So you've told me, over and over. So what? The TPG pops are not low.
Mint sets are the source of most modern base metal coins actually existing in modern coin collections.
Most of these (especially older dates) have already been destroyed and do not exist in BU rolls.
I do not know how to put this more simply.
Despite these coins never becoming widely collected, because these coins never became widely collected, they are gone now and there aren't even enough for the few who want them. Maybe the '60-D will double a few times and scare away the demand as the price begins approaching 25c but I doubt it. People will tend to go ahead and pay the price because they already have a 75c paper profit on the rest of their collection. The demand for graded coins is not driving the BU roll market. Sure there is some overlap because there are individuals buying rolls to search for pop tops but I seriously doubt that this is a major factor in higher prices.
I just spoke with a top coin auction house about auctioning off my bank-wrapped rolls (1935-date) and my sealed Mint and proof sets. They wanted none of them unless I opened them all up first. Too much risk for the auction house (e.g. one year after the auction the buyer says there were only 49 dimes in a roll, or a sealed proof set box of 5 sets only had four sets in the box). I was surprised - I figured pristine lots like a bank-wrapped roll of 1935 cents or assorted Washington Quarters from the 1940’s would have been highly interesting and might have fetched “moon-money”. Although I do understand the concerns of the auction house.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
So you've told me, over and over. So what? The TPG pops are not low.
Mint sets are the source of most modern base metal coins actually existing in modern coin collections.
Most of these (especially older dates) have already been destroyed and do not exist in BU rolls.
I do not know how to put this more simply.
Despite these coins never becoming widely collected, because these coins never became widely collected, they are gone now and there aren't even enough for the few who want them. Maybe the '60-D will double a few times and scare away the demand as the price begins approaching 25c but I doubt it. People will tend to go ahead and pay the price because they already have a 75c paper profit on the rest of their collection. The demand for graded coins is not driving the BU roll market. Sure there is some overlap because there are individuals buying rolls to search for pop tops but I seriously doubt that this is a major factor in higher prices.
Who cares if there are no more Mint sets of there is already a sufficient supply of gems. I think that's @WCC point.
So the population is capped? So what? The population of most 19th century coins have been capped for decades. At this point, new supply of bust dollars would be more of a threat to the market than a benefit.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@wondercoin said:
I just spoke with a top coin auction house about auctioning off my bank-wrapped rolls (1935-date) and my sealed Mint and proof sets. They wanted none of them unless I opened them all up first. Too much risk for the auction house (e.g. one year after the auction the buyer says there were only 49 dimes in a roll, or a sealed proof set box of 5 sets only had four sets in the box). I was surprised - I figured pristine lots like a bank-wrapped roll of 1935 cents or assorted Washington Quarters from the 1940’s would have been highly interesting and might have fetched “moon-money”. Although I do understand the concerns of the auction house.
Wondercoin.
I guess this confirms they want good rolls, or to say it another way, they'd rather have a full roll of BU coins and give up the chance of getting a bad roll or the varieties and Gems in the typical roll. This makes sense for moderns since there are so many bad rolls and so few Gems and varieties.
But those older rolls should be able to attract a lot of interest sight seen (with end coins visible)(and apparently original).
A lot of rolls from before 1999 have been checked.
So you've told me, over and over. So what? The TPG pops are not low.
Mint sets are the source of most modern base metal coins actually existing in modern coin collections.
Most of these (especially older dates) have already been destroyed and do not exist in BU rolls.
I do not know how to put this more simply.
Despite these coins never becoming widely collected, because these coins never became widely collected, they are gone now and there aren't even enough for the few who want them. Maybe the '60-D will double a few times and scare away the demand as the price begins approaching 25c but I doubt it. People will tend to go ahead and pay the price because they already have a 75c paper profit on the rest of their collection. The demand for graded coins is not driving the BU roll market. Sure there is some overlap because there are individuals buying rolls to search for pop tops but I seriously doubt that this is a major factor in higher prices.
Who cares if there are no more Mint sets of there is already a sufficient supply of gems. I think that's @WCC point.
So the population is capped? So what? The population of most 19th century coins hands been capped for decades. At this point, new supply of bust dollars would be more of a threat to the market than a benefit.
Ah, but the pops of 19th century coins are capped only by coins worth more than $100. If prices go up then there is no cap because lower grades will go up and be graded. This can continue until every 1907 cent in G condition is encapsulated. There is no limit. Most moderns have a limit and we appear to be moving past it. There are not massive numbers of chBU moderns as is imagined and many have become difficult even to find in circulation. And again, there is another problem with moderns that doesn't apply to 1907 cents: many of them look just awful the whole time they are degrading. They start off as a weak strike from worn dies and then are ground into nothing at all. Even some coins described as Gem lack details for one reason or another or has unattractive surfaces. You can't make any new 1969 quarters and most of what's left is still unattractive and still sitting tarnished in a 1969 mint set. You can always find a nice attractive 1907 one cent coin in ever lower grades.
Where do you get some nice attractive examples of BU moderns? BU rolls. And most of these come from mint sets.
So you've told me, over and over. So what? The TPG pops are not low.
Mint sets are the source of most modern base metal coins actually existing in modern coin collections.
Most of these (especially older dates) have already been destroyed and do not exist in BU rolls.
I do not know how to put this more simply.
Despite these coins never becoming widely collected, because these coins never became widely collected, they are gone now and there aren't even enough for the few who want them. Maybe the '60-D will double a few times and scare away the demand as the price begins approaching 25c but I doubt it. People will tend to go ahead and pay the price because they already have a 75c paper profit on the rest of their collection. The demand for graded coins is not driving the BU roll market. Sure there is some overlap because there are individuals buying rolls to search for pop tops but I seriously doubt that this is a major factor in higher prices.
Who cares if there are no more Mint sets of there is already a sufficient supply of gems. I think that's @WCC point.
So the population is capped? So what? The population of most 19th century coins hands been capped for decades. At this point, new supply of bust dollars would be more of a threat to the market than a benefit.
Ah, but the pops of 19th century coins are capped only by coins worth more than $100. If prices go up then there is no cap because lower grades will go up and be graded. This can continue until every 1907 cent in G condition is encapsulated. There is no limit. Most moderns have a limit and we appear to be moving past it. There are not massive numbers of chBU moderns as is imagined and many have become difficult even to find in circulation. And again, there is another problem with moderns that doesn't apply to 1907 cents: many of them look just awful the whole time they are degrading. They start off as a weak strike from worn dies and then are ground into nothing at all. Even some coins described as Gem lack details for one reason or another or has unattractive surfaces. You can't make any new 1969 quarters and most of what's left is still unattractive and still sitting tarnished in a 1969 mint set. You can always find a nice attractive 1907 one cent coin in ever lower grades.
Where do you get some nice attractive examples of BU moderns? BU rolls. And most of these come from mint sets.
I'm not referring to the graded population. I'm referring to the population of coins, raw and graded. There is little chance of the population of bust coins going up.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
So you've told me, over and over. So what? The TPG pops are not low.
Mint sets are the source of most modern base metal coins actually existing in modern coin collections.
Most of these (especially older dates) have already been destroyed and do not exist in BU rolls.
I do not know how to put this more simply.
Despite these coins never becoming widely collected, because these coins never became widely collected, they are gone now and there aren't even enough for the few who want them. Maybe the '60-D will double a few times and scare away the demand as the price begins approaching 25c but I doubt it. People will tend to go ahead and pay the price because they already have a 75c paper profit on the rest of their collection. The demand for graded coins is not driving the BU roll market. Sure there is some overlap because there are individuals buying rolls to search for pop tops but I seriously doubt that this is a major factor in higher prices.
Who cares if there are no more Mint sets of there is already a sufficient supply of gems. I think that's @WCC point.
So the population is capped? So what? The population of most 19th century coins hands been capped for decades. At this point, new supply of bust dollars would be more of a threat to the market than a benefit.
Ah, but the pops of 19th century coins are capped only by coins worth more than $100. If prices go up then there is no cap because lower grades will go up and be graded. This can continue until every 1907 cent in G condition is encapsulated. There is no limit. Most moderns have a limit and we appear to be moving past it. There are not massive numbers of chBU moderns as is imagined and many have become difficult even to find in circulation. And again, there is another problem with moderns that doesn't apply to 1907 cents: many of them look just awful the whole time they are degrading. They start off as a weak strike from worn dies and then are ground into nothing at all. Even some coins described as Gem lack details for one reason or another or has unattractive surfaces. You can't make any new 1969 quarters and most of what's left is still unattractive and still sitting tarnished in a 1969 mint set. You can always find a nice attractive 1907 one cent coin in ever lower grades.
Where do you get some nice attractive examples of BU moderns? BU rolls. And most of these come from mint sets.
I'm not referring to the graded population. I'm referring to the population of coins, raw and graded. There is little chance of the population of bust coins going up.
They can always start grading nice attractive AG's.
But where are you going to get a nice attractive low grade '69 quarter?
So you've told me, over and over. So what? The TPG pops are not low.
Mint sets are the source of most modern base metal coins actually existing in modern coin collections.
Most of these (especially older dates) have already been destroyed and do not exist in BU rolls.
I do not know how to put this more simply.
Despite these coins never becoming widely collected, because these coins never became widely collected, they are gone now and there aren't even enough for the few who want them. Maybe the '60-D will double a few times and scare away the demand as the price begins approaching 25c but I doubt it. People will tend to go ahead and pay the price because they already have a 75c paper profit on the rest of their collection. The demand for graded coins is not driving the BU roll market. Sure there is some overlap because there are individuals buying rolls to search for pop tops but I seriously doubt that this is a major factor in higher prices.
Who cares if there are no more Mint sets of there is already a sufficient supply of gems. I think that's @WCC point.
So the population is capped? So what? The population of most 19th century coins hands been capped for decades. At this point, new supply of bust dollars would be more of a threat to the market than a benefit.
Ah, but the pops of 19th century coins are capped only by coins worth more than $100. If prices go up then there is no cap because lower grades will go up and be graded. This can continue until every 1907 cent in G condition is encapsulated. There is no limit. Most moderns have a limit and we appear to be moving past it. There are not massive numbers of chBU moderns as is imagined and many have become difficult even to find in circulation. And again, there is another problem with moderns that doesn't apply to 1907 cents: many of them look just awful the whole time they are degrading. They start off as a weak strike from worn dies and then are ground into nothing at all. Even some coins described as Gem lack details for one reason or another or has unattractive surfaces. You can't make any new 1969 quarters and most of what's left is still unattractive and still sitting tarnished in a 1969 mint set. You can always find a nice attractive 1907 one cent coin in ever lower grades.
Where do you get some nice attractive examples of BU moderns? BU rolls. And most of these come from mint sets.
I'm not referring to the graded population. I'm referring to the population of coins, raw and graded. There is little chance of the population of bust coins going up.
They can always start grading nice attractive AG's.
But where are you going to get a nice attractive low grade '69 quarter?
I don’t consider any of them attractive, but especially not below AU.
I don’t consider any of them attractive, but especially not below AU.
I've seen dozens and dozens of beautiful VF, XF, and AU coins in circulation over the years. Maybe even hundreds if you go all the way back to 1969. I've also seen dozens and dozens of nice gemmy coins in mint sets including several full on Gems. This coin isn't even common in chBU but most of the chBU coins are not attractive to my eye. As made I'd call about 8% of the mint set coins "attractive" and almost all of these would grade MS-64 or higher. Today the coins in mint sets are all tarnished but most of them can be saved with a soak in acetone or alcohol. Only about two out of three mint set coins that are left can still be sold as "chBU" after cleaning. The other are spotted, tarnished, and/ or too badly made.
This date is the real sleeper in the series because nobody could accumulate it. Most of the coins in the sets just went into circulation because nobody collected them and the cost was low. Now most of the sets are gone and there is no market. This date is rarely for sale and all rolls are mint set coins.
It's an ugly date and nice attractive coins are tough if you don't like poor strikes, poor surfaces, and chicken scratching,
Being so old relative most moderns it's had a lot of time to degrade and be lost. Even the nicest ones are mostly cull or lost entirely by now.
So you've told me, over and over. So what? The TPG pops are not low.
Mint sets are the source of most modern base metal coins actually existing in modern coin collections.
Most of these (especially older dates) have already been destroyed and do not exist in BU rolls.
I do not know how to put this more simply.
Despite these coins never becoming widely collected, because these coins never became widely collected, they are gone now and there aren't even enough for the few who want them. Maybe the '60-D will double a few times and scare away the demand as the price begins approaching 25c but I doubt it. People will tend to go ahead and pay the price because they already have a 75c paper profit on the rest of their collection. The demand for graded coins is not driving the BU roll market. Sure there is some overlap because there are individuals buying rolls to search for pop tops but I seriously doubt that this is a major factor in higher prices.
Who cares if there are no more Mint sets of there is already a sufficient supply of gems. I think that's @WCC point.
So the population is capped? So what? The population of most 19th century coins hands been capped for decades. At this point, new supply of bust dollars would be more of a threat to the market than a benefit.
Ah, but the pops of 19th century coins are capped only by coins worth more than $100. If prices go up then there is no cap because lower grades will go up and be graded. This can continue until every 1907 cent in G condition is encapsulated. There is no limit. Most moderns have a limit and we appear to be moving past it. There are not massive numbers of chBU moderns as is imagined and many have become difficult even to find in circulation. And again, there is another problem with moderns that doesn't apply to 1907 cents: many of them look just awful the whole time they are degrading. They start off as a weak strike from worn dies and then are ground into nothing at all. Even some coins described as Gem lack details for one reason or another or has unattractive surfaces. You can't make any new 1969 quarters and most of what's left is still unattractive and still sitting tarnished in a 1969 mint set. You can always find a nice attractive 1907 one cent coin in ever lower grades.
Where do you get some nice attractive examples of BU moderns? BU rolls. And most of these come from mint sets.
I'm not referring to the graded population. I'm referring to the population of coins, raw and graded. There is little chance of the population of bust coins going up.
They can always start grading nice attractive AG's.
But where are you going to get a nice attractive low grade '69 quarter?
Again, I'm talking TOTAL POPULATION. That includes raw AGs and Poors. EVERYTHING. The population of Bust coins has been largely fixed for 100 years. That is not a problem or a tragedy or a reason to fail and gnash your teeth. If the population of clad coins is similar fixed in the near future by attrition, it is not a tragedy or a market problem.
It doesn't matter if they can't find any more low grade '69 quarters. There's enough. Period. If there weren't enough, it would be reflected in the price.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
It doesn't matter if they can't find any more low grade '69 quarters. There's enough. Period. If there weren't enough, it would be reflected in the price.
Yes, I agree. There are plenty of coins for everyone who wants one as long as the demand for nice attractive 1969 quarters remains under a few thousand.
But I believe it could go far higher. Just because they've never been widely collected there's no reason they can't ever be.
It doesn't matter if they can't find any more low grade '69 quarters. There's enough. Period. If there weren't enough, it would be reflected in the price.
Yes, I agree. There are plenty of coins for everyone who wants one as long as the demand for nice attractive 1969 quarters remains under a few thousand.
But I believe it could go far higher. Just because they've never been widely collected there's no reason they can't ever be.
And then you will have the same situation that you have with 19th century coins. That's my point. There is no tragedy in the population getting fixed. If they appreciate 100 years from now due to demand, so be it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I got ready to take some OBW rolls (moderns) to the bank.
Then I decided to look at ebay...
2003-D lincoln cents are going for ~$12-$15
2011-D dime rolls for $12-$30
SHQ are finally getting some traction for some (I have a lot of Delawares)...
Even nickels from the 2004-2006 timeframe are finally seeing some upward motion
@Bochiman said:
I got ready to take some OBW rolls (moderns) to the bank.
Then I decided to look at ebay...
2003-D lincoln cents are going for ~$12-$15
2011-D dime rolls for $12-$30
SHQ are finally getting some traction for some (I have a lot of Delawares)...
Even nickels from the 2004-2006 timeframe are finally seeing some upward motion
People aren't noticing what's going on with moderns because it has sneaked up on us in many tiny little steps. It was really brought home to me just the other day when I found a really nice attractive VF '68-D in a quarter sample I obtained in rolls at the bank. This coin is very unusual in that it started life as a well struck Gem but it is also very unusual because it has received so very little wear. Most '68-D quarter are long gone and this one is still beginning its life. Keep in mind as well that this is the toughest quarter to find in circulation in any condition at all. The final thing that makes it unusual is that it's neither a cull nor is it covered by networks of small scratches like most of the XF and lower quarters in circulation. The odds of finding such a coin through random chance are infinitesimal. The odds are so far against the existence of this coin coming into my hands though random chance I can be quite certain that it was not random chance., Some collector(s) had a hand in preserving this coin.
The facts suggest the coin didn't circulate after about 1990 when the coins started getting scratched up. If there were a single incident that can explain it's condition I'd guess someone pulled it out of circulation back around 1980 because it is such a nice specimen and then someone released it back into circulation within the last two or three years. This most commonly occurs when someone's coin collection is dispersed when they die.
There are so many ways this can happen and with astronomical mintages and the effects of coin collectors you can be sure it has happened and there are more out there. This is the only reason any clads survive; somebody intentionally saved them. Coins don't pass through circulation sometimes shielded from wear so a few are still pristine Gems after 57 years. They are a mess, they are all a mess. '68 mint sets are almost all gone and the '68-D quarters left in them are all tarnished.
Time can't be undone and it don't fly it bounds and leaps. And this quarter caused a big leap for me because it is so impossibly anomalous.
@WCC said:
>
Once again, inventing claims from my posts I never stated or implied. I've never claimed any US modern is "uncollectible". You misattribute this claim to my posts repeatedly because you dislike my posts on these topics.
You keep saying things like moderns are financially inconsequential. If that would help keep speculators out I'd applaud but you intend it to keep collectors out and it will work for anyone who thinks this means they have no value which really is the only possible meaning.
Pot meet kettle. Yes, that would be you. Seriously, this reply is really amusing coming from you given your posting history.
You've been financially promoting this coinage for over 20 years on this forum. That's why you dislike it when anyone (me) contradicts your preferred narrative. It's another way of telling me I'm "bashing moderns" as you used to tell anyone who had the audacity to contradict you years ago.
Yes, you are collecting too, but it's evident from your own posts that you primarily acquired this coinage for financial reasons. What else am I supposed to conclude from someone (you) who has admitted to accumulating tens of 000s of this coinage for financial reasons? From someone (you) who claims to like this coinage as much as anyone else but still thinks everyone else should pay (far) more than they ever did or will? Why else do you demonstrate such intransigence in repeating and promoting so many obvious errors with your claimed knowledge of the coin market? Your claims directly contradict independently verifiable data in some instances, and observable market behavior repeatedly. You can't bring yourself to discuss this coinage impartially. You exaggerate everything about it. You exaggerate the collector appeal, you exaggerate the scarcity, and you exaggerate the financial potential. You can't even bring yourself to discuss the real coin market, instead writing in the context of one that doesn't even exist.
Your collecting style is a multiple standard deviation outlier among those who collect this coinage. You don't speak for hardly anyone. Out of my estimate of 2MM+ active collectors, I'd guess maybe as few as a few hundred have a similar collecting style to yours, a collector presumably with a mid-5 figure collection by value composed of tens of 000s of coins minimum almost entirely valued from a few cents to a few dollars. You've called US collecting "unusual" but it's only your collection that is unusual. Who else is obsessed with the prices and price changes on such low-priced coinage other than you? And if you claim you aren't, why have you written literally 000s of posts about it? There isn't another poster who did that.
To anyone who isn't a hoarder, the theme of this thread has absolute no economic or market relevance. We are after all living in 2026, not 1965 which is the only other financial context inferable from your threads and posts on these topics. Why would anyone else other than a large-scale low-priced hoarder (you) care about the theme of this thread, especially when you haven't even demonstrated your claims as usual.
Start writing about the real coin market and stop misrepresenting this coinage like you have been, and then I'll actually take your posts seriously. Your posts on these topics aren't even a serious conversation. Yes, I know I come across like an ogre in our post exchanges, but I'm confident I'm far from the only one on this forum who discounts or dismisses your claims.
I'm in that short line of collectors who finds Cladkings observations interesting, sure sometimes it seems possibly a tad exaggerated but nonetheless entertaining as is your remarks.
You have to remember that I'm an old newbie and you're an old oldie.
Few people have any desire to own a bag of '60-D cents because they aren't collected this way but I'd love to have one. No, I can't pay your postage or much of a premium but get it to me and I'll pull out the Gems and varieties then haul $49.75 to the bank because somebody has to do it or there will be literally none in the future.
No, virtually no one wants a bag of any coin because they aren't "collecting" this way because they aren't hoarders like you.
Well, here we are; it's the future already and always has been. Guess what. People still didn't save moderns and all those bags of '60-D cents are mostly gone now or sitting corroding in somebody's garage. Of course millions saved a few bags and rolls survived anyway because that's the way attrition works. You start with a huge number and it takes forever to whittle it down and a few people stored their coins properly AND were lucky. All those moderns you keep tarring were neither made nor saved in large quantities and no matter how many times I point this out you want bash them all. I like '60-D sm dt cents but they are not the be all end all "modern coin collecting". I recognize they are common even in very nice chBU condition. So exactly how many bags of corroded junk have to exist before you can't collect coins from later times? How valuable does a coin have to be before it becomes "consequential".
More of your exaggeration and persecution complex. The world has never "run out" of a single coin as you've repeatedly implied. And while we're at it, this "mass market" you've imagined isn't ever going to happen either. It's another non-problem you've invented. I've also told you repeatedly collectability doesn't have anything to do with the price. That's you. You're the one who has repeatedly claimed US moderns are 'hardly collected" or "not collected", and it's entirely due to the price. Read your own posts.
It's not so much I "dislike" your posts as it is I can't follow your logic and you often conclude that moderns are uncollectible, worthless, or inappropriate for making coin collections.
This is got to be about the most ridiculous comment I've ever received from you, and that's saying a lot.
There isn't anything I've ever told you that is "hard to understand". I'm not 100% right, but when I'm not, it isn't for a single reason you've ever given me and I never just "make things up" like you do. But then, in our last discussion, you pointed me (again) to the 1950-D nickel price bubble as the supposed model for your future coin market. There isn't anyone who legitimately understands the coin market who believes this coin's price history is a future model for anything, other than another price bubble from temporary speculation.
Do I really need to explain to you why it isn't by answering the question you previously asked?
As for the last part of this extract, read my above response
Pick up a recent edition of the Redbook and you might see your premises are wrong. It's always very easy to reason right on around to everything we believe but I don't share your belief and neither do millions of new collectors. Most young collectors own at least a few coins made since 1965.
There isn't a thing in the Red Book that contradicts even one claim I've actually made. But then, you've repeatedly inferred or entirely fabricated conclusions from my posts which I never implied much less stated.
Since I've never claimed or implied US moderns are "uncollectible", never claimed or implied the prices won't increase, and never claimed or implied the collector base won't increase, you have no basis to claim "million" agree with you. Concurrently, I can infer virtually no one agrees with your outrageously inflated price claims, hyper-inflated implied future financial scale, and exorbitantly inflated future collector base.
So you've told me, over and over. So what? The TPG pops are not low.
Mint sets are the source of most modern base metal coins actually existing in modern coin collections.
Most of these (especially older dates) have already been destroyed and do not exist in BU rolls.
I do not know how to put this more simply.
Despite these coins never becoming widely collected, because these coins never became widely collected, they are gone now and there aren't even enough for the few who want them. Maybe the '60-D will double a few times and scare away the demand as the price begins approaching 25c but I doubt it. People will tend to go ahead and pay the price because they already have a 75c paper profit on the rest of their collection. The demand for graded coins is not driving the BU roll market. Sure there is some overlap because there are individuals buying rolls to search for pop tops but I seriously doubt that this is a major factor in higher prices.
Who cares if there are no more Mint sets of there is already a sufficient supply of gems. I think that's @WCC point.
So the population is capped? So what? The population of most 19th century coins have been capped for decades. At this point, new supply of bust dollars would be more of a threat to the market than a benefit.
Part of my point, but not all of it. My larger point is that not only does he claim to know something he doesn't actually know, but something no one can possibly know. I've told him that repeatedly. He's also repeatedly inferred the world is apparently about to "run out" of some US modern apparently because his future "mass market" will find it so "interesting" that (virtually) no one will ever sell it, as if that's ever happened even once with any coin. His own prior numerical estimates don't create anything even close to a legitimate market scarcity, but apparently that makes no difference either.
I've also pointed out the availability of too many other coins to list which are obviously scarcer by a factor of 00s to 1MM+ (depending upon the coin and quality comparison), but it contradicts his preferred narrative so ignores it. In our last post exchanges, he inferred (yes, indirectly claimed) that some unnamed Soviet coin is scarcer by a large factor vs. the 18th century Lima and Potosi pillar 1/2, 1R, 2R, and 4R in the quality I own. I potentially own one of the best collections of this coinage assembled in recent memory and I'm confident he's never seen any of these coins like mine even once in his life if at all, but his observations are still accurate in estimating survivorship and quality distribution. Even after his non-qualifying qualifier of his inference, he still claims "what you see is what you get". He apparently has no concept of the network effect which actually explains the observable availability of most low-priced coinage, including US moderns.
I have a bag of 1960-D (small-date) cents.
I haven't looked at it in a long time, but I think the coins are actually circulated.
Yes, someone actually took the time to segregate 5,000 of them from circulation.
@Coinscratch said:
I'm in that short line of collectors who finds Cladkings observations interesting, sure sometimes it seems possibly a tad exaggerated but nonetheless entertaining as is your remarks.
You have to remember that I'm an old newbie and you're an old oldie.
Can you be a new oldie?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@dcarr said:
I have a bag of 1960-D (small-date) cents.
I haven't looked at it in a long time, but I think the coins are actually circulated.
Yes, someone actually took the time to segregate 5,000 of them from circulation.
Recently or 30 or 40 years ago?
I've seen similar hoards and also 70s hoards. But they were all assembled decades ago when there was some sentiment that they would increase in value. It's hard to get a nickel for a circ 60D these days, but the roll price was significant in the late 60s.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@Coinscratch said:
I'm in that short line of collectors who finds Cladkings observations interesting, sure sometimes it seems possibly a tad exaggerated but nonetheless entertaining as is your remarks.
You have to remember that I'm an old newbie and you're an old oldie.
I feel like the proverbial linguist who went out and got a PHD so he could understand incantation that's already been translated. Life is like that. Little changes accumulate until there is a sudden shift in how it is perceived: Time don't fly it bounds and leaps.
I couldda stayed in bed or had a V8 and just waited all these years to have @WCC tell me what's what based on mintage figures and extrapolations of what has always been. But it really doesn't matter what he or I believe because people collect coins not promises and rarely other people's opinions. And if you want BU rolls you are paying a great deal more for them now than a few months ago and this is the point of the thread.
It's another way of telling me I'm "bashing moderns" as you used to tell anyone who had the audacity to contradict you years ago.
Nonsense. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to people bashing what I love but there's no issue of fact that I won't argue and I don't insist people agree with me. Of course from your perspective all the modern bashing is not only justified but completely necessary lest more people collect moderns than old pieces of eight. I've never told anyone not to collect anything but have steered them away from things like different shapes of gravel or chocolate coins. In the latter case it was experience because my collection degraded so quickly. If you're going to do it just make sure you keep them at low temperature and don't prune your collection when you're hungry or have a sweet tooth. Some of these are beautiful but like most food or ideas they can be fleeting.
To each his own. Ultimately it doesn't really matter what we collect but our collections have a better chance of survival than any random coin so long as we are doing it right. Collecting is a struggle against entropy that claims all things in the end. What better thing have we to do than struggle to make things better, preserve what's important, and have some fun while we can?
So you've told me, over and over. So what? The TPG pops are not low.
Mint sets are the source of most modern base metal coins actually existing in modern coin collections.
Most of these (especially older dates) have already been destroyed and do not exist in BU rolls.
I do not know how to put this more simply.
Despite these coins never becoming widely collected, because these coins never became widely collected, they are gone now and there aren't even enough for the few who want them. Maybe the '60-D will double a few times and scare away the demand as the price begins approaching 25c but I doubt it. People will tend to go ahead and pay the price because they already have a 75c paper profit on the rest of their collection. The demand for graded coins is not driving the BU roll market. Sure there is some overlap because there are individuals buying rolls to search for pop tops but I seriously doubt that this is a major factor in higher prices.
Who cares if there are no more Mint sets of there is already a sufficient supply of gems. I think that's @WCC point.
So the population is capped? So what? The population of most 19th century coins have been capped for decades. At this point, new supply of bust dollars would be more of a threat to the market than a benefit.
Part of my point, but not all of it. My larger point is that not only does he claim to know something he doesn't actually know, but something no one can possibly know. I've told him that repeatedly. He's also repeatedly inferred the world is apparently about to "run out" of some US modern apparently because his future "mass market" will find it so "interesting" that (virtually) no one will ever sell it, as if that's ever happened even once with any coin. His own prior numerical estimates don't create anything even close to a legitimate market scarcity, but apparently that makes no difference either.
I've also pointed out the availability of too many other coins to list which are obviously scarcer by a factor of 00s to 1MM+ (depending upon the coin and quality comparison), but it contradicts his preferred narrative so ignores it. In our last post exchanges, he inferred (yes, indirectly claimed) that some unnamed Soviet coin is scarcer by a large factor vs. the 18th century Lima and Potosi pillar 1/2, 1R, 2R, and 4R in the quality I own. I potentially own one of the best collections of this coinage assembled in recent memory and I'm confident he's never seen any of these coins like mine even once in his life if at all, but his observations are still accurate in estimating survivorship and quality distribution. Even after his non-qualifying qualifier of his inference, he still claims "what you see is what you get". He apparently has no concept of the network effect which actually explains the observable availability of most low-priced coinage, including US moderns.
It's another way of telling me I'm "bashing moderns" as you used to tell anyone who had the audacity to contradict you years ago.
Nonsense. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to people bashing what I love but there's no issue of fact that I won't argue and I don't insist people agree with me. Of course from your perspective all the modern bashing is not only justified but completely necessary lest more people collect moderns than old pieces of eight. I've never told anyone not to collect anything but have steered them away from things like different shapes of gravel or chocolate coins. In the latter case it was experience because my collection degraded so quickly. If you're going to do it just make sure you keep them at low temperature and don't prune your collection when you're hungry or have a sweet tooth. Some of these are beautiful but like most food or ideas they can be fleeting.
To each his own. Ultimately it doesn't really matter what we collect but our collections have a better chance of survival than any random coin so long as we are doing it right. Collecting is a struggle against entropy that claims all things in the end. What better thing have we to do than struggle to make things better, preserve what's important, and have some fun while we can?
And make up "facts" when necessary.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I enjoy Cladking’s posts. He is a modern coin expert. I don’t always agree with him but I respect and enjoy his knowledge and enthusiasm. His opinions are worth considering. I hope he keeps sharing his knowledge.
However, there are others here who usually respond to his posts with accusations and arguments. To each his own and we all can have differing collecting interests. I ignore certain responses because they detract from my personal enjoyment of this forum rather than add to it.
You are all probably more coin savvy than me. Most of you certainly post more than me.
I have only been collecting for nearly 60 years now. I will be likely be bashed for this response but that’s harmless. I am sure the bashers mean well and I don’t pretend to have the same level of expertise anyone else here has. There are likely many of us who read Cladking’s posts with interest and enjoyment. Cladking, please continue sharing your knowledge and opinions. They are much appreciated.
@dlmtorts said:
I enjoy Cladking’s posts. He is a modern coin expert. I don’t always agree with him but I respect and enjoy his knowledge and enthusiasm. His opinions are worth considering. I hope he keeps sharing his knowledge.
However, there are others here who usually respond to his posts with accusations and arguments. To each his own and we all can have differing collecting interests. I ignore certain responses because they detract from my personal enjoyment of this forum rather than add to it.
You are all probably more coin savvy than me. Most of you certainly post more than me.
I have only been collecting for nearly 60 years now. I will be likely be bashed for this response but that’s harmless. I am sure the bashers mean well and I don’t pretend to have the same level of expertise anyone else here has. There are likely many of us who read Cladking’s posts with interest and enjoyment. Cladking, please continue sharing your knowledge and opinions. They are much appreciated.
Thank you. I've always found your posts apt, interesting, and enjoyable.
I do run off at the mouth a lot but I enjoy discourse. Everyone is invited to elaborate or contradict.
I'm watching the BU roll market and still selling into it but almost all of the bulk stuff I had is gone. I haven't sold too much of the Gems and varieties yet. I have an interest in my collections and selling duplicates as well as a few more collections. I hope to get down to just a few core collections. I enjoy coins and have collected every US series except gold as well as most world coins made since 1850. Coins are an enjoyable hobby no matter your budget.
@dcarr said:
I have a bag of 1960-D (small-date) cents.
I haven't looked at it in a long time, but I think the coins are actually circulated.
Yes, someone actually took the time to segregate 5,000 of them from circulation.
That's a valuable bag probably loaded with high grade (VF+) varieties.
@dcarr said:
I have a bag of 1960-D (small-date) cents.
I haven't looked at it in a long time, but I think the coins are actually circulated.
Yes, someone actually took the time to segregate 5,000 of them from circulation.
Recently or 30 or 40 years ago?
I've seen similar hoards and also 70s hoards. But they were all assembled decades ago when there was some sentiment that they would increase in value. It's hard to get a nickel for a circ 60D these days, but the roll price was significant in the late 60s.
@dcarr said:
I have a bag of 1960-D (small-date) cents.
I haven't looked at it in a long time, but I think the coins are actually circulated.
Yes, someone actually took the time to segregate 5,000 of them from circulation.
That's a valuable bag probably loaded with high grade (VF+) varieties.
.
I bought it about 15 years ago. I do not know how that owner acquired or accumulated them.
In the same group that I bought is a bag of circulated 1955-S, and mint-sealed bag of 1964 [P], and some other mixed bags.
I haven't really looked at them since.
@SanctionII
Your 66 is nice but I like the 7+s better obviously. What would you (or anybody listening) attribute their toning to?
My assumption would be album but could this be from a roll or even mint set packaging?
If I had to guess the toning on the pictured quarters was caused by storage of the coin in an album or a coin envelope that had had chemicals in the paper/cardboard that reacted with the metal and caused toning. I placed some MS clad quarters I pulled from circulation as a kid in the 1960's and early 1970's into Whitman quarter albums. After sitting in these albums for decades some of the quarters developed some attractive toning.
@cladking said:
That's a valuable bag probably loaded with high grade (VF+) varieties.
That collectors would be happy to cherrypick but not pay current retail for.
It will be interesting to see what future collectors collect. Even the common modern varieties (like the '70-S sm dt cent) tend to have survival rates under 100,000. Scarcer ones are under a couple dozen all the way down to unique.
The BU roll market perking up signals that the days of cherry picks is coming to an end. If you haven't found it by now you probably won't because they'll all have been checked at least once by one collector. Even the most obscure varieties won't survive this selection process for long.
I think the implication is that now a market for these can begin forming as well. You are not likely to find a 1964 quarter in circulation in cull VG because someone would have grabbed it. If you find one it will be a nice XF some spent accidently.
@jmlanzaf said:
I have 50 rolls of 60-D Uncs that haven't been searched. I'm sure they'll offer me 45 cents per roll for them
Same here- well, there might be as many as 50, I'm not sure. I also have 20-30 rolls of 61-D, 62-D and 63-D. None have been searched. Aside from us, there probably aren't any others out there though.
@jmlanzaf said:
I have 50 rolls of 60-D Uncs that haven't been searched. I'm sure they'll offer me 45 cents per roll for them
Same here- well, there might be as many as 50, I'm not sure. I also have 20-30 rolls of 61-D, 62-D and 63-D. None have been searched. Aside from us, there probably aren't any others out there though.
Lol. I know if a hoard of hundreds of 70-s small dates that I refused to buy because he wanted too much. I think there are far more of those around than cladking thinks. People have been searching and hoarding them for 50 years.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
I have 50 rolls of 60-D Uncs that haven't been searched. I'm sure they'll offer me 45 cents per roll for them
Same here- well, there might be as many as 50, I'm not sure. I also have 20-30 rolls of 61-D, 62-D and 63-D. None have been searched. Aside from us, there probably aren't any others out there though.
Lol. I know if a hoard of hundreds of 70-s small dates that I refused to buy because he wanted too much. I think there are far more of those around than cladking thinks. People have been searching and hoarding them for 50 years.
.
I have checked my pocket change routinely for 1970-S small dates (and anything else of interest) since 1971.
I only ever found ONE 1970-S small date in circulation (it was EF-45 grade).
I also found a couple in mint sets and several in proof sets.
I believe the business-strike is rarer than the proof-strike.
@cladking said:
That's a valuable bag probably loaded with high grade (VF+) varieties.
That collectors would be happy to cherrypick but not pay current retail for.
The biggie of course is the sm dt/ lg dt.
There are more collectors who want one than have one.
I have 50 rolls of 60-D Uncs that haven't been searched. I'm sure they'll offer me 45 cents per roll for them
It doesn't matter because postage will run you $30.
Every time postage rates increase more old coins go to the bank. There are far too many '60-D sm dts for them to become rare by this process but it affects ALL modern coins directly or indirectly. There weren't many post-'64 coins saved but they are low priced because they aren't collected and many have been spent for this reason. After large percentages of the 1960 coins are hauled to the bank there arte still a lot left. After large percentages of 1969 quarters are hauled to the bank there are almost none left. And this is why BU rolls come from mint sets. Numismatists know better than to collect moderns but the general public never got the word and now we're very low on mint sets.
@cladking said:
Scarcer ones are under a couple dozen all the way down to unique.
I'm curious- how do you know that's so?
If there were any other 1964 clad quarters than the one known it would be found by now and if it wasn't there's a 60% chance it has been destroyed. There are two known 75 PR dimes. Perhaps more will turn up. 1988 RR half dollars appear in about .6% of mint sets. As more data is acquired this number might drift up or down but it's not to change much.
Even varieties with huge mintages like the '71-D type h quarter is really pretty fixed. 100,000 were made but only a few dozens were plucked from circulation and now only about 60,000 survive in deplorable condition. Most of these are unlikely to ever be found. A few dozen in VF and better and the rest will be lost unless they are retrieved as worn culls over the next dozen years.
Across the board it's the same thing. Collectors ignored them and entropy prevailed.
@jmlanzaf said:
I have 50 rolls of 60-D Uncs that haven't been searched. I'm sure they'll offer me 45 cents per roll for them
Same here- well, there might be as many as 50, I'm not sure. I also have 20-30 rolls of 61-D, 62-D and 63-D. None have been searched. Aside from us, there probably aren't any others out there though.
Lol. I know if a hoard of hundreds of 70-s small dates that I refused to buy because he wanted too much. I think there are far more of those around than cladking thinks. People have been searching and hoarding them for 50 years.
Most of these are from mint sets and had a mintage of about "210,000". Many were spent because most mint sets weren't checked until the'90's. Even more have corroded and can't be recovered.
I've never seen a roll that wasn't assembled from mint sets but almost every single specimen I see came from a mint set.
Even though it's worth $45 now days there is still a very high attrition due to carelessness, neglect, and corrosion.
I passed up a mint set roll for $100 because I figured a coin this common could do better than the MUCH scarcer '70-S lg dt in Gem.
@jmlanzaf said:
I have 50 rolls of 60-D Uncs that haven't been searched. I'm sure they'll offer me 45 cents per roll for them
Same here- well, there might be as many as 50, I'm not sure. I also have 20-30 rolls of 61-D, 62-D and 63-D. None have been searched. Aside from us, there probably aren't any others out there though.
Lol. I know if a hoard of hundreds of 70-s small dates that I refused to buy because he wanted too much. I think there are far more of those around than cladking thinks. People have been searching and hoarding them for 50 years.
.
I have checked my pocket change routinely for 1970-S small dates (and anything else of interest) since 1971.
I only ever found ONE 1970-S small date in circulation (it was EF-45 grade).
I also found a couple in mint sets and several in proof sets.
I believe the business-strike is rarer than the proof-strike.
.
I've found only one as well (VF+) even though I look through rolls once in a while. I can't remember the last time I saw any '70-S.
I've also acquired a couple that other collectors have found in XF and AU.
I will comment on the idea of varieties. I have collected Seated material for 35 years so for me Barber coins are "Moderns". In October I launched my new hobby plan to collect Barber coins and in particular varieties. I have only been looking for them since October and I have allready found 4 Cherrypicker varieties in the wild. I would be fully willing to believe I have just had dumb luck but my suspicions are that only the few bother so the same is probably true of any true modern varieties; they will appear when people bother to look. james
@seatedlib3991 said:
I will comment on the idea of varieties. I have collected Seated material for 35 years so for me Barber coins are "Moderns". In October I launched my new hobby plan to collect Barber coins and in particular varieties. I have only been looking for them since October and I have allready found 4 Cherrypicker varieties in the wild. I would be fully willing to believe I have just had dumb luck but my suspicions are that only the few bother so the same is probably true of any true modern varieties; they will appear when people bother to look. james
I've been studying the great pyramids for so long that I think of even the oldest coins as "moderns".
I suspect the reason you find so many varieties is that so many more were produced. Modern dies are so similar that there are no readily available Pick Up Points to tell one from another. The changes in a die over its life span are larger than any difference with another regular die. Some dates have hundreds of millions of examples and no varieties.
Just like older varieties many come from only one set of working dies.
There's an even bigger difference though. Variety preservation was random so they'd tend to survive in relative numbers and this survival rate was quite high. But with moderns varieties fit three broad categories with vastly different attrition. There are those made for circulation but found before they were all distributed. These include some of the best and most common modern varieties and include things like the '82-NMM dime and the WI quarters. Then there are those that were well distributed before being spotted. These can be very rare especially in XF or better. Finally there are mint set varieties. Very large proportions of these can survive even if they aren't discovered early.
With the older coins you can find common varieties by looking through a few coins but finding varieties in circulation today is very hit and miss and you need to know what you're looking for before you start. I'm always surprised how few mint set or circulation varieties I found on my own. But the thing is I'm checking sets for anomalies like errors and Gems rather than searching for new varieties. I look closely at many of the coins but might not look closely enough at something like "50" 1968 dimes to spot the DDO. Most of my detailed inspection of new coins was random or it was just something that caught my eye.
@cladking said:
That's a valuable bag probably loaded with high grade (VF+) varieties.
That collectors would be happy to cherrypick but not pay current retail for.
The biggie of course is the sm dt/ lg dt.
There are more collectors who want one than have one.
I have 50 rolls of 60-D Uncs that haven't been searched. I'm sure they'll offer me 45 cents per roll for them
It doesn't matter because postage will run you $30.
Every time postage rates increase more old coins go to the bank. There are far too many '60-D sm dts for them to become rare by this process but it affects ALL modern coins directly or indirectly. There weren't many post-'64 coins saved but they are low priced because they aren't collected and many have been spent for this reason. After large percentages of the 1960 coins are hauled to the bank there arte still a lot left. After large percentages of 1969 quarters are hauled to the bank there are almost none left. And this is why BU rolls come from mint sets. Numismatists know better than to collect moderns but the general public never got the word and now we're very low on mint sets.
It was a joke. Postage could be free and there would be little point in selling roll (50 cents face) for 45 cents.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@cladking said:
That's a valuable bag probably loaded with high grade (VF+) varieties.
That collectors would be happy to cherrypick but not pay current retail for.
The biggie of course is the sm dt/ lg dt.
There are more collectors who want one than have one.
I have 50 rolls of 60-D Uncs that haven't been searched. I'm sure they'll offer me 45 cents per roll for them
It doesn't matter because postage will run you $30.
Every time postage rates increase more old coins go to the bank. There are far too many '60-D sm dts for them to become rare by this process but it affects ALL modern coins directly or indirectly. There weren't many post-'64 coins saved but they are low priced because they aren't collected and many have been spent for this reason. After large percentages of the 1960 coins are hauled to the bank there arte still a lot left. After large percentages of 1969 quarters are hauled to the bank there are almost none left. And this is why BU rolls come from mint sets. Numismatists know better than to collect moderns but the general public never got the word and now we're very low on mint sets.
It was a joke. Postage could be free and there would be little point in selling roll (50 cents face) for 45 cents.
It was a joke. Postage could be free and there would be little point in selling roll (50 cents face) for 45 cents.
Markets just grind away at common junk just like time itself. Not many original owners of bags and rolls are still around. Quality can be abysmal and problems cluster in certain years or mint marks. The absolute quantity of original BU rolls of many dates is negligible compared to mint set coins and even then quality can be below minimum standards to be called BU by today's standard. Buyers seem to demand full luster original coins without massive defects in their quality. This puts many dates only available in mint sets because rolls don't exist by comparison. And then you have to soak them in acetone to even see them properly.
If this BU roll market really is anything surely it will be apparent soon.
Comments
Mint sets are the source of most modern base metal coins actually existing in modern coin collections.
Most of these (especially older dates) have already been destroyed and do not exist in BU rolls.
I do not know how to put this more simply.
Despite these coins never becoming widely collected, because these coins never became widely collected, they are gone now and there aren't even enough for the few who want them. Maybe the '60-D will double a few times and scare away the demand as the price begins approaching 25c but I doubt it. People will tend to go ahead and pay the price because they already have a 75c paper profit on the rest of their collection. The demand for graded coins is not driving the BU roll market. Sure there is some overlap because there are individuals buying rolls to search for pop tops but I seriously doubt that this is a major factor in higher prices.
I just spoke with a top coin auction house about auctioning off my bank-wrapped rolls (1935-date) and my sealed Mint and proof sets. They wanted none of them unless I opened them all up first. Too much risk for the auction house (e.g. one year after the auction the buyer says there were only 49 dimes in a roll, or a sealed proof set box of 5 sets only had four sets in the box). I was surprised - I figured pristine lots like a bank-wrapped roll of 1935 cents or assorted Washington Quarters from the 1940’s would have been highly interesting and might have fetched “moon-money”. Although I do understand the concerns of the auction house.
Wondercoin.
d
Who cares if there are no more Mint sets of there is already a sufficient supply of gems. I think that's @WCC point.
So the population is capped? So what? The population of most 19th century coins have been capped for decades. At this point, new supply of bust dollars would be more of a threat to the market than a benefit.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I guess this confirms they want good rolls, or to say it another way, they'd rather have a full roll of BU coins and give up the chance of getting a bad roll or the varieties and Gems in the typical roll. This makes sense for moderns since there are so many bad rolls and so few Gems and varieties.
But those older rolls should be able to attract a lot of interest sight seen (with end coins visible)(and apparently original).
A lot of rolls from before 1999 have been checked.
Ah, but the pops of 19th century coins are capped only by coins worth more than $100. If prices go up then there is no cap because lower grades will go up and be graded. This can continue until every 1907 cent in G condition is encapsulated. There is no limit. Most moderns have a limit and we appear to be moving past it. There are not massive numbers of chBU moderns as is imagined and many have become difficult even to find in circulation. And again, there is another problem with moderns that doesn't apply to 1907 cents: many of them look just awful the whole time they are degrading. They start off as a weak strike from worn dies and then are ground into nothing at all. Even some coins described as Gem lack details for one reason or another or has unattractive surfaces. You can't make any new 1969 quarters and most of what's left is still unattractive and still sitting tarnished in a 1969 mint set. You can always find a nice attractive 1907 one cent coin in ever lower grades.
Where do you get some nice attractive examples of BU moderns? BU rolls. And most of these come from mint sets.
I'm not referring to the graded population. I'm referring to the population of coins, raw and graded. There is little chance of the population of bust coins going up.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
They can always start grading nice attractive AG's.
But where are you going to get a nice attractive low grade '69 quarter?
I don’t consider any of them attractive, but especially not below AU.
I've seen dozens and dozens of beautiful VF, XF, and AU coins in circulation over the years. Maybe even hundreds if you go all the way back to 1969. I've also seen dozens and dozens of nice gemmy coins in mint sets including several full on Gems. This coin isn't even common in chBU but most of the chBU coins are not attractive to my eye. As made I'd call about 8% of the mint set coins "attractive" and almost all of these would grade MS-64 or higher. Today the coins in mint sets are all tarnished but most of them can be saved with a soak in acetone or alcohol. Only about two out of three mint set coins that are left can still be sold as "chBU" after cleaning. The other are spotted, tarnished, and/ or too badly made.
This date is the real sleeper in the series because nobody could accumulate it. Most of the coins in the sets just went into circulation because nobody collected them and the cost was low. Now most of the sets are gone and there is no market. This date is rarely for sale and all rolls are mint set coins.
It's an ugly date and nice attractive coins are tough if you don't like poor strikes, poor surfaces, and chicken scratching,
Being so old relative most moderns it's had a lot of time to degrade and be lost. Even the nicest ones are mostly cull or lost entirely by now.
Again, I'm talking TOTAL POPULATION. That includes raw AGs and Poors. EVERYTHING. The population of Bust coins has been largely fixed for 100 years. That is not a problem or a tragedy or a reason to fail and gnash your teeth. If the population of clad coins is similar fixed in the near future by attrition, it is not a tragedy or a market problem.
It doesn't matter if they can't find any more low grade '69 quarters. There's enough. Period. If there weren't enough, it would be reflected in the price.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Yes, I agree. There are plenty of coins for everyone who wants one as long as the demand for nice attractive 1969 quarters remains under a few thousand.
But I believe it could go far higher. Just because they've never been widely collected there's no reason they can't ever be.
And then you will have the same situation that you have with 19th century coins. That's my point. There is no tragedy in the population getting fixed. If they appreciate 100 years from now due to demand, so be it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I got ready to take some OBW rolls (moderns) to the bank.
Then I decided to look at ebay...
2003-D lincoln cents are going for ~$12-$15
2011-D dime rolls for $12-$30
SHQ are finally getting some traction for some (I have a lot of Delawares)...
Even nickels from the 2004-2006 timeframe are finally seeing some upward motion
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
People aren't noticing what's going on with moderns because it has sneaked up on us in many tiny little steps. It was really brought home to me just the other day when I found a really nice attractive VF '68-D in a quarter sample I obtained in rolls at the bank. This coin is very unusual in that it started life as a well struck Gem but it is also very unusual because it has received so very little wear. Most '68-D quarter are long gone and this one is still beginning its life. Keep in mind as well that this is the toughest quarter to find in circulation in any condition at all. The final thing that makes it unusual is that it's neither a cull nor is it covered by networks of small scratches like most of the XF and lower quarters in circulation. The odds of finding such a coin through random chance are infinitesimal. The odds are so far against the existence of this coin coming into my hands though random chance I can be quite certain that it was not random chance., Some collector(s) had a hand in preserving this coin.
The facts suggest the coin didn't circulate after about 1990 when the coins started getting scratched up. If there were a single incident that can explain it's condition I'd guess someone pulled it out of circulation back around 1980 because it is such a nice specimen and then someone released it back into circulation within the last two or three years. This most commonly occurs when someone's coin collection is dispersed when they die.
There are so many ways this can happen and with astronomical mintages and the effects of coin collectors you can be sure it has happened and there are more out there. This is the only reason any clads survive; somebody intentionally saved them. Coins don't pass through circulation sometimes shielded from wear so a few are still pristine Gems after 57 years. They are a mess, they are all a mess. '68 mint sets are almost all gone and the '68-D quarters left in them are all tarnished.
Time can't be undone and it don't fly it bounds and leaps. And this quarter caused a big leap for me because it is so impossibly anomalous.
Pot meet kettle. Yes, that would be you. Seriously, this reply is really amusing coming from you given your posting history.
You've been financially promoting this coinage for over 20 years on this forum. That's why you dislike it when anyone (me) contradicts your preferred narrative. It's another way of telling me I'm "bashing moderns" as you used to tell anyone who had the audacity to contradict you years ago.
Yes, you are collecting too, but it's evident from your own posts that you primarily acquired this coinage for financial reasons. What else am I supposed to conclude from someone (you) who has admitted to accumulating tens of 000s of this coinage for financial reasons? From someone (you) who claims to like this coinage as much as anyone else but still thinks everyone else should pay (far) more than they ever did or will? Why else do you demonstrate such intransigence in repeating and promoting so many obvious errors with your claimed knowledge of the coin market? Your claims directly contradict independently verifiable data in some instances, and observable market behavior repeatedly. You can't bring yourself to discuss this coinage impartially. You exaggerate everything about it. You exaggerate the collector appeal, you exaggerate the scarcity, and you exaggerate the financial potential. You can't even bring yourself to discuss the real coin market, instead writing in the context of one that doesn't even exist.
Your collecting style is a multiple standard deviation outlier among those who collect this coinage. You don't speak for hardly anyone. Out of my estimate of 2MM+ active collectors, I'd guess maybe as few as a few hundred have a similar collecting style to yours, a collector presumably with a mid-5 figure collection by value composed of tens of 000s of coins minimum almost entirely valued from a few cents to a few dollars. You've called US collecting "unusual" but it's only your collection that is unusual. Who else is obsessed with the prices and price changes on such low-priced coinage other than you? And if you claim you aren't, why have you written literally 000s of posts about it? There isn't another poster who did that.
To anyone who isn't a hoarder, the theme of this thread has absolute no economic or market relevance. We are after all living in 2026, not 1965 which is the only other financial context inferable from your threads and posts on these topics. Why would anyone else other than a large-scale low-priced hoarder (you) care about the theme of this thread, especially when you haven't even demonstrated your claims as usual.
Start writing about the real coin market and stop misrepresenting this coinage like you have been, and then I'll actually take your posts seriously. Your posts on these topics aren't even a serious conversation. Yes, I know I come across like an ogre in our post exchanges, but I'm confident I'm far from the only one on this forum who discounts or dismisses your claims.
I'm in that short line of collectors who finds Cladkings observations interesting, sure sometimes it seems possibly a tad exaggerated but nonetheless entertaining as is your remarks.
You have to remember that I'm an old newbie and you're an old oldie.
No, virtually no one wants a bag of any coin because they aren't "collecting" this way because they aren't hoarders like you.
More of your exaggeration and persecution complex. The world has never "run out" of a single coin as you've repeatedly implied. And while we're at it, this "mass market" you've imagined isn't ever going to happen either. It's another non-problem you've invented. I've also told you repeatedly collectability doesn't have anything to do with the price. That's you. You're the one who has repeatedly claimed US moderns are 'hardly collected" or "not collected", and it's entirely due to the price. Read your own posts.
This is got to be about the most ridiculous comment I've ever received from you, and that's saying a lot.
There isn't anything I've ever told you that is "hard to understand". I'm not 100% right, but when I'm not, it isn't for a single reason you've ever given me and I never just "make things up" like you do. But then, in our last discussion, you pointed me (again) to the 1950-D nickel price bubble as the supposed model for your future coin market. There isn't anyone who legitimately understands the coin market who believes this coin's price history is a future model for anything, other than another price bubble from temporary speculation.
Do I really need to explain to you why it isn't by answering the question you previously asked?
As for the last part of this extract, read my above response
.> @cladking said:
There isn't a thing in the Red Book that contradicts even one claim I've actually made. But then, you've repeatedly inferred or entirely fabricated conclusions from my posts which I never implied much less stated.
Since I've never claimed or implied US moderns are "uncollectible", never claimed or implied the prices won't increase, and never claimed or implied the collector base won't increase, you have no basis to claim "million" agree with you. Concurrently, I can infer virtually no one agrees with your outrageously inflated price claims, hyper-inflated implied future financial scale, and exorbitantly inflated future collector base.
Part of my point, but not all of it. My larger point is that not only does he claim to know something he doesn't actually know, but something no one can possibly know. I've told him that repeatedly. He's also repeatedly inferred the world is apparently about to "run out" of some US modern apparently because his future "mass market" will find it so "interesting" that (virtually) no one will ever sell it, as if that's ever happened even once with any coin. His own prior numerical estimates don't create anything even close to a legitimate market scarcity, but apparently that makes no difference either.
I've also pointed out the availability of too many other coins to list which are obviously scarcer by a factor of 00s to 1MM+ (depending upon the coin and quality comparison), but it contradicts his preferred narrative so ignores it. In our last post exchanges, he inferred (yes, indirectly claimed) that some unnamed Soviet coin is scarcer by a large factor vs. the 18th century Lima and Potosi pillar 1/2, 1R, 2R, and 4R in the quality I own. I potentially own one of the best collections of this coinage assembled in recent memory and I'm confident he's never seen any of these coins like mine even once in his life if at all, but his observations are still accurate in estimating survivorship and quality distribution. Even after his non-qualifying qualifier of his inference, he still claims "what you see is what you get". He apparently has no concept of the network effect which actually explains the observable availability of most low-priced coinage, including US moderns.
I have a bag of 1960-D (small-date) cents.
I haven't looked at it in a long time, but I think the coins are actually circulated.
Yes, someone actually took the time to segregate 5,000 of them from circulation.
Can you be a new oldie?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Recently or 30 or 40 years ago?
I've seen similar hoards and also 70s hoards. But they were all assembled decades ago when there was some sentiment that they would increase in value. It's hard to get a nickel for a circ 60D these days, but the roll price was significant in the late 60s.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I suppose that is what I am.
I feel like the proverbial linguist who went out and got a PHD so he could understand incantation that's already been translated. Life is like that. Little changes accumulate until there is a sudden shift in how it is perceived: Time don't fly it bounds and leaps.
I couldda stayed in bed or had a V8 and just waited all these years to have @WCC tell me what's what based on mintage figures and extrapolations of what has always been. But it really doesn't matter what he or I believe because people collect coins not promises and rarely other people's opinions. And if you want BU rolls you are paying a great deal more for them now than a few months ago and this is the point of the thread.
It's another way of telling me I'm "bashing moderns" as you used to tell anyone who had the audacity to contradict you years ago.
Nonsense. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to people bashing what I love but there's no issue of fact that I won't argue and I don't insist people agree with me. Of course from your perspective all the modern bashing is not only justified but completely necessary lest more people collect moderns than old pieces of eight. I've never told anyone not to collect anything but have steered them away from things like different shapes of gravel or chocolate coins. In the latter case it was experience because my collection degraded so quickly. If you're going to do it just make sure you keep them at low temperature and don't prune your collection when you're hungry or have a sweet tooth. Some of these are beautiful but like most food or ideas they can be fleeting.
To each his own. Ultimately it doesn't really matter what we collect but our collections have a better chance of survival than any random coin so long as we are doing it right. Collecting is a struggle against entropy that claims all things in the end. What better thing have we to do than struggle to make things better, preserve what's important, and have some fun while we can?
Oh, > @cladking said:
And make up "facts" when necessary.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I enjoy Cladking’s posts. He is a modern coin expert. I don’t always agree with him but I respect and enjoy his knowledge and enthusiasm. His opinions are worth considering. I hope he keeps sharing his knowledge.
However, there are others here who usually respond to his posts with accusations and arguments. To each his own and we all can have differing collecting interests. I ignore certain responses because they detract from my personal enjoyment of this forum rather than add to it.
You are all probably more coin savvy than me. Most of you certainly post more than me.
I have only been collecting for nearly 60 years now. I will be likely be bashed for this response but that’s harmless. I am sure the bashers mean well and I don’t pretend to have the same level of expertise anyone else here has. There are likely many of us who read Cladking’s posts with interest and enjoyment. Cladking, please continue sharing your knowledge and opinions. They are much appreciated.
Thank you. I've always found your posts apt, interesting, and enjoyable.
I do run off at the mouth a lot but I enjoy discourse. Everyone is invited to elaborate or contradict.
I'm watching the BU roll market and still selling into it but almost all of the bulk stuff I had is gone. I haven't sold too much of the Gems and varieties yet. I have an interest in my collections and selling duplicates as well as a few more collections. I hope to get down to just a few core collections. I enjoy coins and have collected every US series except gold as well as most world coins made since 1850. Coins are an enjoyable hobby no matter your budget.
That's a valuable bag probably loaded with high grade (VF+) varieties.
.
.
I bought it about 15 years ago. I do not know how that owner acquired or accumulated them.
In the same group that I bought is a bag of circulated 1955-S, and mint-sealed bag of 1964 [P], and some other mixed bags.
I haven't really looked at them since.
.
I wish I had a roll of MS 1969 P quarters that all looked like these coins:
MS66 (I made this coin and it is currently in my collection)
MS67
MS67+
MS67
MS67+
@SanctionII
Your 66 is nice but I like the 7+s better obviously. What would you (or anybody listening) attribute their toning to?
My assumption would be album but could this be from a roll or even mint set packaging?
That collectors would be happy to cherrypick but not pay current retail for.
Coinscratch.
If I had to guess the toning on the pictured quarters was caused by storage of the coin in an album or a coin envelope that had had chemicals in the paper/cardboard that reacted with the metal and caused toning. I placed some MS clad quarters I pulled from circulation as a kid in the 1960's and early 1970's into Whitman quarter albums. After sitting in these albums for decades some of the quarters developed some attractive toning.
It will be interesting to see what future collectors collect. Even the common modern varieties (like the '70-S sm dt cent) tend to have survival rates under 100,000. Scarcer ones are under a couple dozen all the way down to unique.
The BU roll market perking up signals that the days of cherry picks is coming to an end. If you haven't found it by now you probably won't because they'll all have been checked at least once by one collector. Even the most obscure varieties won't survive this selection process for long.
I think the implication is that now a market for these can begin forming as well. You are not likely to find a 1964 quarter in circulation in cull VG because someone would have grabbed it. If you find one it will be a nice XF some spent accidently.
The biggie of course is the sm dt/ lg dt.
There are more collectors who want one than have one.
I have 50 rolls of 60-D Uncs that haven't been searched. I'm sure they'll offer me 45 cents per roll for them
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Same here- well, there might be as many as 50, I'm not sure. I also have 20-30 rolls of 61-D, 62-D and 63-D. None have been searched. Aside from us, there probably aren't any others out there though.
I'm curious- how do you know that's so?
Lol. I know if a hoard of hundreds of 70-s small dates that I refused to buy because he wanted too much. I think there are far more of those around than cladking thinks. People have been searching and hoarding them for 50 years.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
.
I have checked my pocket change routinely for 1970-S small dates (and anything else of interest) since 1971.
I only ever found ONE 1970-S small date in circulation (it was EF-45 grade).
I also found a couple in mint sets and several in proof sets.
I believe the business-strike is rarer than the proof-strike.
.
It doesn't matter because postage will run you $30.
Every time postage rates increase more old coins go to the bank. There are far too many '60-D sm dts for them to become rare by this process but it affects ALL modern coins directly or indirectly. There weren't many post-'64 coins saved but they are low priced because they aren't collected and many have been spent for this reason. After large percentages of the 1960 coins are hauled to the bank there arte still a lot left. After large percentages of 1969 quarters are hauled to the bank there are almost none left. And this is why BU rolls come from mint sets. Numismatists know better than to collect moderns but the general public never got the word and now we're very low on mint sets.
If there were any other 1964 clad quarters than the one known it would be found by now and if it wasn't there's a 60% chance it has been destroyed. There are two known 75 PR dimes. Perhaps more will turn up. 1988 RR half dollars appear in about .6% of mint sets. As more data is acquired this number might drift up or down but it's not to change much.
Even varieties with huge mintages like the '71-D type h quarter is really pretty fixed. 100,000 were made but only a few dozens were plucked from circulation and now only about 60,000 survive in deplorable condition. Most of these are unlikely to ever be found. A few dozen in VF and better and the rest will be lost unless they are retrieved as worn culls over the next dozen years.
Across the board it's the same thing. Collectors ignored them and entropy prevailed.
Most of these are from mint sets and had a mintage of about "210,000". Many were spent because most mint sets weren't checked until the'90's. Even more have corroded and can't be recovered.
I've never seen a roll that wasn't assembled from mint sets but almost every single specimen I see came from a mint set.
Even though it's worth $45 now days there is still a very high attrition due to carelessness, neglect, and corrosion.
I passed up a mint set roll for $100 because I figured a coin this common could do better than the MUCH scarcer '70-S lg dt in Gem.
I've found only one as well (VF+) even though I look through rolls once in a while. I can't remember the last time I saw any '70-S.
I've also acquired a couple that other collectors have found in XF and AU.
I will comment on the idea of varieties. I have collected Seated material for 35 years so for me Barber coins are "Moderns". In October I launched my new hobby plan to collect Barber coins and in particular varieties. I have only been looking for them since October and I have allready found 4 Cherrypicker varieties in the wild. I would be fully willing to believe I have just had dumb luck but my suspicions are that only the few bother so the same is probably true of any true modern varieties; they will appear when people bother to look. james
I've been studying the great pyramids for so long that I think of even the oldest coins as "moderns".
I suspect the reason you find so many varieties is that so many more were produced. Modern dies are so similar that there are no readily available Pick Up Points to tell one from another. The changes in a die over its life span are larger than any difference with another regular die. Some dates have hundreds of millions of examples and no varieties.
Just like older varieties many come from only one set of working dies.
There's an even bigger difference though. Variety preservation was random so they'd tend to survive in relative numbers and this survival rate was quite high. But with moderns varieties fit three broad categories with vastly different attrition. There are those made for circulation but found before they were all distributed. These include some of the best and most common modern varieties and include things like the '82-NMM dime and the WI quarters. Then there are those that were well distributed before being spotted. These can be very rare especially in XF or better. Finally there are mint set varieties. Very large proportions of these can survive even if they aren't discovered early.
With the older coins you can find common varieties by looking through a few coins but finding varieties in circulation today is very hit and miss and you need to know what you're looking for before you start. I'm always surprised how few mint set or circulation varieties I found on my own. But the thing is I'm checking sets for anomalies like errors and Gems rather than searching for new varieties. I look closely at many of the coins but might not look closely enough at something like "50" 1968 dimes to spot the DDO. Most of my detailed inspection of new coins was random or it was just something that caught my eye.
It was a joke. Postage could be free and there would be little point in selling roll (50 cents face) for 45 cents.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'd toss them in the trash first.
Markets just grind away at common junk just like time itself. Not many original owners of bags and rolls are still around. Quality can be abysmal and problems cluster in certain years or mint marks. The absolute quantity of original BU rolls of many dates is negligible compared to mint set coins and even then quality can be below minimum standards to be called BU by today's standard. Buyers seem to demand full luster original coins without massive defects in their quality. This puts many dates only available in mint sets because rolls don't exist by comparison. And then you have to soak them in acetone to even see them properly.
If this BU roll market really is anything surely it will be apparent soon.