@JBK said:
Well, CK guaranteed you atleast one Henning nickel in that hoard. They sell for around $300, so that plus the other promised varieties and high grade circulated coins should make it worthwhile to sort through them.
It's a lot of work and the hennings are not easy to sell TMK.
Hennings should be the easiest thing to identify in that pile. The color would likely be different but even more obvious is the missing giant mintmark above Monticello.
You're right but you might be surprised how often 1944-P nickels with weak mint marks and colored like the counterfeits show up in accumulations.
I think the counterfeit's biggest tell was certainly not the lack of mint mark but the fact they looked like VG's in an era that most of the war nickels were in VF to AU. I could have picked them out of a bag in those days but it's not as easy now.
I don’t think non-collectors graded their pocket change back then.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@WCC said:
Furthermore, my claim of "low preference" has nothing to do with the metal content, so you're wrong again there too.
So what is it then?
I look at how collector spend their money. That's how collector usually demonstrate their preferences, by voting with their wallets. Below is the same table compiled from Heritage which I posted in another thread. There is no possibility for this data if what I told you isn't accurate. I'm aware it isn't absolutely accurate, but it is directionally accurate, more accurate than not.
If for war nickels, I didn't quantify it. I agree it's somewhat higher, but the key word is "somewhat".
You persistently infer that I'm biased against the coinage you write about when I'm not. I disagree with views on other coinage too, but you ignore or don't read those posts. I disagree with NCLT posts all the time. I don't interject my preferences into my posts like you do. The data is what it is, and that's it.
How many Gem '76 FS coins are in your collection. You know there are far far fewer of these than 1886 nickels don't you?
Twenty years ago you could find them but it gets tougher and tougher. Meanwhile there are nearly the same number of 1886's as there were twenty years ago.
You're making a comparison using a disproportionate quality difference and adding a strike designation too. I wouldn't describe the low quality 1886 nickels the vast majority of collectors actually own as anything other than low preference either. It's questionable there is even one collector actually choosing between your examples.
@leothelyon said:
I've done alright with Jefferson nickels, going on 36 years. Bought a house with one nickel and a car with another. I think I have made close to 6 figures over the years. Far more than what I have $ in them. I've worked everything from a monthly coin list mailer to a website, it really depends on the quality of coin that's collected. I don't have nor deal with mediocre coins, coins with weak strikes, lack luster, all marked up. Many of my coins including the war nickels are PL or semi-PL, a very rare quality for any coin/series. I've lost track on how many war nicks I have left in mint state, 70 to 80. Have sold a handful for thousands of dollars and quite a few others at lower costs over the years. The series has been quite good to me. No complaints whatsoever. My apologies if I have taken this topic off course. Leo
Well, that's exactly my point. War nickels are much more than dirty ugly coins hated by the hobby and Jefferson nickels are each and all quite material. They aren't @WCC 's cup of tea but I like 'em and I stashed away a lot more nice 1976's than '50-D's. I've got lots of key dates that most collectors don't even know are key dates because they think the series ended in 1964 or they can't imagine that war nickels might be a growing market. Sure you can get VF 1941 nickels by the bucket but where are you going to get the '42-D in VF or the '82-P in MS-65?
Many collectors have a frame of reference fixed in 1964. It would never occur to them that there are far more 1947 nickels in circulation than there are 1971 and the '47's are in far higher grade. Nobody wants the few surviving 1971's but younger collectors don't have a 1964 frame of reference so they are starting to look.
My biggest profit was on a nickel as well. It was a Gem '70-S FS coin that brought well over a thousand but probably cost me less than a dime. Not a bad percentage profit.
Now I'll be lectured about how it's a one way market and it's stupid to buy moderns.
There isn't hardly any collector whose thinking in your context; I'd say no one on a coin forum like this one. Posters on this forum aren't thinking in the context of percentages on such low-priced coinage, if at all. It's also not their primary collecting interest either, at the prices you discuss.
Reading your posts, someone might also get the idea there isn't anything else to collect than the coins you write about with your artificial comparisons. That's where you're getting most disagreement from me. You're comparing US moderns to 60's US circulating coinage and then infer it should sell for prices reflecting the relative scarcity, when anything remotely close would make it completely uncompetitive with everything else. That's never going to happen which is why you receive my responses.
I've never claimed that the price of any US modern can't sell for the immaterial prices of the 1950-D nickel now or recently.
This is the problem in a nutshell. You're assuming my meaning while imposing your standards and definitions on me and the entire hobby.
The '76 has already increased in price several fold and is STILL only 10% of the price of the far more common '50-D. And the '50-D is only 5% of its price in inflation adjusted dollars.
Who are you to say that the price of the '50-D today is "immaterial"? I suppose this means the scarcer '76 coin will have to increase another ten fold just to be "immaterial".
You've obviously never bought penny stocks!
You've obviously never collected 1976 nickels. Forgive us immaterial collectors.
It's immaterial because the value of an UNC or BU 50-D nickel doesn't buy squat in 2026 or the entire 21st century. That's what. You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change reality.
Do you actually think collectors are thinking. "Wow, if only I'd set aside that gem nickel 50 years ago, I could buy my fast-food combo meal today!" Only a hoarder has a reason to think like that.
Your comparison to penny stocks is invalid, again. Anyone can buy and sell it with a click of a mouse. You don't need to dig through 000s or millions of coins and then spend countless hours listing it on eBay or however you sell it to generate the same return. You'd understand that if you didn't disregard everyone's time preference except for yours.
@WCC said:
It's immaterial because the value of an UNC or BU 50-D nickel doesn't buy squat in 2026 or the entire 21st century. That's what. You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change reality.
The common '50-D nickel roll sells for $300. A far scarcer 1976 was $8 until last year. Now it's up over $40. You can call this "immaterial" but the fact is it's material to everyone who is buying and selling.
The '76 isn't "rare" but examples in "chBU" are far less numerous than the '50-D in chBU. There are a few coins from bags but these tend to be ugly and this leaves a few mint sets. Now days there's a real premium on mint sets so if you want to restore '76 nickels to make rolls you'll need nearly 60 of these sets for each roll because many of them can't be restored and some were dogs to start with. That's a great deal of work and expense for a $40 roll of nickels that is "immaterial".
[walks away wondering where to find immaterial and upsidasium on the periodic table]
As I've pointed out many times attrition does not take the hindmost but rather tends to be random; it takes what's available. This is especially true in war nickels because what's available are things like BU rolls of 1943's. When dealers gather up coins to ship to the refiners they grab whatever is worth more dead than alive so proportionally there will be more BU war nickels being melted than AG's.
Right now refiners are paying much more for two war nickels than for a silver dime!
Indeed, you can even get a premium for coins that aren't worn out or ugly.
My previous estimates of the number of survivors might be too high so if you project all the ugly and worn out coins being melted it just doesn't leave many.
Comments
Uncle Sam asks; Got pennies?
Yeah, your favorites. Let’s think of a new thread, though
You're right but you might be surprised how often 1944-P nickels with weak mint marks and colored like the counterfeits show up in accumulations.
I think the counterfeit's biggest tell was certainly not the lack of mint mark but the fact they looked like VG's in an era that most of the war nickels were in VF to AU. I could have picked them out of a bag in those days but it's not as easy now.
I don’t think non-collectors graded their pocket change back then.
Or ever
Successful BST Transactions: erwindoc, VTchaser, moursund, robkool, RelicKING, Herb_T, Meltdown, ElmerFusterpuck, airplanenut
At $300 a pop, might be worth diving for Hennings in the river they were allegedly dumped in.
I look at how collector spend their money. That's how collector usually demonstrate their preferences, by voting with their wallets. Below is the same table compiled from Heritage which I posted in another thread. There is no possibility for this data if what I told you isn't accurate. I'm aware it isn't absolutely accurate, but it is directionally accurate, more accurate than not.
If for war nickels, I didn't quantify it. I agree it's somewhat higher, but the key word is "somewhat".
You persistently infer that I'm biased against the coinage you write about when I'm not. I disagree with views on other coinage too, but you ignore or don't read those posts. I disagree with NCLT posts all the time. I don't interject my preferences into my posts like you do. The data is what it is, and that's it.
You're making a comparison using a disproportionate quality difference and adding a strike designation too. I wouldn't describe the low quality 1886 nickels the vast majority of collectors actually own as anything other than low preference either. It's questionable there is even one collector actually choosing between your examples.
There isn't hardly any collector whose thinking in your context; I'd say no one on a coin forum like this one. Posters on this forum aren't thinking in the context of percentages on such low-priced coinage, if at all. It's also not their primary collecting interest either, at the prices you discuss.
Reading your posts, someone might also get the idea there isn't anything else to collect than the coins you write about with your artificial comparisons. That's where you're getting most disagreement from me. You're comparing US moderns to 60's US circulating coinage and then infer it should sell for prices reflecting the relative scarcity, when anything remotely close would make it completely uncompetitive with everything else. That's never going to happen which is why you receive my responses.
It's immaterial because the value of an UNC or BU 50-D nickel doesn't buy squat in 2026 or the entire 21st century. That's what. You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change reality.
Do you actually think collectors are thinking. "Wow, if only I'd set aside that gem nickel 50 years ago, I could buy my fast-food combo meal today!" Only a hoarder has a reason to think like that.
Your comparison to penny stocks is invalid, again. Anyone can buy and sell it with a click of a mouse. You don't need to dig through 000s or millions of coins and then spend countless hours listing it on eBay or however you sell it to generate the same return. You'd understand that if you didn't disregard everyone's time preference except for yours.
The common '50-D nickel roll sells for $300. A far scarcer 1976 was $8 until last year. Now it's up over $40. You can call this "immaterial" but the fact is it's material to everyone who is buying and selling.
The '76 isn't "rare" but examples in "chBU" are far less numerous than the '50-D in chBU. There are a few coins from bags but these tend to be ugly and this leaves a few mint sets. Now days there's a real premium on mint sets so if you want to restore '76 nickels to make rolls you'll need nearly 60 of these sets for each roll because many of them can't be restored and some were dogs to start with. That's a great deal of work and expense for a $40 roll of nickels that is "immaterial".
[walks away wondering where to find immaterial and upsidasium on the periodic table]
As I've pointed out many times attrition does not take the hindmost but rather tends to be random; it takes what's available. This is especially true in war nickels because what's available are things like BU rolls of 1943's. When dealers gather up coins to ship to the refiners they grab whatever is worth more dead than alive so proportionally there will be more BU war nickels being melted than AG's.
Right now refiners are paying much more for two war nickels than for a silver dime!
Indeed, you can even get a premium for coins that aren't worn out or ugly.
My previous estimates of the number of survivors might be too high so if you project all the ugly and worn out coins being melted it just doesn't leave many.