2026 Redbook
cladking
Posts: 28,785 ✭✭✭✭✭
I'm surprised no one has posted about this. Prices on moderns are much more realistic and obviously the result of at least several individuals and a great deal of effort. This is because for the main part relative scarcity is reflected in the price. This can only happen through knowledge, study, or access to pricing data. In any case they are applicable to the collector and the general public who have bought millions of Redbooks. I would advise buyers and collectors to be wary since just because a modern is a solid Gem does not make it scarce or worth $5. Dimes are the most common Gem in mint sets and some dates that have lower attrition and no problems with tarnish are numerous. The same applies to cents but many of these are tarnished or spotted. Most later dates Post-1985 are common in Gem. Ikes are scarce in true Gem and half dollars are also tough. I always considered quarters the "sweet spot" because they aren't common but in mint sets they are like shooting fish in a barrel.
Nickels are easy or almost impossible dependent on whether you like FS and planchet chatter or pristine as struck.
Cent prices are fairly realistic but some of those that list for several dollars you probably can't find yourself and there are no sellers. Cents like the '68 are going to be almost impossible to find by aunt Edna in Poughkeepsie.
I'm guessing the firming in these markets is caused by collectors having the courage to pay much higher prices rather than wait for a coin that is "fairly priced". For these reasons the demand should increase substantially leading to ever better price discovery.
Collectors should be aware that many of the early clads (and some later) can be quite elusive as a well struck by good dies Gem. If you're paying some of the higher prices it might be wise to be selective.
Kudos to Mr Feigenbaum et al. This might be the shot in the arm this hobby needs right now. It's not that the hobby is weak but it certainly seems inventories are.
Comments
I'm seeing a great number of changes. Any opinions of any changes?
Hi CK.
How about a handful of examples of what you are talking about and I would be happy to share my feedback on those particular changes.
Wondercoin
I'm thinking of numerous specific issues that are not widely available either as commercial slabs or as well made by good dies pristine Gems. By this I mean nobody can buy a 1968 cent in MS-65 on the market because such low grades are not normally sent to the services for grading. At the same time there is so little demand there is no one selling. So this problem will be only partly addressed by sharply higher reported valuations. This alone simply can't bring coins like a 1968 Gem cent defined as "MS-65" to market so it hardly matters the price is quoted at a mere $4.10
The fact they can't be obtained simply leads to empty holes in albums and demand. This same even applies to chBU. It is very improble you can find a decently made, pristine, and original 1982-P quarter for $5.50
Such coins certainly exist but most coins graded or shipped as chBU for this date will display excessive die wear and a poor strike. Indeed, even coins in higher grade holders often display significant impairment in strike.
In every modern series there are numerous such instances. This doesn't make the price "wrong" merely irrelevant except to the degree it is part of a system obviously designed to reflect the underlying realities of supply and demand. Even though Gem clad dimes are common they are not common across the board as this catalog implies, so citing $1.50 for a nice 1971 and the same for a '72-D is most highly misleading. Nobody, buyers or sellers, can go out and buy BU rolls to acquire the nice ones because there are almost no BU rolls. Everyone has to go look at mint sets or more exactly, the few surviving mint sets. This means a Gem that was quite common in mint sets (~8%) is still available in the few hundred thousand surviving sets. Meanwhile the 1971 dime that is in a set with higher attrition and is almost always tarnished is seton par with the common '72-D. '71 dimes were elusive in mint sets as Gems even in 1971. They are plagued with deficiencies of all sorts so few (<2%) were Gem even in 1971.
I could easily provide lists of such incongruities but this might be irrelevant because a market should straighten itself out and now for the first time a market becomes possible. It's ironic that most growth in the modern market since Covid has been in the general public and Redbook now will be able to address their questions about why so many coins are unavailable. It might even slow the$1000 roadkill on eBay and the questions about same on every website.
CK: I just wanted 5 examples of the (old) 2025 Redbook price and the new 2026 Redbook price to show the “much more realistic” modern pricing you are happy about. I am looking forward to being happy too when I see your examples. Thanks.
Wondercoin
Just to be clear here, Aunt Edna from Poughkeepsie can find a Gem '72-D by just ordering multiple examples. Many will be Gems. It will no longer approach 8% but they aren't difficult. Or she go to three or four coin shops. and find one in their mint sets. But the task of finding the 1971 in Gem is onerous. In both cases it might be cheaper to just buy a slabbed MS-67 or the cheapest available in slabs.
I suspect if there is little market data that any significant increases are inflation related guesses.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I shoullda mentioned I'm using the '24 for comparison. My understanding had been that there were minimal changes last year so I never saw it. I apologize for any confusion but I am still impressed by the quality of the '26. Most of what has been done is an improvement whether it was initiated in '25 or '26.
That sure didn't work eight years ago when mint sets could be bought back of face value and it really doesn't work today with the highest buyers offering less than postage costs plus face value for BU rolls. I suppose you're right though that this can apply in some of the pricing and change in pricing.
The Redbook appears to be supply and demand based with interpolations where little or data exist. They did a better job (and sooner!) than I expected.
CK: Adjusted 3rd request…
I just wanted 5 examples of the (old) 2024 Redbook price and the new 2026 Redbook price to show the “much more realistic” modern pricing you are happy about. I am looking forward to being happy too when I see your examples. Thanks.
Wondercoin
I'm sorry this is easy. I might prattle on all day.
Take the '72-S Lincoln Cent, In 2024 it was listed at $1 in Gem. This wasn't wrong but it didn't reflect how hard this date is to find without blemishes. Well struck by good dies examples are in the mint sets but they are all banged up and often unattractive. At $1 the price was little more thana placeholder. Now it's listed at $8 which might seem a steal to me but then there's little demand so what's the matter there's little supply? But $8 reflects a realism that didn't exist before. It tells the collector that he's not going to find it in every mint set and probably not in BU rolls which GreySheet at $5. It's a touchstone for reality that didn't exist before. This same thing applies across every denomination. The idea you can can get Gem `1982 coppers for the old price of a dollar or two or the new one of $4 to $16 is absurd. You'll spend more than that figuring out who to ask.
The real anomalies concern the "real" Gems defined as well struck and well made pristine examples of the minter's art. Coins like 1982-P quarters. Not only are the dies misaligned, dies worn, and strikes weak but they are almost always scratched up. The odds against sending away for a Gem at the old price of $35 or the new one of $38 and actually getting one are astronomical. Even if you pay up for a graded example it will have strike and die and deficiencies Most of the coins were very poorly struck and the few survivors are nearly a random sample of poorly made coins. They are skewed toward high grade only because of a couple of sources which in aggregate account for nearly a third of what exist either intentionally sought superior coins or chance conspired to do so.
The '69-D nickel went from 6 to $15. Not a stellar move by any means but this price is more reflective of the difficulty of obtaining one. the '70-S sm dt cent moved from 65 to $90. This in no way reflects its difficulty but the old price was beginning to be eclipsed by the BU roll price. It's not that hard to get $50 for nice chBU specimens. What the catalog doesn't say is that Gems comprise only a small percentage (~5%). The'66 nickel went from 5 to $27. Of course this is too low. There are no mint sets for them and rolls are elusive. I bought almost every roll I ever saw and recently let the chBU's go for a song after pulling out dozens of culls and hundreds of unattractive coins. I'm not complaining because I got paid in nearly 100 nice Gems.
I believe that any future market must rely on coins of Gem condition because lower grades tend to be ugly and higher grades expensive. Aunt Edna is not going to be putting sets of MS-67 clads together but the lower grades are affordable and stoppers in Gem can usually be found readily in nice chBU. Perhaps I overweight the importance of Gem but this is where most people can experience the thrill of the hunt and be reasonably assured of sometimes walking away with their prey. This is where rarity meets low price. There may be better ways to collect moderns but this is where I believe the markets for "non-pop tops" to come into existence, and they really are in the nascent phases even if you can't find the coins online.
The 1978 nickel went from 5 to $20. This Gem seems common because near misses are but nice clean examples without tarnish and with good luster are actually tougher coins. They lowered the price of Gem dimes across the board while throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I believe this was just what catalogers do sometimes when they add higher grades and they did add a column for MS-66. The dimes are so common in Gem that most people have some MS-66 anyway so i just think of this as a grading change rather than a pricing change and the 66's are at much higher levels. A similar situation exists in the quarters except no 66 listing and they've added circulated grades. Prices are meaningless in the circulated grades since an '82-P in nice AU (that wholesales for $4) lists at the exact same price as a'98-P in F which can be found by the handfuls in higher grade than that. The display of half dollar pricing is just eye popping. They've added 66 and 67 pricing so before where prices topped out at 3 or $4 they top out at many prices in the hundreds or thousands. Most of the pricing in lower BU grades needs a lot of work. For instance they list the '86-D in MS-63 for less than wholesale.
Few people (including the Redbook authors) realize just how thin the market for moderns is. It's growing in leaps and bounds but most of the supply consists of a few tired and worn, tarnished and depleted mint sets. Most of the demand is from the general public and registry set collectors.
Moderns are a very strange situation and exceedingly difficult to price. Redbook has greatly exceeded my expectations in this attempt and they've done it in such a way as to catch the attention. I have to believe that in the near future, if not the next edition there will be significant upward revisions to reflect both the growing demand and the difficulty of finding the coins. There should be sellers emerging and price discovery will become much easier.
CK. Thanks for putting that together. I agree those changes you mentioned were a nice step in the right direction.
Wondercoin
I'm more confused now than I was in 2024. We're supposed to get excited that the Redbook, which has not been the preferred price guide in a generation, has estimated the value of infrequently traded $10 coins that are, by the OP's own words of limited supply but even more limited demand?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
A lot of collectors and dealers buy it to see what the general public is looking at. And, i believe the general public will be looking at more realistic pricing in a better formatting in moderns and this will serve to define markets. Many millions of people have been collecting things like states quarters and plugging folders for all modern series. With the discontinuation of the cent there is likely to be increasing interest so armed with a guide more accurately reflecting the values of the coins will make these markets more efficient.
@cladking. That's a lot of information. I am curious, are they using any of the terms like gem? Do they have specific pricing for moderns in the higher numerical ranges le: 67, 68 etc. ?
Also, thank you. Even $10m copins and collectors deserve a little love and attention, James
Idk. The market can't be "efficient" if there is, as you put it, limited supply and more limited demand.
To your example of the 72-S Lincoln, I see numerous sales at $1 to $2 on ebay which makes the 2024 price seem more accurate. [I'm sure you'll tell me they aren't true gems.]
More generally, the issue with any inexpensive coin of limited demand and limited supply is that the price is going to be completely dependent on the motivation of the buyer. You can sell a 10 cent stamp for $1 or $2 if the buyer wants to fill the slot and can't find another source. Does that make the 10 cent stamp worth $2? It's hard for me to go that far since the next infrequent sale might be at 10 cents.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Received this new pair last month $20 delivered.
Having all mintages of 5 ounce ATB was why I added the pair, well that and low entrance fee & removal of Bressett from cover of 26.
The 2025 included value for 24k narrow reeds 2015 1/10 22k gold issue, the 2026 delisted this 24k rim count variety.
I don't have time now to catch up but can address this.
It has always been my opinion that collectors will seek moderns principally as "Gem". This is because the grades of the coins for the majority of dates and mints closely model a continuum from mass produced junk with numerous flaws of many types to nice attractive well made coins. At least to my eyes the numerous flaws make the coins "ugly" and a symbol of the entropy seen in so many things in the last nearly 100 years. This is not meant as a political statement, merely an observation in a world that intentionally designs failure into products like refrigerators. But virtually all circulating moderns exist as well made and well preserved Gem which are full strikes from good solid dies with minimal marking and no distracting characteristics like off-center, or planchet chatter. I believe these are the coins to which collectors will gravitate. Some are rare and some like the '83-P quarter might not even exist but collectors will still seek the closest approximation they can find.
New collectors, especially young collectors all deserve the kind of encouragement I got when I began in 1957. It's more the passion that a collector brings to the hobby than his pocketbook and nobody brings more passion than young blood. I personally believe that even more important is accuracy and the closest parallel to what I mean as "Gem" is what the industry calls "MS-65".