the supply of clad is relatively low, but the demand is also low, everything is in synch.
FWIW, I do think clad is, or will be, worthy of collecting.
What the above passage is telling me is that the clad quarters in question sell for $6, aren't worth selling for $6, and that's why they sell for $100 on ebay. 😵💫
Perhaps what I should say is that nice chBU rolls of '82-P quarters should bid for $3500 and ask at $4000.
Rolls that are worth only Greysheet bid are more common than some might believe but they are still a minority of BU '82 rolls. I don't know how to fix this mess but it only arose because the mint has been making so many poor quality clads since day 1. Most collectors don't want the typical roll of '65,66, '68,'69, '70, '70-D, '71, '72, '74, '77, etc quarters because they are ugly. They want coins that are chBU. They want full luster, well made, and attractive coins even if they aren't perfect and most '82-P quarters were not very attractive but some of these were saved anyway,
The existence, even preponderance, of such poor quality rolls is holding back these markets. Even mint set coins which almost always have nice strikes are often otherwise pretty bad.
This specific problem will become increasingly visible if the BU roll market expands. Buyers aren't going to want skunked zincoln rolls at any price. And they certainly won't want ugly '82-P quarter rolls at $3500.
This problem didn't exist with the older coins. Certainly there were a few 1945 merc rolls or '55 nickel rolls that were really bad but they weren't numerous enough to affect pricing for all of the coins. It's wasn't like 1984-D cent rolls where most rolls are bad. Even coins like the '71-S cent are bad in rolls nearly 80% of the time and some rolls are all bad.
The problem with the BU roll market will be strictly lack of supply if the demand persists or increases. Greysheet prices don't always mean much if you want nice choice coins and even where the price is reflective of supply and demand the simple fact is this price is now and always has been determined by a virtually complete lack of demand. you as8imply can't make a few phone calls and fill an order for "50" 1971-D dime rolls or any part of a BU dime roll set. There's no market. Perhaps one is developing. But there are barely enough of these coins to fill a pipeline and nobody who knows these existing markets is going to sell a roll of '82-P chBU quarters for $235. (Except, perhaps, as an experiment )
Millions of bust half dollars were saved as backing for species. Millions of morgans sat in bank bags until 1963. Indian cents were widely collected as they were issued and the mint didn't rotate their stocks of coins so some got lost in the vaults for years or decades. Gold is still coming up from the ocean floor. Millions of coins were buried in times of strife and they are found for centuries. I could go on and on but NONE of these things happen to moderns. They are issued and then ground to a nub in circulation unless they are lost first. This is just the way it is.
Yes, and it's partly and probably mostly because the coins aren't worth the bother of selling. Most people don't share your time preference, the one you have demonstrated in your posts.
I personally consider "gemmy" to be the lowest grade to collect clad. I don't know about other collectors but I do know nice coins sell faster than junk. Many moderns are very tough in MS-64 or better which is my preferred grade. Saying they are available doesn't create them.
None of these coins are hard to buy in MS-64 or better. Look at the TPG population data, yet something else you don't know even for US moderns. If you knew it and understood the factors which correlate to survivorship, you'd never make these claims. Many of the counts are "low" by your standards, but that's almost entirely due to the value, not because of actual scarcity. I've provided examples previously, like 2500+ for 1983-P quarters. That's not a low number and there is no reason to believe this represents more than a tiny fraction of the actual supply.
Aside from your inaccurate assumptions and bias where you disregard plainly evident evidence, you're also not familiar with the actual availability of hardly any coinage.
I've provided numerous examples of much older coinage with far lower mintages and with a much lower probability of survival which isn't hard to buy in high quality. (I provided a fairly comprehensive list of factors in a prior post last year.) This is evident just in the TPG data even where much or most of the collector base doesn't prefer TPG. So obviously if this coinage is documented to exist in current number in this quality, I disagree with your claims and personal experience.
Practically all of the time, the only thing personal experience will confirm is that a coin is common. With the internet. looking as you have during most of your collecting experience, it virtually never means a coin is scarce or even hard to buy. That's why 1933-1964 US classics (your implied baseline of comparison where anything scarcer is "scarce") is available in such large supply.
Price is also highly correlated to availability. That's why legitimately scarce or rare US coinage either isn't hard to buy or is much easier to buy versus comparably scarce non-US coinage. High(er) priced coins are almost always easier to buy versus low priced coins for the same or similar supply.
My only experience with rolls relate to Lincoln Cents. I sent in a roll of RD 56-Ds, and made out well. Sent in rolls of Lincoln Memorials, think average grade was MS 65 or MS 66, and honesty, it appeared that the TPG didn't even look at any of them. There are probably some MS 67 in the mix.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
One of my points is that coins don't suddenly stop suffering attrition just because the current moment has come to be. Coins like the '38-D half dollar were saved in significant quantities, even more than many moderns. But these coins suffered low attrition because they did have a premium. Their 50c or dollar premium in the early '50's was a lot of money so the coins were protected. If an owner dug out a roll and took it to the coin shop it would net most of this premium and the roll would be dispersed to collectors who paid an even larger premium. Only about 1% a year were lost or destroyed (degrade) and most of these through degradation.
The primary reason for large scale hoarding (not collecting) of 1933-1964 US silver coinage is because it's silver. Maybe a second reason is that the hoarder didn't trust banks. I agree that clad coinage was not hoarded similar to this silver coinage because there was no financial incentive to do it, but this still doesn't lead to your conclusion.
People didn't set aside '82-P quarters. People didn't collect clad quarters in 1982.
Once again, claiming to know what no one can possibly know. No, of course collectors didn't collect clad coinage in 1982. That's why the US Mint sold several million proof sets during this period and Mint Sets before and for years after. Apparently, these people were routinely buying coins they didn't want the entire time, over and over. Still sell about half a million sets annually now. Yes, I know there were no mint sets in 1982 and 1983.
No, I don't believe that collectors who were buying both in volume at the time didn't save these coins in large numbers out of circulation just because you don't and didn't see it. No, large number doesn't have to equal pre-1965 US coinage. No one consults you when they buy or sell coins for their collection.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's a matter of probabilities, not certainties. Look at the list I referenced from my prior post. This will inform you why I told you what I did.
But you can see them and all you have to do is look. This is something I've been doing since 1965 so I just have a huge headstart on you. It is the subject of most of my posts when I observe things like modern collections almost never come into coin shops. People don't collect BU clads so they don't come into coin shops and on the rare occasion they do the dealer tells them to just spend the coins. You can see it in the pricing of nice Gem '84 cents with pleasing surfaces which may not exist but list for $12 a roll or 24c each. You can see it in samples of circulating dimes that should contain a certain number but every sample contains only 30% of that number. You can see it in how the handful of surviving mint sets still swamps the demand.
I never make any claim primarily or entirely due to my personal experience like you do. What I wrote in the extract to which you replied isn't just due to personal observation.
Once again, look at the list of factors correlated to survivorship referenced from my prior post. I will post it again if you don't want to look for it. It's not based upon my personal preference (like so many of your claims) or the result of my personal experience. It's a logical extrapolation of how people and collectors are generally known to act. Anyone can compare these factors to the aggregate data and confirm what I told you.
The primary reason for large scale hoarding (not collecting) of 1933-1964 US silver coinage is because it's silver. Maybe a second reason is that the hoarder didn't trust banks. I agree that clad coinage was not hoarded similar to this silver coinage because there was no financial incentive to do it, but this still doesn't lead to your conclusion.
This isn't really true.
B Max Mehl was able to get the entire country interested in coin collecting with thousands of ads in various publications offering $50 for any 1913 V nickels. He was able to sell many thousands of penny boards and other accessories to the public. Saving new coin became more popular after WW I but this mostly involved cents and nickels and many of these were released because of the depression. One promoter attempted to buy the entire production of '31 cents from the San Francisco mint in 1933 to retail. He was rebuffed but most of these coins ended up being hoarded anyway. The mint instituted a policy of having no small mintages which stayed in force until 2009.
Coin collecting spread from these humble roots until most of the baby boom generation were involved by 1964. Book were written on the easy money that could be made by stashing away rolls and bags of "modern" coins. Collectors were an easy scapegoat to blame when the general public began removing all the silver from circulation and FED vaults. This gave them an excuse to destroy modern coin collecting and we have dealt with the repercussions for 60 years despite the fact that no moderns had yet been struck when the mint dealt with the problem with the date freeze that was enacted in 1964!!!!!
People still aren't collecting moderns and there are even more coin collectors today than there were in 1964!!!!
The situation is incredible. We are suffering the sins of our fathers who weren't really responsible for the coin shortage so much as exuberance brought on by a rapidly expanding collector base.
Yes, there was enough silver saved after 1931 to prevent any from being scarce but people quit setting aside coins in 1965. Some moderns are scarce because of poor quality, some are scarce because so few were saved, and some are scarce because of attrition. The simple fact that some are "as common as grains of sand on the beach" simply is irrelevant.
Once again, claiming to know what no one can possibly know. No, of course collectors didn't collect clad coinage in 1982. That's why the US Mint sold several million proof sets during this period and Mint Sets before and for years after. Apparently, these people were routinely buying coins they didn't want the entire time, over and over. Still sell about half a million sets annually now. Yes, I know there were no mint sets in 1982 and 1983.
And again, this isn't really true.
The souvenir sets were made in known quantities that were simply tiny. Yet these sets show up as often as all the privately produced sets combined. The retailers of BU rolls had very thin markets and a coup[le bags of each issue sufficed for all current and most future needs. sure, these retailers were aware the '82 and '83 would sell better and get an extra bag or two. Even if all these sets and coins survived today it would still be insufficient to supply a mass market which is why chBU coins sell on eBay for many multiples of Greysheet. This is why retailers are always sold out. This is why there is no real BU roll market at the wholesale or the retail level. This is why most (of a very few) modern collectors tend to get their coins from mint sets which are fast disappearing.
There are many ways to see how these markets work even without watching them closely for 60 years. You can see supply and pricing. you can compare the incidence of varieties to what is seen in the markets. Are you aware, for instance, that '83-D quarters had a far "N" in "UNUM" 20% of the time but less than 10% of the ones seen "in the wild" have this? This is simply because so many of the ones that you see came from souvenir sets which had none of these but had a mintage of only "20,000". Do the math. There is an implication that the lion's share of these come from only 20,000 sets.
We're not talking about "rare" coins here but we are talking about a supply that is so thin it can't supply a BU roll market. At least it couldn't supply it if there were any substantial demand as would exist if this were a mass market. People have the perception that these are dirt common but the reality is many of these coins are tougher than those made before 1931. People don't collect these because there is a perception that the coins are as common as their mintages. This used to be true because coins were usually saved in proportion to their mintages. New coins have not been systematically set aside by the markets since 1964. Mintages have little to do with availability.
"None of these coins are hard to buy in MS-64 or better. Look at the TPG population data, yet something else you don't know even for US moderns."
I see them from time to time. Did you miss the post in this very thread where I mentioned there was an '82-P in MS-67 that that you couldn't even read "E PLURIBUS UNUM" if you didn't know what to look for.
I do not call this a "Gem. It is a very gemmy (S-64+) example of a very tough coin.
To each his own but those collecting nice attractive clad coins that are mostly clean will want this coin in their MS-64 collection. But it is no Gem. Anyone seeking this date in full strikes from good dies will know most of MS-65 and higher grades are not full solid strikes from good dies.
Were it not for mint sets most '65 to '99 clad would be rare in FS. The '82-P just happens to be one of the toughest and is the toughest post-1969 issue. Conversely the '83-P (25c) is probably the toughest to find clean.
The services grade these on the curve and heavily weight a lack of marking from after the strike. This means that some unattractive coins can get high grades.
This coin isn't much better than typical except it is fairly clean.
I apologize to the owner since it is a nice coin and even stands out as such. But it isn't very attractive, is poorly struck, and the dies were worn out.
Those who think they can find better should buy rolls and rolls of these until they do. Oh wait, there are no rolls so good luck. Maybe you can get souvenir set owners to cut up their sets for $5.875 each. Oh wait, I forgot, I sampled enough of these souvenir sets to know they are the worst place to look for Gems. chBU's are lousy in the souvenir sets but forget Gems. It's just as well since these sets sell for $60.
It's hardly a surprise that people who believe all moderns are too common to collect also believe they all exist in high grades too. Here we have a market that is almost totally devoid of supply and demand because people think rarities like 1982-P Gem quarters can be found in any MS-67 holder and that dozens and dozens of nice chGem '69 quarters can easily be found if you just search a few of the millions and millions of mint sets.
Meanwhile these coins have all been suffering high attrition since they were made. If there were any Gem '82-P quarters made in 1982 by the end of 1983 more than 99% of them would be degraded. By the end of 1985 another 99% would be degraded. Even TODAY if there are any well struck Gems the attrition is probably about 2% annually. This staggering attrition is the result of neglect and a consumer culture. More moderns are consumed than collected.
Imagine there was a '50-S nickel that was made in the hundreds of millions like the '64-D. Imagine this coin was so common in circulation and such poor quality that it simply wasn't saved. Every nickel folder sold by Whitman had a plug in thespot for the '50-S that read not "Rare" but rather "Far Too Common to Collect". Indeed, it was so common that by 1964 it still comprised a large percentage of all circulating nickels. Then in 2025 it was suddenly realized by the market that BU rolls were almost impossible to locate and it was tougher than the '50-D in every single grade except for the AG's that still circulated and could be found in almost every single roll in circulation. Gem FS '50-S nickels are found to be rare not because none at all were saved but because such a tiny percentage o9f the mintage was well made.
This is essentially the case with almost every nickel made after 1965. It is the case with almost every single clad coin made for circulation before 1999. It is the case for some of the copper cents and most of the zinc pennies.
Sure many moderns can be found by the roll but the ones that can are the common dates. And don't forget that almost every roll seen came from mint sets. Most mint sets have been destroyed and the coins put into circulation and a few saved in BU rolls.
Sure the '82-P quarter is no '50-S nickel because it drew everyone's attention by 1985. Lots and lots of nice chAU and beautiful XF's survive because of this. Indeed, most collectors have XF and AU's in their collections because attractive BU's aren't available for bid price and most companies substitute lower grade coins. The unattractive BU's aren't common either and are hard to find in the kind of quantity that wholesalers need when they assemble sets. Most of these sets are then sold for substantially more than bid price into a consumer society. Many of the buyers will turn into real collectors but then they rarely get much encouragement from the local dealer or the status quo in the hobby. They are about as welcome as shady looking character with a few rolls of '50-S nickels to sell.
I can only speak from experience. Occasionally, I will buy 20 or 30 mint sets from various vendors and send them into PCGS for bulk grading. I’ve built a couple of decently ranked registry sets with plenty of tied top pop coins. I will say that this is a money loser and I would never recommend that someone do it.
The primary reason for large scale hoarding (not collecting) of 1933-1964 US silver coinage is because it's silver. Maybe a second reason is that the hoarder didn't trust banks. I agree that clad coinage was not hoarded similar to this silver coinage because there was no financial incentive to do it, but this still doesn't lead to your conclusion.
This isn't really true.
B Max Mehl was able to get the entire country interested in coin collecting with thousands of ads in various publications offering $50 for any 1913 V nickels. He was able to sell many thousands of penny boards and other accessories to the public. Saving new coin became more popular after WW I but this mostly involved cents and nickels and many of these were released because of the depression. One promoter attempted to buy the entire production of '31 cents from the San Francisco mint in 1933 to retail. He was rebuffed but most of these coins ended up being hoarded anyway. The mint instituted a policy of having no small mintages which stayed in force until 2009.
Roll "collecting" isn't actual collecting. It's hoarding. A low or very low number may or will "collect" rolls presumably because all of this coinage (post 1933 US) is so easy to buy except using arbitrary criteria that it can be bought in one day. Its' another artificial challenge not much different than "lowball" collecting.
You're trying to explain away the silver preference because you disagree that a metal preference should exist. The current supply of 1933-1964 US coinage wouldn't have been hoarded after 1965 and exist in current supply in current quality if silver hadn't been removed.
That's nonsense. Just like the majority of clad supply isn't readily visible, neither is most 1933-1964 silver. Some or much of it might or was melted, but the majority of the later silver dates still probably exist mostly in AU or better.
Once again, claiming to know what no one can possibly know. No, of course collectors didn't collect clad coinage in 1982. That's why the US Mint sold several million proof sets during this period and Mint Sets before and for years after. Apparently, these people were routinely buying coins they didn't want the entire time, over and over. Still sell about half a million sets annually now. Yes, I know there were no mint sets in 1982 and 1983.
There are many ways to see how these markets work even without watching them closely for 60 years. You can see supply and pricing. you can compare the incidence of varieties to what is seen in the markets. Are you aware, for instance, that '83-D quarters had a far "N" in "UNUM" 20% of the time but less than 10% of the ones seen "in the wild" have this? This is simply because so many of the ones that you see came from souvenir sets which had none of these but had a mintage of only "20,000". Do the math. There is an implication that the lion's share of these come from only 20,000 sets.
We're not talking about "rare" coins here but we are talking about a supply that is so thin it can't supply a BU roll market. At least it couldn't supply it if there were any substantial demand as would exist if this were a mass market. People have the perception that these are dirt common but the reality is many of these coins are tougher than those made before 1931. People don't collect these because there is a perception that the coins are as common as their mintages. This used to be true because coins were usually saved in proportion to their mintages. New coins have not been systematically set aside by the markets since 1964. Mintages have little to do with availability.
I'm not referring to varieties or other specialization. That's irrelevant to the topic. There is nothing unusual in the scarcity of any variety or other specialization. It's the norm.
You don't even know the TPG data. Or what's on eBay. If you don't even know that, no you don't know what you claim to know.
eBay and the TPG data, both of which usually aren’t representative either, are a lot more representative of the supply than anything you have ever seen. More representative than the inventory of every coin shop you’ve visited in your entire life combined, your 50+ years of CRH, and all collectors and dealers you spoke to combined too.
The supply of 1965-1998 US moderns, clad coinage, or any date/MM combination is only "thin" compared to 1933-1964 US coinage. That’s why you framed this thread in the context of roll “collecting”. There is never going be any actual roll collecting of this coinage at scale because roll "collecting" isn't actual collecting and no motive exists to hoard base metals at scale at current prices.
Coin for coin, I'd estimate the number and percentage of US moderns scarcer versus pre-1933 US in equivalent TPG quality (not yours) is really low. It's not evident because of the price difference.
@cladking said:
It's hardly a surprise that people who believe all moderns are too common to collect also believe they all exist in high grades too. Here we have a market that is almost totally devoid of supply and demand because people think rarities like 1982-P Gem quarters can be found in any MS-67 holder and that dozens and dozens of nice chGem '69 quarters can easily be found if you just search a few of the millions and millions of mint sets.
I never said anything about "gem" quality. But since you brought it up, PCGS has 47 grading events for the 82-P quarter in MS-67 or better (2+, 2 in "68") but now you're going to claim this isn't good enough either. NGC with 27 more (2 in "68"). This isn't a low number for a coin with this TPG label, except versus 1933-1964 US classics and 21st century coinage generally. Did you even look it up before making this claim?
Look at the TPG data. Now ask yourself, where were all those coins (not just US) before it was graded? Of the thousands of coin types and several hundred thousand as a date, I can infer you’ve never seen at least a substantial minority even once in your life, so how does it exist? Why didn’t you see it in the inventory of any dealers you visited (which I know you didn't and you've already admitted it in prior threads) since the US is usually the primary market for it? How do you explain the TPG data when you never saw most of this coinage, either at all or in rough proportion to the supply?
So, I'm supposed to believe the clad market is "thin" even with so many high population, much older, much lower mintage world coinage with a much lower probability of survival existing in current supply. Large number in high quality (for the coin) exist for ancient Greek and Roman, Byzantine Solidus, 1754 Mexico pillar dollars, 1540's Mexico Carlos & Joanna 4R, and 1821 Guatemala minors but US clad coinage is "supply constrained" as you claim because clad wasn't collected.
You can't explain it because US collecting doesn’t revolve around your local dealer, and you can’t CRH any coin in someone’s collection or “change jar”. That's still your frame of reference even with the internet even as you tell me I'm "stuck in the 60's". Look at your posts just in this thread.
You’ve been looking in the wrong place at the wrong time for 50+ years apparently without even knowing it. That’s the actual reason you don’t see this coinage for what it actually is, as really common. You should have looked on the internet (mostly eBay) for the last 25 years, not where you did.
You could literally dump all FRB and bank vaults into a giant pool, dive into it like Scrooge McDuck, and your observations still wouldn’t be representative because the coins you are looking for are almost entirely somewhere else.
I do not call this a "Gem. It is a very gemmy (S-64+) example of a very tough coin.
You said MS-64. This coin is an MS-67 by TPG standards which to 99% of the collector base is good enough. Your grading standards are exactly that, yours.
There are two other listings, one with 30 and one with 20, both described as "BU". @$100+ with a 30-day return privilege, I'd guess it's good enough for 99% of the collector base too.
Roll "collecting" isn't actual collecting. It's hoarding. A low or very low number may or will "collect" rolls presumably because all of this coinage (post 1933 US) is so easy to buy except using arbitrary criteria that it can be bought in one day. Its' another artificial challenge not much different than "lowball" collecting.
You're trying to explain away the silver preference because you disagree that a metal preference should exist. The current supply of 1933-1964 US coinage wouldn't have been hoarded after 1965 and exist in current supply in current quality if silver hadn't been removed.
That's nonsense. Just like the majority of clad supply isn't readily visible, neither is most 1933-1964 silver. Some or much of it might or was melted, but the majority of the later silver dates still probably exist mostly in AU or better.
Isn't your concept that you can't collect rolls but must collect silver contradictory.
I believe there is room in the hobby for everyone. If I were selling BU rolls (want any) I wouldn't question the reasons the buyer had for seeking them any more than I'd doubt anyone's motives fore buying Morgan dollars.
I doubt a BU roll market is going to exist because of supply constraints. Certainly a wholesale market but not retail.
eBay and the TPG data, both of which usually aren’t representative either, are a lot more representative of the supply than anything you have ever seen. More representative than the inventory of every coin shop you’ve visited in your entire life combined, your 50+ years of CRH, and all collectors and dealers you spoke to combined too.
I'm not a CRH.
Some moderns can only be found as BU rolls and singles but otherwise I have had little interest in seeking or acquiring BU rolls of moderns. I've always picked them up hen they are stupid cheap, and they usually are, but (did I mention) I almost never see any BU rolls at all.
I collect Gem and variety moderns. I seek scarcity, quality, and completeness. Much of what I find comes from poking through mint sets but one must know where to look.
I live in a consumer world where most coin collectors thought that moderns could save themselves because mintages were so high and demand so low. Now, exactly as I have been warning for decades the coins did not save themselves. They have been consumed instead.
"Look at the TPG data. Now ask yourself, where were all those coins (not just US) before it was graded? Of the thousands of coin types and several hundred thousand as a date, I can infer you’ve never seen at least a substantial minority even once in your life, so how does it exist? Why didn’t you see it in the inventory of any dealers you visited (which I know you didn't and you've already admitted it in prior threads) since the US is usually the primary market for it? How do you explain the TPG data when you never saw most of this coinage, either at all or in rough proportion to the supply?"
I think you might have forgotten all of these coins were minted in the hundreds of millions. Of course I didn't look at every one. But I have enough scientific understanding to know that anything can be sampled and this is what I did. For instance I saw at least one 1982-P souvenir set from several dozen sources and these sources included as many as "30" sets. From this I learned there are no true Gems in the '82 souvenir set despite the fact that a large percentage of coins grade high come from this source. I can't run between the rain drops and my sample size was sufficiently large that I should have gotten wet.
I also have seen examples of virtually every die for this date in XF or better condition. Most dies I have seen in a range of die states with many in BU. From this I know few 1982-P quarter dies ever struck a single Gem. I simply can't account for how many got out of the mint without the typical scratching and gouging. THIS can't be sampled. It can only be estimated based on sampling but I saw too few BU rolls, singles and sets to make a good estimate. Suffice to say very few coins made it out so it's highly improbable that any given clean coin was actually saved.
This is life in the real world when there are virtually no collectors. Each individual has to work it out for himself and this is still the real when it concerns understand the prices listed for BU rolls. Just because any given BU roll lists for close to face value hardly means it is common and therefore undesirable. I might only mean that there are unlikely to be any "BU's" in the roll and they aren't skunked. It might just mean that the tiny supply dwarfs the miniscule demand. It might mean anything except that the roll is readily available. Most BU rolls of moderns are scarce and those that do exist are usually assembled from mint sets.
You said MS-64. This coin is an MS-67 by TPG standards which to 99% of the collector base is good enough. Your grading standards are exactly that, yours.
I'm not the one who keeps telling people how and what they should collect.
The fact that you can't even read the reverse unless you already know what it says is important to some collectors. I personally like razor sharp strikes on my coins but to each his own.
Isn't your concept that you can't collect rolls but must collect silver contradictory.
I believe there is room in the hobby for everyone. If I were selling BU rolls (want any) I wouldn't question the reasons the buyer had for seeking them any more than I'd doubt anyone's motives fore buying Morgan dollars.
I doubt a BU roll market is going to exist because of supply constraints. Certainly a wholesale market but not retail.
I'm not claiming silver roll buying is collecting. that's what you are implying.
As usual in these topics, you're writing in hypotheticals about abstract collectors who do not exist. If anyone collects as you claim, it has no relevance to this thread because it's not going to result in the outcome you imply.
Whether you want to call it "collecting", hoarding, or speculation is semantics. The majority of roll buying is for financial reasons, not because actual collectors find owning dozen to thousands of the same coin so interesting as a collectible. It's no different for US moderns vs. any other coin. There weren't and aren't hundreds of thousands to millions buying 50's and 60's US silver rolls for collecting. It's predominantly or entirely due to the metal content which you disregard because you don't think a metal preference should exist.
I think you might have forgotten all of these coins were minted in the hundreds of millions. Of course I didn't look at every one. But I have enough scientific understanding to know that anything can be sampled and this is what I did. For instance I saw at least one 1982-P souvenir set from several dozen sources and these sources included as many as "30" sets. From this I learned there are no true Gems in the '82 souvenir set despite the fact that a large percentage of coins grade high come from this source. I can't run between the rain drops and my sample size was sufficiently large that I should have gotten wet.
No, I didn't forget the mintages. It's one my primary arguments against your claims. Obviously, there is a high correlation between current supply and mintage. You are claiming otherwise due to your unrepresentative personal experience and erroneous assumptions. Now, you're implying that the **survival rates **for US moderns are lower than the profile I described which is nonsensical.
Whenever we discuss scarcity, your context is almost entirely US moderns vs. 1933-1964 US classics and the world coinage you call “modern” (post-WWII) vs. “old” world coinage, roughly 1900-1945. That's irrelevant to what I told you because the circumstances which account for the current supply of this coinage are entirely different.
The survival of the coins I listed is effectively a random event. Outside of maybe MS-67s and the few MS-68, this doesn't apply to US moderns because your assumptions are wrong. The coins fitting my profile didn’t survive in current quality as a result of so many collectors at the time, it’s not due to preservation for centuries because it was so valuable, and it doesn’t survive in current quality because it’s gold or silver either. Practically all of these coins were worth nominal amounts or premiums to the metal content up until at least the beginning of 1930’s US mass market collecting (regardless of potential TPG grade) with limited if any organized collecting locally.
True story...
This year one of my Chase banks happened to have a few dozen American Innovation dollar U.S. Mint rolls.
I bought them all.
I sold them very recently for about 1.5 to 2 times the face value (each) I paid for them. Buyers paid for shipping.
I love modern BU rolls...and I collect them...and sometimes open them and send coins off for grading.
My collection of them is mostly from the 60's to present.
I have a lot of modern BU rolls from both vendors like Loomis and the Mint.
Coins are Neato!
"If it's a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone...somewhere...is making a penny." - Steven Wright
I looked thru an est 70,000 Ebay auctions over six months to find a half dozen VAM's
I picked up a couple random quarter rolls at a show and hit the top two pops in an evening at the dinner table.
Nice scores that all netted about the same. One averaged $3 per hour and the other $3000 per hour.
At every show I attend, there are basically no other public attendees pouring over proof and mint sets. Dealers almost always have a sunken look as they hand them over.
With effort, I can always find some quality.
There are no shortage PF66's Halves that regrettably get left behind after the last cull.
Simply because it is cost prohibitive due to there being no market (graded or raw).
Just don't see a collector base.
Maybe I should be stocking up on these sets and break them up.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Maybe I should be stocking up on these sets and break them up.
The way I figure it is very simple. It might be all wrong but it's very simple.
Somehow or other they managed to sell about two million of each date. Over the years due to attrition and mintages there are now about half a million of each date. The population of the country today is up more than 50% from what it was in 1965. Half a million is a lot of coins but every year millions more of these sets are destroyed or degraded and every year since 1999 the demand for BU singles has been increasing.
There simply must be a reckoning eventually and when it comes the supply will be completely eradicated. There simply aren't collections of these coins except those being actively worked. Demand already is becoming substantial and there will be almost no supply. The BU roll market is evidence demand is becoming substantial. Meanwhile the mint set supply seems inexhaustible because of high mintage and low demand. By low demand I merely mean very few collectors are seeking the sets, only the individual coins they contain.
When sellers start having trouble stocking all the mint sets you'll know it's time. It will be time because these changes never occur naturally. When there aren't enough sets to provide the coins in demand there will be opportunistic buying, speculative demand, and panic buying by collectors and retailers.
This simply isn't 1990 any longer. In the old days if you wanted a nice 1971 dime you could just get a few rolls at the bank and find a nice XF well made coin. Such coins don't exist any longer. If you can find one in circulation at all it will be worn out and scratched up. There's a fair chance it will be a cull as well. So if you want a nice example you have little chance but to check mint sets where they are like shooting fish in a barrel. Without restoration about 10% of mint set '71 dimes are pretty nice and if you clean them it's closer to 40%.
All those astronomical mintages are gone. the '71 set has suffered more than half a century of attrition during much of which time the set was worth less than face value so they were just cut up and spent. The 160 million mintage has been whittled down to 40 million very tired and ugly coin. These were intended to last only 30 years in circulation. The survivors have exceeded this spectacularly because they wear like iron. They are strong, light, and very highly durable.
@Kurisu said:
True story...
This year one of my Chase banks happened to have a few dozen American Innovation dollar U.S. Mint rolls.
I bought them all.
I sold them very recently for about 1.5 to 2 times the face value (each) I paid for them. Buyers paid for shipping.
I love modern BU rolls...and I collect them...and sometimes open them and send coins off for grading.
My collection of them is mostly from the 60's to present.
I have a lot of modern BU rolls from both vendors like Loomis and the Mint.
Most of these clad rolls are really difficult to find and have been all along. The post 1999 rolls and bicentennial rolls are the only ones I've ever seen regularly in coin shops. Once in a while I'd see a bank roll in the old days but these just didn't sell and accumulated in inventory so dealers busted them up and put then in the cash register. Most of the clad rolls I've seen over the years were mint set rolls.
I’ve always had a soft spot for original, unopened bank rolls - going back over 20 years. It’s not that hard to find silver rolls. It’s not hard to find vintage cent rolls in original bank wrap. But it is so rare to find a 1965-1998 nickel, dime, or quarter roll in unopened original bank wrap except maybe bicentenial quarters. I don’t know if it’s lack of supply or lack of demand but there are virtually no unopened 1970s-1990s rolls on eBay. I think a clad roll set in original unopened bank rolls would be sneaky impossible to put together.
I got shipped about 500 (“fresh”) mint sets from1968-1990 the other day and I noticed 121 of them were 1968 sets. I was charged $4.50/set for those. I see that the 50C melts today at $3.66. Then deducting the other coins at face value, I think I spent a grand total of ONE CENT net per set to buy these 1,200+ BU coins from 54 years ago (to hunt for varieties and high grade examples). So, now, for example, I have just shy of (5) fresh rolls of 1968 P and D dimes in total. If I was going to sell them unsearched what would be a fair asking price? GS says they are only worth $10/roll. What does Cladking think? $50/roll? $100/roll in the next 5 years? Repeat this process every week for the next 5 -10 years and retire wealthy? Or, retire with nothing more than a mountain of change needing to be cashed out at the local bank (hopefully)? Thoughts?
Wondercoin
Edited to add - I just watched a 1971-P 50C in “only” MS67 grade just auction at the “world record price” of over $3,400.00 with 3 different bidders each bidding over $2,750.00 for the coin! Congratulations to the winning bidder!
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
Then deducting the other coins at face value, I think I spent a grand total of ONE CENT net per set to buy these 1,200+ BU coins from 54 years ago (to hunt for varieties and high grade examples). So, now, for example, I have just shy of (5) fresh rolls of 1968 P and D dimes in total. If I was going to sell them unsearched what would be a fair asking price? GS says they are only worth $10/roll. What does Cladking think? $50/roll? $100/roll in the next 5 years?
It's madness.
I just have time for a few quick comments about the '68 dime rolls. First let me say you have two or three '68 DDO dimes in the Philly rolls. These appear once in about 45 sets so are far scarcer than the '16-D dime is today. Out of the 121 Philly dimes about 115 need cleaning to even be sold as BU. Most of the rest would benefit from cleaning. About 40 of these are ugly and for some reason these coins and five or ten others are not salvageable because every method to clean them leaves them a mess. The rest of the coins look pretty good as chBU but Gems are rather elusive and FB are very scarce.
The '68 mint set has one of the highest of all attritions in part because of the tarnish but mostly because they are cut up for the half dollars and there are no recognized tough coins from the date. They are just ignored and abused.
I used to always figure the '82, '69-D, or '71 issues would be the best dimes in really choice BU condition but in recent years it's becoming apparent the '68 will surpass them despite the existence of a few BU rolls that some saved when mint marks were restored. BU rolls of this date almost invariably have "50" ugly coins in it unless it is short.
In MS-60 it's a better date but in MS-64 it will be almost as elusive as MS-65 or MS-66. Even in MS-63 it will be much tougher coin.
The'68-D is a great coin too, but it often comes nice and most mint set coins clean up to be MS-63 or better. There are many Gems.
I have no idea how high the Philly can go if dealers start trying to stock these coins. I could make some guesses but the bottom line is there aren't more than a few rolls available at this time. There's no clearing house to call to beg borrow or steal a dozen rolls or even a single roll.
I've already sold the lion's share of my dimes but these (Phillys) went back into a safety deposit box. They went in right along with the DDO's a FB or two and a handful of chGems. I hope to sell all these too but I can't at today's prices. My heirs can take them to the bank with no more effort than I'd have to. ...They're already there.
‘’My heirs can take them to the bank with no more effort than I'd have to. ...They're already there.’’
If I am around, I’ll pay 12 cents per dime for every one you tucked away in the bank as a potential winner! Tell your heirs they can count on 20% over face on those and to not give them to the teller ! 😉
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
‘’My heirs can take them to the bank with no more effort than I'd have to. ...They're already there.’’
If I am around, I’ll pay 12 cents per dime for every one you tucked away in the bank as a potential winner! Tell your heirs they can count on 20% over face on those and to not give them to the teller ! 😉
Wondercoin.
Wholesale is 20c right now!!!
They are offered at 6X wholesale on eBay if you don't mind ugly coins.
@wondercoin said:
‘’Wholesale is 20c right now!!!’’
Ok… 21C each to your heirs!!
Wondercoin
That's the madness. Shipping the coins costs more than they're worth. Then figure twenty dollars apiece to do a good job of cleaning them and you need a lot of volume to make any profit at all.
@johnnyb said:
I’ve always had a soft spot for original, unopened bank rolls - going back over 20 years. It’s not that hard to find silver rolls. It’s not hard to find vintage cent rolls in original bank wrap. But it is so rare to find a 1965-1998 nickel, dime, or quarter roll in unopened original bank wrap except maybe bicentenial quarters. I don’t know if it’s lack of supply or lack of demand but there are virtually no unopened 1970s-1990s rolls on eBay. I think a clad roll set in original unopened bank rolls would be sneaky impossible to put together.
In the old days I used to see some nickel rolls. The availability was very spotty as you'd see lots of '72-D rolls but almost no '71 or '76 rolls. I'd guess as many as a million and as few as a quarter million were saved of most dates. Quality of the rolls was also very spotty with some being nice chBU and others being poorly made dinged up beasts. I saw a very few half dollar and Ike rolls but almost no dime or quarter rolls. A lot of these were saved in '65 to '67 but when owners realized there was just no market for them most were released to circulation. You couldn't give them away. If there were any collectors they just got specimens from the high quality SMS (sets) rather than the junk that was in the rolls. The '67 quarter roll is quite scarce today.
A lot of the post-'99 coins are highly desirable and "hard" to find in rolls so many of them sell at strong prices especially on eBay.
Some coins and most varieties don't exist in mint sets so BU rolls are a necessary component of modern coin collecting. But if you're looking for varieties of '65 to '99 clad be advised that there are almost no original rolls and what you see come from mint sets.
Many collectors think the mint sets are all picked over but this generally is not true. Now days most of the valuable major varieties have been identified and removed and some of the Gems (especially in the SMS's) but almost every batch has numerous nice coins. They assume they are picked over but the reality is most of the coins in these sets were mediocre the day they left the mint. Time hasn't helped them at all.
The reason they aren't picked over is that mint sets rarely retail. Most are just destroyed when they come on the market whether they are Gem or beast.
Just don't see a collector base.
It's still a very small collector base but it grows every day. This base is still swamped by the supply but I believe that the emergence of a BU roll market signals the end of the days of of cheap raw moderns. There just aren't enough 1971 mint sets any longer for each collector to bust up half a dozen of them to get nice chBU coins for his collection.
Maybe I should be stocking up on these sets and break them up.
Maybe not. Up until a couple years ago you could get them cheap but now it would require more effort and more money. It's still entirely possible there will never be a mass market for moderns. I've watched this play out in very slow motion for decades. The last sign of an impending explosion in interest will be when the scarce coins and sets pull away from the pack because of collector demand. I'm still not seeing this much. I see more interest in the tough coins but no price pressure.
@WCC said:
There weren't and aren't hundreds of thousands to millions buying 50's and 60's US silver rolls for collecting. It's predominantly or entirely due to the metal content which you disregard because you don't think a metal preference should exist.
Sure there were and are. The '50-D nickel that you consider distressingly common and has more than a million examples extant sells for $300 per roll just because it's minted before 1965. Many of the post-'64 nickels are scarcer in Unc and sell at prices starting at $3 a roll. This simply cuts across the board.
No, I didn't forget the mintages. It's one my primary arguments against your claims. Obviously, there is a high correlation between current supply and mintage. You are claiming otherwise due to your unrepresentative personal experience and erroneous assumptions. Now, you're implying that the **survival rates **for US moderns are lower than the profile I described which is nonsensical.
This correlation broke down in 1965. The correlation between scarcity and price doesn't apply to most coins made after 1964 either.
Whenever we discuss scarcity, your context is almost entirely US moderns vs. 1933-1964 US classics and the world coinage you call “modern” (post-WWII) vs. “old” world coinage, roughly 1900-1945. That's irrelevant to what I told you because the circumstances which account for the current supply of this coinage are entirely different.
>
I could compare availability of moderns against old US coins as well. I don't usually for two good reasons; I know more about how many '31-S dimes there are than 1854 cents. Also my estimates of the populations of older coins is considered too high by most collectors. It's harder to support my estimates of the numbers of older coins.
The survival of the coins I listed is effectively a random event. Outside of maybe MS-67s and the few MS-68, this doesn't apply to US moderns because your assumptions are wrong. The coins fitting my profile didn’t survive in current quality as a result of so many collectors at the time, it’s not due to preservation for centuries because it was so valuable, and it doesn’t survive in current quality because it’s gold or silver either. Practically all of these coins were worth nominal amounts or premiums to the metal content up until at least the beginning of 1930’s US mass market collecting (regardless of potential TPG grade) with limited if any organized collecting locally.
Have you ever read B Max Mehl's catalogs? Try the 1927 edition if you can find it. These coins had little value and being in pristine condition wasn't valued as highly as it is today. They survived because collectors cared for them despite their limited value.
Sure there were and are. The '50-D nickel that you consider distressingly common and has more than a million examples extant sells for $300 per roll just because it's minted before 1965. Many of the post-'64 nickels are scarcer in Unc and sell at prices starting at $3 a roll. This simply cuts across the board.
Of course back in the '80's and '90's people told me that the difference was that it was easy to find a 1972 (Philly) nickel in circulation so why would anyone pay a large premium for a specimen just for a nice chBU. Have you tried looking for a 1972 nickel recently. ^The attrition on these make them hard to find and the degradation caused by decades of abuse and neglect assure you will have a lot of work before you can find a nice attractive VF. The local coin shop won't even have a chBU and they most assuredly won't stock a nice VF. Indeed, almost every single VF '72 nickel is hiding in circulation.
Fortunately if you want this date it's easily found in nice attractive condition in most '72 mint sets. These coins aren't even tarnished usually because there was a better plastic used for this date. More than 2/ 3rds of them are quite attractive but it's still scarcer than the '50-D and lists at $4.25 per roll.
I searched eBay for '72 nickel rolls. There were two available. Before anyone tells me these are so common no one bothers to sell them these rolls were listed at 8X Greysheet bid. I also searched for '50-D nickel rolls and there were a lot more at prices that looked reasonable for their quality relative Greysheet bid. One seller had already sold more than a dozen rolls.
People seem to be waking up to the fact that these coins sell for much more than Greysheet and that they are scarcer than is assumed. Obviously they aren't rare and more and more will be offered. But they are still tougher than the '50-D nickel. There are more '50-D nickels than many of the post-64 issues and no amount of further neglect and abuse is likely to change that. We will not be seeing people spending rolls of '50-D's but every day more and more '72 nickels are lost or degraded.
@wondercoin said:
I got shipped about 500 (“fresh”) mint sets from1968-1990 the other day and I noticed 121 of them were 1968 sets. I was charged $4.50/set for those. I see that the 50C melts today at $3.66. Then deducting the other coins at face value, I think I spent a grand total of ONE CENT net per set to buy these 1,200+ BU coins from 54 years ago (to hunt for varieties and high grade examples). So, now, for example, I have just shy of (5) fresh rolls of 1968 P and D dimes in total. If I was going to sell them unsearched what would be a fair asking price? GS says they are only worth $10/roll. What does Cladking think? $50/roll? $100/roll in the next 5 years? Repeat this process every week for the next 5 -10 years and retire wealthy? Or, retire with nothing more than a mountain of change needing to be cashed out at the local bank (hopefully)? Thoughts?
Wondercoin
Edited to add - I just watched a 1971-P 50C in “only” MS67 grade just auction at the “world record price” of over $3,400.00 with 3 different bidders each bidding over $2,750.00 for the coin! Congratulations to the winning bidder!
These are the deals that fit my budget and primary interest. Guess there are wholesale dealers for every niche.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
I personally consider "gemmy" to be the lowest grade to collect clad. I don't know about other collectors but I do know nice coins sell faster than junk. Many moderns are very tough in MS-64 or better which is my preferred grade. Saying they are available doesn't create them.
There is at least some anecdotal evidence to support the belief that Nice attractive chBU and MS-64 and better is actually the preferred grade to collect clad. Most people describe the condition of the typical mint set coin as 'mediocre" at best. While mint set coins are well made by new dies they are usually scratched up quite a bit. Not all are even well struck and some dates suffer from extensive chicken scratches. These are the planchet flaws retained when the strike pressure is insufficient and usually manifest around the periphery on moderns. Many modern mint set coins have surface issues which have many causes including rough dies. And, of course, most coins of some dates are tarnished.
Where coins made for circulation tended to be ugly poorly struck and banged up messes especially in the early years mint set coins were very often well made and nicely preserved. This can range anywhere from 5% to 60% of production. A '72-D dime is typically a nice looking coin and still is. A '76 dollar was nice only 10% of the time and now is almost always tarnished in the 1975 mint set.
Clad dates that are poorly made tend to wholesale less than the dates that are well made. I suspect this is due to the fact that there will be only a few nice coins in rolls of the poorly made dates. Of course this is greatly complicated by collectors who are seeking specific varieties and saving rates which were highly variable from date to date and mint to mint.
Most collectors always have cared about quality even before this modern penchant to seek only the best for any coin.
When this thread started there was a major retailer offering to sell a '92-P nickel roll for 11X Greysheet. This is a coin that comes bad in rolls and usually has a lot of scratches in the mint set. It bids at only $18 but it is tough to locate. The mint sets are cheap though.
It's hard to figure these markets even if you keep up with them.
Forum discussions about collecting clad coinage and the value of modern clad coinage is always interesting. I have enjoyed reading Cladking's posts on this topic for many, many years.
Today, upon reading updated posts to this thread I was reminded of a Twilight Zone episode that is similar to collecting clad coinage.
In the Twilight Zone episode the central character was a man who went through his life wanting to "be somebody". He dreamed of being well known, admired and the object of the attention of others. As he lived his life he never achieved his goal. He was isolated, single, alone and unaccomplished. He lived a solitary, lonely, mundane life. He never strived to do anything. His desires continued, unfulfilled. However, he did take good care of his possessions and never got rid of anything. His possessions (obtained from his childhood forward) were so well taken care of that one could say that they were almost in "mint in box" condition.
As the man grew older and entered his 80's or 90's, his life changed.
One day he had a random encounter with another person who was much younger than him. This younger person's encounter with the man included having the man invite him onto/into his property (where his possessions were located). Upon seeing the possessions of the man the younger person was stunned at what he saw (essentially a museum of "mint in box" items made years/decades ago; all of which had become popular items that were nostalgic).
The younger person convinced the man to agree to publicly share his "collection" of vintage items. As word of this collection spread public attention was focused on the collection and also on the man who built it, cared for it and now shared it. Events were planned to publicly display the collection; and during these events the man (now dressed in a new suit, with a new haircut, etc.) finally received what he always desired.
For those collectors who have collected MS examples of clad coinage since 1965 and 1966 (looking for and setting aside the best examples one could find), they might one day be in the position of the man in the Twilight Zone episode mentioned above (if demand for MS clad coins go through the roof by newer younger collectors who just have to have an MS66 1969P quarter).
Apropos of nothing in particular one of my greatest fears is to gain notoriety. Everything I've done has intentionally been below every radar. I may not have accomplished every goal i set out to but have achieved numerous successes as life offered them. I probably shouldn't even be singing the praises of clad but I am "Pretender to the Throne".
MS-66 '69 quarters have proven their rarity and I hardly need to be very concerned with them. I have only a very few stashed away because they are so tough. The '69 quarters relevant to this thread are the MS-64 and 65. While these are much more common than the more spectacular versions these should appeal to the little guy; the mr and mrs collector. There are so few of these coins relative the potential demand. People think there are so many nice attractive '69 quarters that no market could ever demand every one of them but this is very far from the truth. People imagine they exist in the millions but even nominal interest by the general public would absorb every one of them. These aren't like a '31-S dime which come into coin shops in collections, rolls, and random accumulations because tens of thousands of people collected the dimes and almost nobody saved any '69 quarters.
I am exceedingly familiar with the original Twilight Zone.
This seller is offering a 1997-D nickel roll for $174.
It bids at $8 (Greysheet) and is hardly a scarce coin. In rolls it might well be extremely tough but there's a good chance it's compiled from mint sets anyway like almost all clad rolls are and many cent and nickel rolls. People just didn't save rolls or even singles until 1999.
Restocking rolls is going to be extremely difficult in almost all cases. They are extremely tough and there is no wholesale market. I'm wondering who is going to buy such coins and why. They also list a '68-D roll for only $25 that greysheets at $10. I say "only $25" because in order to assemble such a roll requires that you cut up about "75" 1968 mint sets and then clean the coins.
It would sure be interesting to see anyone try to create a retail or wholesale market in BU rolls. It would be most highly disruptive to these exceedingly thin markets. I do believe whether anyone tries or not we're going to see a lot more of these anomalies going forward. The coins simply aren't out there and the demand is. These would be very dangerous markets to try your hand at speculation. Selling coins is many times harder than buying them and this goes double for moderns (unfortunately).
‘’This seller is offering a 1997-D nickel roll for $174. It bids at $8 (Greysheet) and is hardly a scarce coin.’’
And, if you showed that to this particular seller (I have no idea who he is) and offered him 8 1/2x sheet, would he accept $70 (60% “discount”) for his roll? If so, what does that tell you? If he counters, hypothetically at $100, what does that tell you?
I could break up my 121 freshly purchased 1968 mint sets (that I recently bought at 1 CENT NET PER SET) and offer a roll of 1971-D quarters at $250 (or 10x sheet). If so, what does that tell you? And, what does it tell you if I offer a roll of 1971-D quarters at $500? Or even $750? What does any of this really tell you?
Answer: Absolutely nothing -right?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I have been finding so much of what yall are saying to be very true. True super gemmy clad is NOT easy to locate. I’m wrapping up my 7070 modern page and various clad issues via crackouts and it’s not exactly easy. Clad up to and including MS65 is flat out fugly - especially under magnification. Usually banged up all to hell. 66 isn’t much better. 67 starts to get decent and it really takes to 68 for me to be satisfied.
It’s so odd to me how even AU58 silver can look better than 66 clad. And lemme tell you, a lot of pieces even in 68 don’t look awesome. For the 68’s that have a truly clean surface and the solid strike you’d expect, the premiums can be striking. Fortunately for me I have zero issues using the 06-10 satin finish coins to fill holes. They offer great examples, at very high grades, for a much lower cost. That’s been a huge help in my endeavors.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
I read a few pages back that people still aren’t collecting moderns.
Over the past 90 to 110 days I have sold almost everything (90% modern) on the bay. 150 separate lots averaged roughly 100 a piece. Plenty of bidding now but how many were actually collecting versus crack out artists I couldn’t tell you.
99 cent auctions coupled with shoe boxes full of mint sets created a feeding frenzy.
@Coinscratch said:
I read a few pages back that people still aren’t collecting moderns.
Over the past 90 to 110 days I have sold almost everything (90% modern) on the bay. 150 separate lots averaged roughly 100 a piece. Plenty of bidding now but how many were actually collecting versus crack out artists I couldn’t tell you.
99 cent auctions coupled with shoe boxes full of mint sets created a feeding frenzy.
Comments
One of my points is that coins don't suddenly stop suffering attrition just because the current moment has come to be. Coins like the '38-D half dollar were saved in significant quantities, even more than many moderns. But these coins suffered low attrition because they did have a premium. Their 50c or dollar premium in the early '50's was a lot of money so the coins were protected. If an owner dug out a roll and took it to the coin shop it would net most of this premium and the roll would be dispersed to collectors who paid an even larger premium. Only about 1% a year were lost or destroyed (degrade) and most of these through degradation.
Most '38-D half dollars were reasonably well made and most collectors would find the first one they encountered as being good enough for their set.
People didn't set aside '82-P quarters. People didn't collect clad quarters in 1982. There were fewer '82 quarters set aside than the '38 half dollar. Fewer. These coins still aren't protected by a premium because they purportedly wholesale at $6 each and the cost of selling them is higher than this premium. The corner coin shop won't buy them because... ...drum roll please.... ...people still don't collect many clad quarters. A $6 premium is hardly enough to get the coin encapsulated and placed in a safety deposit box.
Even though there were far fewer of the clad quarter saved and the attrition on it is far higher the coin is still has no real premium so is suffering extremely high attrition. Every collector doesn't have a roll of these but the odds of a roll surviving a collector's death are far lower than the odds of an 1804 dollar outliving a collector.
If and when people ever start collecting these coins it's not going to stop the attrition. It will merely cut in half because collectors take care of coins better than circulation, poor storage, or hoarders.
Even the common '34 - '64 coinage was saved in large numbers but almost none of the moderns were and with moderns there's another factor; very poor quality. While there aren't many '82 quarters in original condition many of these coins are really quite ugly. One of the many reasons these weren't saved is that most are ugly. They're STILL ugly and this won't change going forward. While MS-60's are not very common (did I mention these weren't saved) nice attractive well made specimens of what old time collectors thought of as typical are much scarcer. True Gems may not exist because these coins were poorly struck by worn dies and the number of coins saved so small. I've probably put more work into finding these than anyone else and I've never seen one. Nice MS-64 and better coins with mostly full strikes and limited marking are much "rarer" than any of the coins collectors dreamed of finding back when I started in 1957. Almost all of these coins sell for $6. And they cost more than $6 to market.
This is why they go for $100 on eBay I believe.
There are numerous moderns that are even more desirable and sell for even less.
Time just keeps flying. It's not a smooth even flight like a bird because we don't look at it all the time so we perceive it and all of its parts occurring in bounds and leaps. Most collectors haven't looked at any coins made after 1965 and when they do they'll see things have changed and these coins are not what they think they are. There are numerous scarcities that aren't even identified because so few collectors are seeking them. The markets are so highly inefficient that many scarcities still end up going into circulation.
Time never stops and only seems to slow down and speed up. To paraphrase John J Pittman "clad coins are being used up in circulation while mr and mrs collector sleep.". He said this almost 30 years ago which coincidentally is the life expectancy of a clad coin fresh off the dies.
But you can see them and all you have to do is look. This is something I've been doing since 1965 so I just have a huge headstart on you. It is the subject of most of my posts when I observe things like modern collections almost never come into coin shops. People don't collect BU clads so they don't come into coin shops and on the rare occasion they do the dealer tells them to just spend the coins. You can see it in the pricing of nice Gem '84 cents with pleasing surfaces which may not exist but list for $12 a roll or 24c each. You can see it in samples of circulating dimes that should contain a certain number but every sample contains only 30% of that number. You can see it in how the handful of surviving mint sets still swamps the demand.
Everywhere you look you can see it. You're looking at the result of abuse and neglect and then predicting the past. I am well aware these coins are neglected but that's my point; There won't be any to neglect too much longer because they are gone. The new BU roll market is likely just a symptom of this. But the market can't survive unless it can restock and I seriously doubt owners of things like souvenir sets will be willing to cut them up for $6 each. It's just not going to happen nor are people going to cut a couple hundred 1968 mint sets to make one nice roll of dimes. Even were they willing the mint set market isn't deep enough any longer to withstand such pressure.
It's an interesting topic and I know that the OP is as dedicated as they come, but the exhaustive analysis often seems to descend into contradictions.
What the above passage is telling me is that the clad quarters in question sell for $6, aren't worth selling for $6, and that's why they sell for $100 on ebay. 😵💫
To me, rolls and bags feed demand for singles, either current demand or anticipated future demand. If the availability of rolls is limited then the supply for singles will be limited. To determine value, add "demand" to the mix.
If the supply of clad is relatively low, but the demand is also low, everything is in synch.
FWIW, I do think clad is, or will be, worthy of collecting.
Perhaps what I should say is that nice chBU rolls of '82-P quarters should bid for $3500 and ask at $4000.
Rolls that are worth only Greysheet bid are more common than some might believe but they are still a minority of BU '82 rolls. I don't know how to fix this mess but it only arose because the mint has been making so many poor quality clads since day 1. Most collectors don't want the typical roll of '65,66, '68,'69, '70, '70-D, '71, '72, '74, '77, etc quarters because they are ugly. They want coins that are chBU. They want full luster, well made, and attractive coins even if they aren't perfect and most '82-P quarters were not very attractive but some of these were saved anyway,
The existence, even preponderance, of such poor quality rolls is holding back these markets. Even mint set coins which almost always have nice strikes are often otherwise pretty bad.
This specific problem will become increasingly visible if the BU roll market expands. Buyers aren't going to want skunked zincoln rolls at any price. And they certainly won't want ugly '82-P quarter rolls at $3500.
This problem didn't exist with the older coins. Certainly there were a few 1945 merc rolls or '55 nickel rolls that were really bad but they weren't numerous enough to affect pricing for all of the coins. It's wasn't like 1984-D cent rolls where most rolls are bad. Even coins like the '71-S cent are bad in rolls nearly 80% of the time and some rolls are all bad.
The problem with the BU roll market will be strictly lack of supply if the demand persists or increases. Greysheet prices don't always mean much if you want nice choice coins and even where the price is reflective of supply and demand the simple fact is this price is now and always has been determined by a virtually complete lack of demand. you as8imply can't make a few phone calls and fill an order for "50" 1971-D dime rolls or any part of a BU dime roll set. There's no market. Perhaps one is developing. But there are barely enough of these coins to fill a pipeline and nobody who knows these existing markets is going to sell a roll of '82-P chBU quarters for $235. (Except, perhaps, as an experiment
)
Yes, and it's partly and probably mostly because the coins aren't worth the bother of selling. Most people don't share your time preference, the one you have demonstrated in your posts.
None of these coins are hard to buy in MS-64 or better. Look at the TPG population data, yet something else you don't know even for US moderns. If you knew it and understood the factors which correlate to survivorship, you'd never make these claims. Many of the counts are "low" by your standards, but that's almost entirely due to the value, not because of actual scarcity. I've provided examples previously, like 2500+ for 1983-P quarters. That's not a low number and there is no reason to believe this represents more than a tiny fraction of the actual supply.
Aside from your inaccurate assumptions and bias where you disregard plainly evident evidence, you're also not familiar with the actual availability of hardly any coinage.
I've provided numerous examples of much older coinage with far lower mintages and with a much lower probability of survival which isn't hard to buy in high quality. (I provided a fairly comprehensive list of factors in a prior post last year.) This is evident just in the TPG data even where much or most of the collector base doesn't prefer TPG. So obviously if this coinage is documented to exist in current number in this quality, I disagree with your claims and personal experience.
Practically all of the time, the only thing personal experience will confirm is that a coin is common. With the internet. looking as you have during most of your collecting experience, it virtually never means a coin is scarce or even hard to buy. That's why 1933-1964 US classics (your implied baseline of comparison where anything scarcer is "scarce") is available in such large supply.
Price is also highly correlated to availability. That's why legitimately scarce or rare US coinage either isn't hard to buy or is much easier to buy versus comparably scarce non-US coinage. High(er) priced coins are almost always easier to buy versus low priced coins for the same or similar supply.
My only experience with rolls relate to Lincoln Cents. I sent in a roll of RD 56-Ds, and made out well. Sent in rolls of Lincoln Memorials, think average grade was MS 65 or MS 66, and honesty, it appeared that the TPG didn't even look at any of them. There are probably some MS 67 in the mix.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
The primary reason for large scale hoarding (not collecting) of 1933-1964 US silver coinage is because it's silver. Maybe a second reason is that the hoarder didn't trust banks. I agree that clad coinage was not hoarded similar to this silver coinage because there was no financial incentive to do it, but this still doesn't lead to your conclusion.
Once again, claiming to know what no one can possibly know. No, of course collectors didn't collect clad coinage in 1982. That's why the US Mint sold several million proof sets during this period and Mint Sets before and for years after. Apparently, these people were routinely buying coins they didn't want the entire time, over and over. Still sell about half a million sets annually now. Yes, I know there were no mint sets in 1982 and 1983.
No, I don't believe that collectors who were buying both in volume at the time didn't save these coins in large numbers out of circulation just because you don't and didn't see it. No, large number doesn't have to equal pre-1965 US coinage. No one consults you when they buy or sell coins for their collection.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's a matter of probabilities, not certainties. Look at the list I referenced from my prior post. This will inform you why I told you what I did.
I never make any claim primarily or entirely due to my personal experience like you do. What I wrote in the extract to which you replied isn't just due to personal observation.
Once again, look at the list of factors correlated to survivorship referenced from my prior post. I will post it again if you don't want to look for it. It's not based upon my personal preference (like so many of your claims) or the result of my personal experience. It's a logical extrapolation of how people and collectors are generally known to act. Anyone can compare these factors to the aggregate data and confirm what I told you.
This isn't really true.
B Max Mehl was able to get the entire country interested in coin collecting with thousands of ads in various publications offering $50 for any 1913 V nickels. He was able to sell many thousands of penny boards and other accessories to the public. Saving new coin became more popular after WW I but this mostly involved cents and nickels and many of these were released because of the depression. One promoter attempted to buy the entire production of '31 cents from the San Francisco mint in 1933 to retail. He was rebuffed but most of these coins ended up being hoarded anyway. The mint instituted a policy of having no small mintages which stayed in force until 2009.
Coin collecting spread from these humble roots until most of the baby boom generation were involved by 1964. Book were written on the easy money that could be made by stashing away rolls and bags of "modern" coins. Collectors were an easy scapegoat to blame when the general public began removing all the silver from circulation and FED vaults. This gave them an excuse to destroy modern coin collecting and we have dealt with the repercussions for 60 years despite the fact that no moderns had yet been struck when the mint dealt with the problem with the date freeze that was enacted in 1964!!!!!
People still aren't collecting moderns and there are even more coin collectors today than there were in 1964!!!!
The situation is incredible. We are suffering the sins of our fathers who weren't really responsible for the coin shortage so much as exuberance brought on by a rapidly expanding collector base.
Yes, there was enough silver saved after 1931 to prevent any from being scarce but people quit setting aside coins in 1965. Some moderns are scarce because of poor quality, some are scarce because so few were saved, and some are scarce because of attrition. The simple fact that some are "as common as grains of sand on the beach" simply is irrelevant.
I am pretty sure that I socked away some Lincoln Cent rolls from 2009. I'll have to take a look.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
And again, this isn't really true.
The souvenir sets were made in known quantities that were simply tiny. Yet these sets show up as often as all the privately produced sets combined. The retailers of BU rolls had very thin markets and a coup[le bags of each issue sufficed for all current and most future needs. sure, these retailers were aware the '82 and '83 would sell better and get an extra bag or two. Even if all these sets and coins survived today it would still be insufficient to supply a mass market which is why chBU coins sell on eBay for many multiples of Greysheet. This is why retailers are always sold out. This is why there is no real BU roll market at the wholesale or the retail level. This is why most (of a very few) modern collectors tend to get their coins from mint sets which are fast disappearing.
There are many ways to see how these markets work even without watching them closely for 60 years. You can see supply and pricing. you can compare the incidence of varieties to what is seen in the markets. Are you aware, for instance, that '83-D quarters had a far "N" in "UNUM" 20% of the time but less than 10% of the ones seen "in the wild" have this? This is simply because so many of the ones that you see came from souvenir sets which had none of these but had a mintage of only "20,000". Do the math. There is an implication that the lion's share of these come from only 20,000 sets.
We're not talking about "rare" coins here but we are talking about a supply that is so thin it can't supply a BU roll market. At least it couldn't supply it if there were any substantial demand as would exist if this were a mass market. People have the perception that these are dirt common but the reality is many of these coins are tougher than those made before 1931. People don't collect these because there is a perception that the coins are as common as their mintages. This used to be true because coins were usually saved in proportion to their mintages. New coins have not been systematically set aside by the markets since 1964. Mintages have little to do with availability.
"None of these coins are hard to buy in MS-64 or better. Look at the TPG population data, yet something else you don't know even for US moderns."
I see them from time to time. Did you miss the post in this very thread where I mentioned there was an '82-P in MS-67 that that you couldn't even read "E PLURIBUS UNUM" if you didn't know what to look for.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/116056536956?itmmeta=01HQRN6S8ADWX2SSC0TT52T1PV&hash=item1b0582377c:g:yTAAAOSwehhlqzQT&itmprp=enc:AQAIAAAAwJoPBa5sU6+VFdrCjzujA04vH9Ux0QGDJG9aT5P7GndyBSc9mk2L5i849XJOD6jLGEQP6EIS3rZi/RxsDcpYK2EETO5MSlvLpuiw8CYzGnNfblVfDFcavwWV02FP2nzDgCH3wF62ZW0BnIZYiazmZqC0itdyclde/FzQ8mMXYm8YLr84KgFaqFPKwpYshemgTTPOBsAm+ztNUE+Mbn8bvYxJlXIJuPN713eRtNgofourLWJgwIvqggK7RKE/CPR6KQ==|tkp:Bk9SR56Um5W-Yw
I do not call this a "Gem. It is a very gemmy (S-64+) example of a very tough coin.
To each his own but those collecting nice attractive clad coins that are mostly clean will want this coin in their MS-64 collection. But it is no Gem. Anyone seeking this date in full strikes from good dies will know most of MS-65 and higher grades are not full solid strikes from good dies.
Were it not for mint sets most '65 to '99 clad would be rare in FS. The '82-P just happens to be one of the toughest and is the toughest post-1969 issue. Conversely the '83-P (25c) is probably the toughest to find clean.
>
This coin was also struck by a heavily worn die.
The services grade these on the curve and heavily weight a lack of marking from after the strike. This means that some unattractive coins can get high grades.
This coin isn't much better than typical except it is fairly clean.
I apologize to the owner since it is a nice coin and even stands out as such. But it isn't very attractive, is poorly struck, and the dies were worn out.
Those who think they can find better should buy rolls and rolls of these until they do. Oh wait, there are no rolls so good luck. Maybe you can get souvenir set owners to cut up their sets for $5.875 each. Oh wait, I forgot, I sampled enough of these souvenir sets to know they are the worst place to look for Gems. chBU's are lousy in the souvenir sets but forget Gems. It's just as well since these sets sell for $60.
It's hardly a surprise that people who believe all moderns are too common to collect also believe they all exist in high grades too. Here we have a market that is almost totally devoid of supply and demand because people think rarities like 1982-P Gem quarters can be found in any MS-67 holder and that dozens and dozens of nice chGem '69 quarters can easily be found if you just search a few of the millions and millions of mint sets.
Meanwhile these coins have all been suffering high attrition since they were made. If there were any Gem '82-P quarters made in 1982 by the end of 1983 more than 99% of them would be degraded. By the end of 1985 another 99% would be degraded. Even TODAY if there are any well struck Gems the attrition is probably about 2% annually. This staggering attrition is the result of neglect and a consumer culture. More moderns are consumed than collected.
Imagine there was a '50-S nickel that was made in the hundreds of millions like the '64-D. Imagine this coin was so common in circulation and such poor quality that it simply wasn't saved. Every nickel folder sold by Whitman had a plug in thespot for the '50-S that read not "Rare" but rather "Far Too Common to Collect". Indeed, it was so common that by 1964 it still comprised a large percentage of all circulating nickels. Then in 2025 it was suddenly realized by the market that BU rolls were almost impossible to locate and it was tougher than the '50-D in every single grade except for the AG's that still circulated and could be found in almost every single roll in circulation. Gem FS '50-S nickels are found to be rare not because none at all were saved but because such a tiny percentage o9f the mintage was well made.
This is essentially the case with almost every nickel made after 1965. It is the case with almost every single clad coin made for circulation before 1999. It is the case for some of the copper cents and most of the zinc pennies.
Sure many moderns can be found by the roll but the ones that can are the common dates. And don't forget that almost every roll seen came from mint sets. Most mint sets have been destroyed and the coins put into circulation and a few saved in BU rolls.
Sure the '82-P quarter is no '50-S nickel because it drew everyone's attention by 1985. Lots and lots of nice chAU and beautiful XF's survive because of this. Indeed, most collectors have XF and AU's in their collections because attractive BU's aren't available for bid price and most companies substitute lower grade coins. The unattractive BU's aren't common either and are hard to find in the kind of quantity that wholesalers need when they assemble sets. Most of these sets are then sold for substantially more than bid price into a consumer society. Many of the buyers will turn into real collectors but then they rarely get much encouragement from the local dealer or the status quo in the hobby. They are about as welcome as shady looking character with a few rolls of '50-S nickels to sell.
I can only speak from experience. Occasionally, I will buy 20 or 30 mint sets from various vendors and send them into PCGS for bulk grading. I’ve built a couple of decently ranked registry sets with plenty of tied top pop coins. I will say that this is a money loser and I would never recommend that someone do it.
Roll "collecting" isn't actual collecting. It's hoarding. A low or very low number may or will "collect" rolls presumably because all of this coinage (post 1933 US) is so easy to buy except using arbitrary criteria that it can be bought in one day. Its' another artificial challenge not much different than "lowball" collecting.
You're trying to explain away the silver preference because you disagree that a metal preference should exist. The current supply of 1933-1964 US coinage wouldn't have been hoarded after 1965 and exist in current supply in current quality if silver hadn't been removed.
That's nonsense. Just like the majority of clad supply isn't readily visible, neither is most 1933-1964 silver. Some or much of it might or was melted, but the majority of the later silver dates still probably exist mostly in AU or better.
I'm not referring to varieties or other specialization. That's irrelevant to the topic. There is nothing unusual in the scarcity of any variety or other specialization. It's the norm.
You don't even know the TPG data. Or what's on eBay. If you don't even know that, no you don't know what you claim to know.
eBay and the TPG data, both of which usually aren’t representative either, are a lot more representative of the supply than anything you have ever seen. More representative than the inventory of every coin shop you’ve visited in your entire life combined, your 50+ years of CRH, and all collectors and dealers you spoke to combined too.
The supply of 1965-1998 US moderns, clad coinage, or any date/MM combination is only "thin" compared to 1933-1964 US coinage. That’s why you framed this thread in the context of roll “collecting”. There is never going be any actual roll collecting of this coinage at scale because roll "collecting" isn't actual collecting and no motive exists to hoard base metals at scale at current prices.
Coin for coin, I'd estimate the number and percentage of US moderns scarcer versus pre-1933 US in equivalent TPG quality (not yours) is really low. It's not evident because of the price difference.
I never said anything about "gem" quality. But since you brought it up, PCGS has 47 grading events for the 82-P quarter in MS-67 or better (2+, 2 in "68") but now you're going to claim this isn't good enough either. NGC with 27 more (2 in "68"). This isn't a low number for a coin with this TPG label, except versus 1933-1964 US classics and 21st century coinage generally. Did you even look it up before making this claim?
Look at the TPG data. Now ask yourself, where were all those coins (not just US) before it was graded? Of the thousands of coin types and several hundred thousand as a date, I can infer you’ve never seen at least a substantial minority even once in your life, so how does it exist? Why didn’t you see it in the inventory of any dealers you visited (which I know you didn't and you've already admitted it in prior threads) since the US is usually the primary market for it? How do you explain the TPG data when you never saw most of this coinage, either at all or in rough proportion to the supply?
So, I'm supposed to believe the clad market is "thin" even with so many high population, much older, much lower mintage world coinage with a much lower probability of survival existing in current supply. Large number in high quality (for the coin) exist for ancient Greek and Roman, Byzantine Solidus, 1754 Mexico pillar dollars, 1540's Mexico Carlos & Joanna 4R, and 1821 Guatemala minors but US clad coinage is "supply constrained" as you claim because clad wasn't collected.
You can't explain it because US collecting doesn’t revolve around your local dealer, and you can’t CRH any coin in someone’s collection or “change jar”. That's still your frame of reference even with the internet even as you tell me I'm "stuck in the 60's". Look at your posts just in this thread.
You’ve been looking in the wrong place at the wrong time for 50+ years apparently without even knowing it. That’s the actual reason you don’t see this coinage for what it actually is, as really common. You should have looked on the internet (mostly eBay) for the last 25 years, not where you did.
You could literally dump all FRB and bank vaults into a giant pool, dive into it like Scrooge McDuck, and your observations still wouldn’t be representative because the coins you are looking for are almost entirely somewhere else.
You said MS-64. This coin is an MS-67 by TPG standards which to 99% of the collector base is good enough. Your grading standards are exactly that, yours.
There are two other listings, one with 30 and one with 20, both described as "BU". @$100+ with a 30-day return privilege, I'd guess it's good enough for 99% of the collector base too.
Isn't your concept that you can't collect rolls but must collect silver contradictory.
I believe there is room in the hobby for everyone. If I were selling BU rolls (want any) I wouldn't question the reasons the buyer had for seeking them any more than I'd doubt anyone's motives fore buying Morgan dollars.
I doubt a BU roll market is going to exist because of supply constraints. Certainly a wholesale market but not retail.
I'm not a CRH.
Some moderns can only be found as BU rolls and singles but otherwise I have had little interest in seeking or acquiring BU rolls of moderns. I've always picked them up hen they are stupid cheap, and they usually are, but (did I mention) I almost never see any BU rolls at all.
I collect Gem and variety moderns. I seek scarcity, quality, and completeness. Much of what I find comes from poking through mint sets but one must know where to look.
I live in a consumer world where most coin collectors thought that moderns could save themselves because mintages were so high and demand so low. Now, exactly as I have been warning for decades the coins did not save themselves. They have been consumed instead.
"Look at the TPG data. Now ask yourself, where were all those coins (not just US) before it was graded? Of the thousands of coin types and several hundred thousand as a date, I can infer you’ve never seen at least a substantial minority even once in your life, so how does it exist? Why didn’t you see it in the inventory of any dealers you visited (which I know you didn't and you've already admitted it in prior threads) since the US is usually the primary market for it? How do you explain the TPG data when you never saw most of this coinage, either at all or in rough proportion to the supply?"
I think you might have forgotten all of these coins were minted in the hundreds of millions. Of course I didn't look at every one. But I have enough scientific understanding to know that anything can be sampled and this is what I did. For instance I saw at least one 1982-P souvenir set from several dozen sources and these sources included as many as "30" sets. From this I learned there are no true Gems in the '82 souvenir set despite the fact that a large percentage of coins grade high come from this source. I can't run between the rain drops and my sample size was sufficiently large that I should have gotten wet.
I also have seen examples of virtually every die for this date in XF or better condition. Most dies I have seen in a range of die states with many in BU. From this I know few 1982-P quarter dies ever struck a single Gem. I simply can't account for how many got out of the mint without the typical scratching and gouging. THIS can't be sampled. It can only be estimated based on sampling but I saw too few BU rolls, singles and sets to make a good estimate. Suffice to say very few coins made it out so it's highly improbable that any given clean coin was actually saved.
This is life in the real world when there are virtually no collectors. Each individual has to work it out for himself and this is still the real when it concerns understand the prices listed for BU rolls. Just because any given BU roll lists for close to face value hardly means it is common and therefore undesirable. I might only mean that there are unlikely to be any "BU's" in the roll and they aren't skunked. It might just mean that the tiny supply dwarfs the miniscule demand. It might mean anything except that the roll is readily available. Most BU rolls of moderns are scarce and those that do exist are usually assembled from mint sets.
I'm not the one who keeps telling people how and what they should collect.
The fact that you can't even read the reverse unless you already know what it says is important to some collectors. I personally like razor sharp strikes on my coins but to each his own.
I'm not claiming silver roll buying is collecting. that's what you are implying.
As usual in these topics, you're writing in hypotheticals about abstract collectors who do not exist. If anyone collects as you claim, it has no relevance to this thread because it's not going to result in the outcome you imply.
Whether you want to call it "collecting", hoarding, or speculation is semantics. The majority of roll buying is for financial reasons, not because actual collectors find owning dozen to thousands of the same coin so interesting as a collectible. It's no different for US moderns vs. any other coin. There weren't and aren't hundreds of thousands to millions buying 50's and 60's US silver rolls for collecting. It's predominantly or entirely due to the metal content which you disregard because you don't think a metal preference should exist.
No, I didn't forget the mintages. It's one my primary arguments against your claims. Obviously, there is a high correlation between current supply and mintage. You are claiming otherwise due to your unrepresentative personal experience and erroneous assumptions. Now, you're implying that the **survival rates **for US moderns are lower than the profile I described which is nonsensical.
Whenever we discuss scarcity, your context is almost entirely US moderns vs. 1933-1964 US classics and the world coinage you call “modern” (post-WWII) vs. “old” world coinage, roughly 1900-1945. That's irrelevant to what I told you because the circumstances which account for the current supply of this coinage are entirely different.
The survival of the coins I listed is effectively a random event. Outside of maybe MS-67s and the few MS-68, this doesn't apply to US moderns because your assumptions are wrong. The coins fitting my profile didn’t survive in current quality as a result of so many collectors at the time, it’s not due to preservation for centuries because it was so valuable, and it doesn’t survive in current quality because it’s gold or silver either. Practically all of these coins were worth nominal amounts or premiums to the metal content up until at least the beginning of 1930’s US mass market collecting (regardless of potential TPG grade) with limited if any organized collecting locally.
True story...
This year one of my Chase banks happened to have a few dozen American Innovation dollar U.S. Mint rolls.
I bought them all.
I sold them very recently for about 1.5 to 2 times the face value (each) I paid for them. Buyers paid for shipping.
I love modern BU rolls...and I collect them...and sometimes open them and send coins off for grading.
My collection of them is mostly from the 60's to present.
I have a lot of modern BU rolls from both vendors like Loomis and the Mint.
Coins are Neato!
"If it's a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone...somewhere...is making a penny." - Steven Wright
I looked thru an est 70,000 Ebay auctions over six months to find a half dozen VAM's
I picked up a couple random quarter rolls at a show and hit the top two pops in an evening at the dinner table.
Nice scores that all netted about the same. One averaged $3 per hour and the other $3000 per hour.
At every show I attend, there are basically no other public attendees pouring over proof and mint sets. Dealers almost always have a sunken look as they hand them over.
With effort, I can always find some quality.
There are no shortage PF66's Halves that regrettably get left behind after the last cull.
Simply because it is cost prohibitive due to there being no market (graded or raw).
Just don't see a collector base.
Maybe I should be stocking up on these sets and break them up.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
The way I figure it is very simple. It might be all wrong but it's very simple.
Somehow or other they managed to sell about two million of each date. Over the years due to attrition and mintages there are now about half a million of each date. The population of the country today is up more than 50% from what it was in 1965. Half a million is a lot of coins but every year millions more of these sets are destroyed or degraded and every year since 1999 the demand for BU singles has been increasing.
There simply must be a reckoning eventually and when it comes the supply will be completely eradicated. There simply aren't collections of these coins except those being actively worked. Demand already is becoming substantial and there will be almost no supply. The BU roll market is evidence demand is becoming substantial. Meanwhile the mint set supply seems inexhaustible because of high mintage and low demand. By low demand I merely mean very few collectors are seeking the sets, only the individual coins they contain.
When sellers start having trouble stocking all the mint sets you'll know it's time. It will be time because these changes never occur naturally. When there aren't enough sets to provide the coins in demand there will be opportunistic buying, speculative demand, and panic buying by collectors and retailers.
This simply isn't 1990 any longer. In the old days if you wanted a nice 1971 dime you could just get a few rolls at the bank and find a nice XF well made coin. Such coins don't exist any longer. If you can find one in circulation at all it will be worn out and scratched up. There's a fair chance it will be a cull as well. So if you want a nice example you have little chance but to check mint sets where they are like shooting fish in a barrel. Without restoration about 10% of mint set '71 dimes are pretty nice and if you clean them it's closer to 40%.
All those astronomical mintages are gone. the '71 set has suffered more than half a century of attrition during much of which time the set was worth less than face value so they were just cut up and spent. The 160 million mintage has been whittled down to 40 million very tired and ugly coin. These were intended to last only 30 years in circulation. The survivors have exceeded this spectacularly because they wear like iron. They are strong, light, and very highly durable.
Most of these clad rolls are really difficult to find and have been all along. The post 1999 rolls and bicentennial rolls are the only ones I've ever seen regularly in coin shops. Once in a while I'd see a bank roll in the old days but these just didn't sell and accumulated in inventory so dealers busted them up and put then in the cash register. Most of the clad rolls I've seen over the years were mint set rolls.
I’ve always had a soft spot for original, unopened bank rolls - going back over 20 years. It’s not that hard to find silver rolls. It’s not hard to find vintage cent rolls in original bank wrap. But it is so rare to find a 1965-1998 nickel, dime, or quarter roll in unopened original bank wrap except maybe bicentenial quarters. I don’t know if it’s lack of supply or lack of demand but there are virtually no unopened 1970s-1990s rolls on eBay. I think a clad roll set in original unopened bank rolls would be sneaky impossible to put together.
I got shipped about 500 (“fresh”) mint sets from1968-1990 the other day and I noticed 121 of them were 1968 sets. I was charged $4.50/set for those. I see that the 50C melts today at $3.66. Then deducting the other coins at face value, I think I spent a grand total of ONE CENT net per set to buy these 1,200+ BU coins from 54 years ago (to hunt for varieties and high grade examples). So, now, for example, I have just shy of (5) fresh rolls of 1968 P and D dimes in total. If I was going to sell them unsearched what would be a fair asking price? GS says they are only worth $10/roll. What does Cladking think? $50/roll? $100/roll in the next 5 years? Repeat this process every week for the next 5 -10 years and retire wealthy? Or, retire with nothing more than a mountain of change needing to be cashed out at the local bank (hopefully)? Thoughts?
Wondercoin
Edited to add - I just watched a 1971-P 50C in “only” MS67 grade just auction at the “world record price” of over $3,400.00 with 3 different bidders each bidding over $2,750.00 for the coin! Congratulations to the winning bidder!
It's madness.
I just have time for a few quick comments about the '68 dime rolls. First let me say you have two or three '68 DDO dimes in the Philly rolls. These appear once in about 45 sets so are far scarcer than the '16-D dime is today. Out of the 121 Philly dimes about 115 need cleaning to even be sold as BU. Most of the rest would benefit from cleaning. About 40 of these are ugly and for some reason these coins and five or ten others are not salvageable because every method to clean them leaves them a mess. The rest of the coins look pretty good as chBU but Gems are rather elusive and FB are very scarce.
The '68 mint set has one of the highest of all attritions in part because of the tarnish but mostly because they are cut up for the half dollars and there are no recognized tough coins from the date. They are just ignored and abused.
I used to always figure the '82, '69-D, or '71 issues would be the best dimes in really choice BU condition but in recent years it's becoming apparent the '68 will surpass them despite the existence of a few BU rolls that some saved when mint marks were restored. BU rolls of this date almost invariably have "50" ugly coins in it unless it is short.
In MS-60 it's a better date but in MS-64 it will be almost as elusive as MS-65 or MS-66. Even in MS-63 it will be much tougher coin.
The'68-D is a great coin too, but it often comes nice and most mint set coins clean up to be MS-63 or better. There are many Gems.
I have no idea how high the Philly can go if dealers start trying to stock these coins. I could make some guesses but the bottom line is there aren't more than a few rolls available at this time. There's no clearing house to call to beg borrow or steal a dozen rolls or even a single roll.
I've already sold the lion's share of my dimes but these (Phillys) went back into a safety deposit box. They went in right along with the DDO's a FB or two and a handful of chGems. I hope to sell all these too but I can't at today's prices. My heirs can take them to the bank with no more effort than I'd have to. ...They're already there.
‘’My heirs can take them to the bank with no more effort than I'd have to. ...They're already there.’’
If I am around, I’ll pay 12 cents per dime for every one you tucked away in the bank as a potential winner! Tell your heirs they can count on 20% over face on those and to not give them to the teller ! 😉
Wondercoin.
Wholesale is 20c right now!!!
They are offered at 6X wholesale on eBay if you don't mind ugly coins.
‘’Wholesale is 20c right now!!!’’
Ok… 21C each to your heirs!!
Wondercoin
That's the madness. Shipping the coins costs more than they're worth. Then figure twenty dollars apiece to do a good job of cleaning them and you need a lot of volume to make any profit at all.
In the old days I used to see some nickel rolls. The availability was very spotty as you'd see lots of '72-D rolls but almost no '71 or '76 rolls. I'd guess as many as a million and as few as a quarter million were saved of most dates. Quality of the rolls was also very spotty with some being nice chBU and others being poorly made dinged up beasts. I saw a very few half dollar and Ike rolls but almost no dime or quarter rolls. A lot of these were saved in '65 to '67 but when owners realized there was just no market for them most were released to circulation. You couldn't give them away. If there were any collectors they just got specimens from the high quality SMS (sets) rather than the junk that was in the rolls. The '67 quarter roll is quite scarce today.
A lot of the post-'99 coins are highly desirable and "hard" to find in rolls so many of them sell at strong prices especially on eBay.
Some coins and most varieties don't exist in mint sets so BU rolls are a necessary component of modern coin collecting. But if you're looking for varieties of '65 to '99 clad be advised that there are almost no original rolls and what you see come from mint sets.
Many collectors think the mint sets are all picked over but this generally is not true. Now days most of the valuable major varieties have been identified and removed and some of the Gems (especially in the SMS's) but almost every batch has numerous nice coins. They assume they are picked over but the reality is most of the coins in these sets were mediocre the day they left the mint. Time hasn't helped them at all.
The reason they aren't picked over is that mint sets rarely retail. Most are just destroyed when they come on the market whether they are Gem or beast.
It's still a very small collector base but it grows every day. This base is still swamped by the supply but I believe that the emergence of a BU roll market signals the end of the days of of cheap raw moderns. There just aren't enough 1971 mint sets any longer for each collector to bust up half a dozen of them to get nice chBU coins for his collection.
Maybe not. Up until a couple years ago you could get them cheap but now it would require more effort and more money. It's still entirely possible there will never be a mass market for moderns. I've watched this play out in very slow motion for decades. The last sign of an impending explosion in interest will be when the scarce coins and sets pull away from the pack because of collector demand. I'm still not seeing this much. I see more interest in the tough coins but no price pressure.
Sure there were and are. The '50-D nickel that you consider distressingly common and has more than a million examples extant sells for $300 per roll just because it's minted before 1965. Many of the post-'64 nickels are scarcer in Unc and sell at prices starting at $3 a roll. This simply cuts across the board.
This correlation broke down in 1965. The correlation between scarcity and price doesn't apply to most coins made after 1964 either.
>
I could compare availability of moderns against old US coins as well. I don't usually for two good reasons; I know more about how many '31-S dimes there are than 1854 cents. Also my estimates of the populations of older coins is considered too high by most collectors. It's harder to support my estimates of the numbers of older coins.
Have you ever read B Max Mehl's catalogs? Try the 1927 edition if you can find it. These coins had little value and being in pristine condition wasn't valued as highly as it is today. They survived because collectors cared for them despite their limited value.
But would you be willing to fly out and pick them up?
Of course back in the '80's and '90's people told me that the difference was that it was easy to find a 1972 (Philly) nickel in circulation so why would anyone pay a large premium for a specimen just for a nice chBU. Have you tried looking for a 1972 nickel recently. ^The attrition on these make them hard to find and the degradation caused by decades of abuse and neglect assure you will have a lot of work before you can find a nice attractive VF. The local coin shop won't even have a chBU and they most assuredly won't stock a nice VF. Indeed, almost every single VF '72 nickel is hiding in circulation.
Fortunately if you want this date it's easily found in nice attractive condition in most '72 mint sets. These coins aren't even tarnished usually because there was a better plastic used for this date. More than 2/ 3rds of them are quite attractive but it's still scarcer than the '50-D and lists at $4.25 per roll.
I searched eBay for '72 nickel rolls. There were two available. Before anyone tells me these are so common no one bothers to sell them these rolls were listed at 8X Greysheet bid. I also searched for '50-D nickel rolls and there were a lot more at prices that looked reasonable for their quality relative Greysheet bid. One seller had already sold more than a dozen rolls.
People seem to be waking up to the fact that these coins sell for much more than Greysheet and that they are scarcer than is assumed. Obviously they aren't rare and more and more will be offered. But they are still tougher than the '50-D nickel. There are more '50-D nickels than many of the post-64 issues and no amount of further neglect and abuse is likely to change that. We will not be seeing people spending rolls of '50-D's but every day more and more '72 nickels are lost or degraded.
These are the deals that fit my budget and primary interest. Guess there are wholesale dealers for every niche.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
There is at least some anecdotal evidence to support the belief that Nice attractive chBU and MS-64 and better is actually the preferred grade to collect clad. Most people describe the condition of the typical mint set coin as 'mediocre" at best. While mint set coins are well made by new dies they are usually scratched up quite a bit. Not all are even well struck and some dates suffer from extensive chicken scratches. These are the planchet flaws retained when the strike pressure is insufficient and usually manifest around the periphery on moderns. Many modern mint set coins have surface issues which have many causes including rough dies. And, of course, most coins of some dates are tarnished.
Where coins made for circulation tended to be ugly poorly struck and banged up messes especially in the early years mint set coins were very often well made and nicely preserved. This can range anywhere from 5% to 60% of production. A '72-D dime is typically a nice looking coin and still is. A '76 dollar was nice only 10% of the time and now is almost always tarnished in the 1975 mint set.
Clad dates that are poorly made tend to wholesale less than the dates that are well made. I suspect this is due to the fact that there will be only a few nice coins in rolls of the poorly made dates. Of course this is greatly complicated by collectors who are seeking specific varieties and saving rates which were highly variable from date to date and mint to mint.
Most collectors always have cared about quality even before this modern penchant to seek only the best for any coin.
When this thread started there was a major retailer offering to sell a '92-P nickel roll for 11X Greysheet. This is a coin that comes bad in rolls and usually has a lot of scratches in the mint set. It bids at only $18 but it is tough to locate. The mint sets are cheap though.
It's hard to figure these markets even if you keep up with them.
Forum discussions about collecting clad coinage and the value of modern clad coinage is always interesting. I have enjoyed reading Cladking's posts on this topic for many, many years.
Today, upon reading updated posts to this thread I was reminded of a Twilight Zone episode that is similar to collecting clad coinage.
In the Twilight Zone episode the central character was a man who went through his life wanting to "be somebody". He dreamed of being well known, admired and the object of the attention of others. As he lived his life he never achieved his goal. He was isolated, single, alone and unaccomplished. He lived a solitary, lonely, mundane life. He never strived to do anything. His desires continued, unfulfilled. However, he did take good care of his possessions and never got rid of anything. His possessions (obtained from his childhood forward) were so well taken care of that one could say that they were almost in "mint in box" condition.
As the man grew older and entered his 80's or 90's, his life changed.
One day he had a random encounter with another person who was much younger than him. This younger person's encounter with the man included having the man invite him onto/into his property (where his possessions were located). Upon seeing the possessions of the man the younger person was stunned at what he saw (essentially a museum of "mint in box" items made years/decades ago; all of which had become popular items that were nostalgic).
The younger person convinced the man to agree to publicly share his "collection" of vintage items. As word of this collection spread public attention was focused on the collection and also on the man who built it, cared for it and now shared it. Events were planned to publicly display the collection; and during these events the man (now dressed in a new suit, with a new haircut, etc.) finally received what he always desired.
For those collectors who have collected MS examples of clad coinage since 1965 and 1966 (looking for and setting aside the best examples one could find), they might one day be in the position of the man in the Twilight Zone episode mentioned above (if demand for MS clad coins go through the roof by newer younger collectors who just have to have an MS66 1969P quarter).
Apropos of nothing in particular one of my greatest fears is to gain notoriety. Everything I've done has intentionally been below every radar. I may not have accomplished every goal i set out to but have achieved numerous successes as life offered them. I probably shouldn't even be singing the praises of clad but I am "Pretender to the Throne".
MS-66 '69 quarters have proven their rarity and I hardly need to be very concerned with them. I have only a very few stashed away because they are so tough. The '69 quarters relevant to this thread are the MS-64 and 65. While these are much more common than the more spectacular versions these should appeal to the little guy; the mr and mrs collector. There are so few of these coins relative the potential demand. People think there are so many nice attractive '69 quarters that no market could ever demand every one of them but this is very far from the truth. People imagine they exist in the millions but even nominal interest by the general public would absorb every one of them. These aren't like a '31-S dime which come into coin shops in collections, rolls, and random accumulations because tens of thousands of people collected the dimes and almost nobody saved any '69 quarters.
I am exceedingly familiar with the original Twilight Zone.
OK, here's the sort of thing to which I'm referring;
https://www.villagecoin.com/jefferson-nickel-rolls.html
This seller is offering a 1997-D nickel roll for $174.
It bids at $8 (Greysheet) and is hardly a scarce coin. In rolls it might well be extremely tough but there's a good chance it's compiled from mint sets anyway like almost all clad rolls are and many cent and nickel rolls. People just didn't save rolls or even singles until 1999.
Restocking rolls is going to be extremely difficult in almost all cases. They are extremely tough and there is no wholesale market. I'm wondering who is going to buy such coins and why. They also list a '68-D roll for only $25 that greysheets at $10. I say "only $25" because in order to assemble such a roll requires that you cut up about "75" 1968 mint sets and then clean the coins.
It would sure be interesting to see anyone try to create a retail or wholesale market in BU rolls. It would be most highly disruptive to these exceedingly thin markets. I do believe whether anyone tries or not we're going to see a lot more of these anomalies going forward. The coins simply aren't out there and the demand is. These would be very dangerous markets to try your hand at speculation. Selling coins is many times harder than buying them and this goes double for moderns (unfortunately).
https://www.raykomkacoins.com/rolls-bu-proof-quarter-rolls-c-77_88.html?page=1&sort=1a&osCsid=steuddtt9d4280gmf063n9pfo7
Here's a new one. I believe I know where his stock came from and that they are original rolls.
He has lots of quarters but fewer of the other clads.
‘’This seller is offering a 1997-D nickel roll for $174. It bids at $8 (Greysheet) and is hardly a scarce coin.’’
And, if you showed that to this particular seller (I have no idea who he is) and offered him 8 1/2x sheet, would he accept $70 (60% “discount”) for his roll? If so, what does that tell you? If he counters, hypothetically at $100, what does that tell you?
I could break up my 121 freshly purchased 1968 mint sets (that I recently bought at 1 CENT NET PER SET) and offer a roll of 1971-D quarters at $250 (or 10x sheet). If so, what does that tell you? And, what does it tell you if I offer a roll of 1971-D quarters at $500? Or even $750? What does any of this really tell you?
Answer: Absolutely nothing -right?
Wondercoin
I have been finding so much of what yall are saying to be very true. True super gemmy clad is NOT easy to locate. I’m wrapping up my 7070 modern page and various clad issues via crackouts and it’s not exactly easy. Clad up to and including MS65 is flat out fugly - especially under magnification. Usually banged up all to hell. 66 isn’t much better. 67 starts to get decent and it really takes to 68 for me to be satisfied.
It’s so odd to me how even AU58 silver can look better than 66 clad. And lemme tell you, a lot of pieces even in 68 don’t look awesome. For the 68’s that have a truly clean surface and the solid strike you’d expect, the premiums can be striking. Fortunately for me I have zero issues using the 06-10 satin finish coins to fill holes. They offer great examples, at very high grades, for a much lower cost. That’s been a huge help in my endeavors.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
I read a few pages back that people still aren’t collecting moderns.
Over the past 90 to 110 days I have sold almost everything (90% modern) on the bay. 150 separate lots averaged roughly 100 a piece. Plenty of bidding now but how many were actually collecting versus crack out artists I couldn’t tell you.
99 cent auctions coupled with shoe boxes full of mint sets created a feeding frenzy.
Fingergems
Now, that's interesting!