2026 Redbook
cladking
Posts: 28,799 ✭✭✭✭✭
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".
I think the question is how do people want to remember this era. They could seek ugly lightly kissed by heavily worn dies 1966 quarters that were marked up at the mint and hastily placed in circulation to help alleviate the severe coin shortage of that time. They might even prefer a scratched up cull of this same coin in high end G condition. I don't think they will. As this era becomes much better defined by its closure I would expect people to choose nice attractive coins in pristine condition to remember it. People don't want to remember overcast skies on the important days of their lives so take a picture of a remembrance with a little blue sky in the background if it appears. Ultimately life is always about memory so we do gravitate to quality because it is rare and fleeting just like our lives.
If you tokens and mnemonics they must reflect your aspirations and not your worst fears.
Nice numismatic tokens of the last 60 years can be few and far between. Indeed, few things from the last 60 years have any longevity at all. Degradation, destruction, and entropy rule so many things that have been produced by the hands of man. Again not politics. Facts.
It's no wonder people collect old coins and moderns are oft seen as political statements.
A lot of coin shops can't giveaway 10c stamps. No box is big enough to affix enough 10c stamps to mail it and nobody wants to try.
To be a Gem a '72-S cent (any coin) has to be well centered, well struck, and a pristine presentation of unworn dies. The ideal being a perfect strike by new dies. Of course there are lots of flashy '72-S cents and some have minimal marking but most are poorly made or not well enough made to see all the detail. Does it really matter whether a coin lacks detail because it is heavily worn or it never existed? If detail is missing then the coin may as well be VG. This is why I refer to most 1966 quarters as having been made in MS-10 condition; they lacked detail. Even nicer MS-30 coins often passed from mint state to AG technically because the lettering on the reverse was so weakly struck it was already blended into the rim. By this standard only a few percent of '66 quarters were ever in chBU. This is the quality that was being ignored and now most of these coins are completely gone because of loss and entropy.
Perhaps if i sent away for a few handfuls of '72-S cents on eBay I'd be surprised and find one or many Gems. But this is highly improbable because I remember '72-S cents. They had problems and in those days people didn't seekto set aside nice coins they instead set aside what was available. Even though these are not at all uncommon in nice chBU they are not so readily available in Gem.
Obviously to deal in the market a collector or participant must grade to existing standards and most of my comments are from this perspective. And from this perspective MS-65 '72-S cents are not that scarce. '72 mint sets have nearly 5% S cent Gems which is high in those times and while attrition is high the coins themselves are often pristine rather than tarnished. This means there are hundreds, thousands really, that are available in sets. With cents it's very difficult to estimate the number of Gems because there are substantial numbers of BU rolls and proper sampling much more difficult. It is not outside the realm of possibility that the'72-S is among the most common early cents but is quite improbable.
People simply weren't seeking such coins in those days. Of course a few had no intention of saving any coins but did when they saw how nice the coins in hand were. Moderns were not "more loved" in 1972 than they are today and they were less collected in those days. It is simply not reasonable to assume there are vast hoards of any modern. These cents were not easy to find nice then and time has made certain there are a lot fewer today.
It's very difficult to estimate relative availability when even the common dates are rarely available due to lack of demand. But it is possible to closely estimate the percentage in Gem and get an idea of what exists in MS-65. It is certainly easy to say that the '72-D cent is the most common early cent in MS-65 and the'71 is highly elusive while the '72-D lies in between and much closer tothe'71 than the '72-D.
All collectors are probably well advised to keep up with what the general public knows and this is what makes the Redbook indispensable in the hobby.
@cladking . Do you have any R values for some of the coins you have talked about? Conditional or othwerwise. james
I've used very little formal statistics so confidence levels or R values are outside my work. Using statistics is difficult unless you have running tallies or a very large sample and both are very cumbersome. Gems bunch up in production and remain bunched up right until a clerk busts open a roll for the cash register so it is excruciatingly difficult to get meaningful samples in one place.
However I have done a lot of sampling not just from looking at new coins in circulation but checking BU rolls and bags of current and older moderns. I've put effort into acquiring good samples and can often detect when samples are contaminated by the many means this occurs. Most Gems are found in mint sets so I've concentrated this sampling in mint sets and from different geographic regions.
There is a strong sameness that applies to many dates, not just because dies are prepared the same way throughout the year but because practices tend to be long lasting and apply throughout the year. Most dies strike most of their coins after the first 50,000 strikes after most Gems are produced. Dies tend to be changed in batches so consecutive bags often have sorry coins.
Sampling mint processes is much more an art than a science and very difficult to reduce to numbers after the fact.
Jeff and John do a podcast every week and they discussed the 2026 Red Book a while back. One of the new things was the way that they do pricing. They use their CPG retail prices as a baseline at the time near publishing, and since they publish CPG and Greysheet they are up to date on prices compared to the family that previously owned Red Book under Whitman, which Greysheet acquired.
https://davescollectiblecoins.com/product-category/quarters-2/washington/page/17/
This is one of very few sellers of moderns who is offering Gems. I have some idea of the grading standard based on the pictures and prices. I'm not suggesting that any of these is fairly priced or over/ underpriced and present it mainly to highlight what is not being sold as gems; all the old moderns that are difficult to find in Gem. There are a few better dates in the various denominations but I noticed none of the key dates. Again, this is about Aunt Martha in Poughkeepsie. Where can she find not just the tough coins but the toughest? Much of the lack of availability can be laid on the lack of demand but this goes beyond merely being anomalous. Why doesn't the void in supply cause the tiny demand to be be met with supply at higher prices? Much of the reason is people including collectors still perceive the coins as common so are in no hurry to complete collections.
Condition rarities with boring designs will always struggle to find many advocates and this drives the underwhelming market for moderns.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I meant a catalog value of 10 cents, not literally a 10 cent stamp.
Based on the number of cents in parking lots, apparently you can't always give away a 1972-S cent either.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Especially because the coin itself isn't rare. Not everyone will get excited about a pop 5 coin with a mintage of a billion, especially when the coin a couple grades lower is available for not much over face value.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I hardly disagree. But then I see people chase nice Gem silver quarters which tend to be more common. There's more at play here than boring designs.
A lot better off older collectors, which may be the dominant date/mm collectors, stop their collections at 1964.
But, yes, there are multiple factors at play.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm not talking about pop tops. What people want to pay for them is their own business and I have sold into this demand a little bit. Perhaps buying is a better financial move but I'm principally selling due to age. I'm also not talking about the typical ugly modern US coin in BU or MS-35. I'm talking about nice attractive collectible specimens in ANY grade down to VG. In Unc the only coins I personally find attractive are what I call "Gem" and is very similar to what the services callMS-65. I call near misses "gemmy" and this corresponds to good looking well made MS-63 and MS-64 coins. I believe that if a market ever develops this is where the demand will be concentrated; nice well made MS-65's because most coins in lower grades are unattractive.
It is not terribly unusual to find nice well made and evenly worn moderns in grades all the way down to F but such specimens are getting difficult because of both widespread degradation and drawdown by collectors that arose in 1999. In the'80's you'd find two or three such coins in every roll and they'd usually be in VF to AU. But now it has become virtually impossible to find many of the older dates in any attractive condition. By the time a nice quarter gets down to VF they are usually covered in scratches apparently from counting houses or other automated equipment. You might need ten rolls to find a single collectible specimen from before 1990 and even the '90's issues are starting to become uncommon.
So where do you get a nice attractive 1968 cent. You are unlikely to find a 1968 in circulation but if you do there is a fair chance it will be a nice attractive VF or XF.
There will never be a mass market in pop 5 coins. However if a mass market emerges in moderns there's a very high chance most collectors will seek Gem coins in part because many of these coins are even rarer in XF or VF.
The last 1969 quarters in AU disappeared in 1980 and the XF's were gone by '85. Today most are heavily worn and cull. Finding a nice well made and evenly worn specimen in VG is highly unlikely. Above VF is very unlikely as well. F's and VF's are almost invariably scratched up. Mint set coins are tarnished severely depleted and usually low grade ugly coins.