I started collecting in 1963. I have no memory of when I collected these 65-67 cents, though some of them were pulled from circulation in the year of issue.
A few of these coins would, IMO, grade a 64RD. Many of them, though MS and RD are flawed with dings, hits and carbon spots.
@WCC said:
I told him this before. He's counting and measuring it using his own grading standard, which isn't that of any leading TPG which is the market grading standard.
You missed the post in this thread where I said my grading of Mint State 1966 pennies aligns VERY closely with grading services due to the nature of this specific date.
Where I disagree with the services is on moderns that are very poorly made from heavily worn dies or that have ugly unattractive surfaces for other reasons. IN MY OPINION poorly made coins can not be Gems at all. I simply reserve the term "Gem" for nice attractive coins in grading MODERN coins.
This is simple really. Old coins have issues with wear and otherwise degraded surfaces so collectors seek coins that are clean and free of marks. Almost all old coins were attractive when they left the dies. Modern coins are a monument to sloppy work, inattention to detail, and Gresham's Law. I seek the exception and call them "Gems".
Modern Gems simply prove that there are good things about the Modern Consumer Age. They give me hope that the next product I buy won't fail on its first day.
@Colonialcoin said:\
Would you rather have a high end Gem 1966 or a MS-65 1966, a draped bust quarter, draped bust half, and a 1793 1/2 cent?
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. I can find rare moderns in pocket change but every 1793 half cent has been sorted, saved, and collected by many generations of collectors. The coin is a known quantity and each individual specimen has been weighed, compared, and matched against every other specimen. They're fun to collect but there can be no surprises. Prices are established by mature markets which price in every nuance of its condition.
Moderns are very different and nobody even knows where the market is headed much less the scarcity of each coin.
@WCC said:
Yes, I know it's increased a lot proportionately from FV, as that happens with practically every coin eventually in the quality you're writing about. No, an arbitrary catalog price doesn't ever mean it was worth the listed price, or anywhere near it.
I'm talking about "uncirculated" world moderns having increased many many fold. Grading of Gems is more a US (and now Chinese) phenomenon. Other countries tend to have better and more consistent quality than our old clad coins but as a rule of thumb the higher prices apply only to what I call "chBU". The typical 1966 penny left the mint in chBU but the typical 1966 quarter was an ugly misshapen lump when it was made.
Isn't it a mystery how you claim you can't find these coins because it's so scarce, yet numerous collectors just on this forum own relatively large numbers in series I can infer you've never seen even once in your entire life either?
There have been collectors who said they owned large numbers of coins I've cited but then when they check their accumulation they find they're missing them. The coins have never been sorted, saved, and collected. They havent been graded, cataloged or even looked at.
@cladking said:
There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade.
I have an old-time collection. It has a BU 1966 penny. I bet there are others.
Most of the old collections are all uncs for the clad era. They aren't all 66s, which has suddenly become his point.
I'm surprised you have any intact ort complete sets.
But you're still missing my point. Even if you had a thousand of these sets the '82-P will be AU. the '69 will be an ugly fright, and the '66 with be a blob. Only a few coins in these sets can be sold as "chBU" and sets will not include the tough dates.
As I said earlier the off grade coins don't exist in huge numbers either. People just imagine all moderns are common but a lot of off grades find their way into circulation.
My bar for “gems” is may be lower due to my experience examining coins compared to others.
Or, it may be higher because of naive expectation.
The term gem is subjective when someone describes a raw coin. The “gem” 1966 cent to which a TPG would not give a grade of 66+ wastes my time and space, unless I pay to slab them for posterity.
The gem 2019 W that is not 70 will not find its value in my lifetime.
All are are correct:
“Modern gems” are all but gone,
“Modern gems” are unwanted,
“Modern gems” are desirable,
“Modern gems” are out there
Which modern gems? The “gems” just at the worth-of-cost line, or the gems the above that line and beyond?
@Colonialcoin said:\
Would you rather have a high end Gem 1966 or a MS-65 1966, a draped bust quarter, draped bust half, and a 1793 1/2 cent?
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. I can find rare moderns in pocket change but every 1793 half cent has been sorted, saved, and collected by many generations of collectors. The coin is a known quantity and each individual specimen has been weighed, compared, and matched against every other specimen. They're fun to collect but there can be no surprises. Prices are established by mature markets which price in every nuance of its condition.
Moderns are very different and nobody even knows where the market is headed much less the scarcity of each coin.
The point that I’m making is that is that you can get one or the other for roughly the same dollar amount. I’ll select a gem modern cent as well as the classic type rather than blowing four figures on one super gem modern. Remember that according to PCGS there are over two million(!!!!) 1966 gem uncs. That is quite a common coin. To each their own.
Go to ANA and offer a 1793 1/2 cent and a 1966 penny that is worth its equivalent. Guess which one will sell within five minutes or less.
I had no idea that 1966 MS Lincoln Cents could be this controversial. Yes, they are very rare in high grades. But the PCGS RD variety in the highest grade is only a MS67! However looking at the PCGS pops for early 60's Lincoln cents, this is not the lowest population for a Lincoln cent. the 1965 and 1964 had even fewer coins that got above a MS65.
By the way there is one for sale on EBay in an NGC holder that's MS68, certif. # 120285-017 selling for about $105. I checked the NGC cert lookup tool. It checks out.
Not my cup of tea, though.
“When you don't know what you're talking about, it's hard to know when you're finished.” - Tommy Smothers
I just finished a shopping expedition and came home with a few dimes one of which is as nice as you'll find in circulation any longer without great effort. A '66 cent is very difficult to find in circulation so highly improbable unless you have a very large sample. But the dime is still common and a three roll sample should be sufficient.
This dime is remarkably nice and I'd call it a Fine. Maybe F+. Despite its light wear it still can't be sold as a "Good or Better" because of rim dings. It's covered in little scratches but not as badly as most. The most remarkable thing about it isn't the light wear it's that it was well made by good dies. It has a lot of the typical strike weakness for the date but it was Gem when it left the dies. Only about 5% of this date are well made. There are probably not even twenty million coins surviving with less wear. Of these only about one million is as well made. If there were a market for G and better 1966 dimes this still couldn't be sold as a G.
If there were a demand for these coins; if they were sorted and collected this coin would survive most cuts. Herein is the root of what I'm trying to get across. These coins are not being sorted or collected and so long as they aren't the attrition on dimes will be severe. 4% are being "consumed" and lost each year. The rest are subject to continued degradation regardless of their quality or rarity. As long as there is so little value attached to "chBU" their attrition will remain high as well because collectors do the best job of preserving coins. Look at @SanctionII 's Gems above.
@cladking said:
I just finished a shopping expedition and came home with a few dimes one of which is as nice as you'll find in circulation any longer without great effort. A '66 cent is very difficult to find in circulation so highly improbable unless you have a very large sample. But the dime is still common and a three roll sample should be sufficient.
This dime is remarkably nice and I'd call it a Fine. Maybe F+. Despite its light wear it still can't be sold as a "Good or Better" because of rim dings. It's covered in little scratches but not as badly as most. The most remarkable thing about it isn't the light wear it's that it was well made by good dies. It has a lot of the typical strike weakness for the date but it was Gem when it left the dies. Only about 5% of this date are well made. There are probably not even twenty million coins surviving with less wear. Of these only about one million is as well made. If there were a market for G and better 1966 dimes this still couldn't be sold as a G.
If there were a demand for these coins; if they were sorted and collected this coin would survive most cuts. Herein is the root of what I'm trying to get across. These coins are not being sorted or collected and so long as they aren't the attrition on dimes will be severe. 4% are being "consumed" and lost each year. The rest are subject to continued degradation regardless of their quality or rarity. As long as there is so little value attached to "chBU" their attrition will remain high as well because collectors do the best job of preserving coins. Look at @SanctionII 's Gems above.
If 4% are being consumed per year and we started with 2 billion, there should still be 173 million left. We'll be down to 2.9 million in 2126.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@cladking said:
A '66 cent is very difficult to find in circulation so highly improbable unless you have a very large sample.
You were less likely to find a 1906 cent in circulation 60 years after it was minted than a 1966 cent 60 years later. This is not a surprise to anyone who thinks about it for even a minute, yet you keep saying it as though it's somehow significant.
@Creg said:
My bar for “gems” is may be lower due to my experience examining coins compared to others.
Or, it may be higher because of naive expectation.
The term gem is subjective when someone describes a raw coin. The “gem” 1966 cent to which a TPG would not give a grade of 66+ wastes my time and space, unless I pay to slab them for posterity.
The gem 2019 W that is not 70 will not find its value in my lifetime.
All are are correct:
“Modern gems” are all but gone,
“Modern gems” are unwanted,
“Modern gems” are desirable,
“Modern gems” are out there
Which modern gems? The “gems” just at the worth-of-cost line, or the gems the above that line and beyond?
Indeed. We're all framing reality differently and we're all right within the limitations of our premises.
But make no mistake; reality exists and within this reality it is a a virtual certainty "1966 cents are tough in high grade". It doesn't matter who defines reality the coins are still not out there because they have been ignored and degraded by a consumer society.
Anyone can say half a billion surviving coins means it's common and will be common forever just as they used to say two billion coins means it will always be common. But there is still no force in evidence that stop anyone from saying 100,000,000 means it's common. People only imagine these coins aren't degrading.
Soon enough the government will lift the melting ban and millions more '66 pennies will be lost.
Instead of slowing the attrition rate can soar and the coins still aren't being sorted are they?
@Colonialcoin said:
The point that I’m making is that is that you can get one or the other for roughly the same dollar amount. I’ll select a gem modern cent as well as the classic type rather than blowing four figures on one super gem modern. Remember that according to PCGS there are over two million(!!!!) 1966 gem uncs. That is quite a common coin. To each their own.
Go to ANA and offer a 1793 1/2 cent and a 1966 penny that is worth its equivalent. Guess which one will sell within five minutes or less.
I tend to agree. For the main part I would avoid pop tops as well and look for an exception specimen one or two grades down. I think a lot of people will just collect moderns in Gem and most will include slightly inferior specimens I call "gemmy". I believe this will be the sweet spot for many collectors and there will be a price differential between MS-63 and MS-64. I believe collectors will be strike conscious because so many moderns aren't hard trop find clean, they're hard to find with detail that was on the dies. Very few regular issuer moderns will be tough in chBU but the '66 cent is a candidate for one that may be. To date the demand is for chBU but I believe most buyers keep looking until they find an attractive well made coin and a ;lot of chBU are not attractive.
It's the same way with the half cent. I would want to buy a nice choice well worn specimen that's as attractive as possible. I'd avoid strike deficiencies and uneven wear or unnatural surfaces. ...just a nice collector version.
@jmlanzaf said:
Most of the old collections are all uncs for the clad era. They aren't all 66s, which has suddenly become his point.
He didn't say gems and nobody has said all those old-time collections contained them. He said:
"There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
This is laughably false.
In the old days It wasn't uncommon for "old time collections" to come to market. These are defined as collections that contained many coins that hadn't been seen in many years. ...valuable coins. ...unobtainable coins often i high grades. They might contain some highly esoteric coins like rolls of BU Guatemalan silver from 50 years before. These sorts of collections rarely come on the market any longer but when they do there are no 1966 pennies in any grade. There may be no coins made after 1965 other than rarities like a '69-S DDO cent.
The psychology changed in 1965 because modern coins were deemed common junk and uncollectible so they were never collected. Old time collections that formed before 1965 can't have a '66 Gem and old time collections formed after 1965 don't have a '66 cent.
@rooksmith said:
I had no idea that 1966 MS Lincoln Cents could be this controversial. Yes, they are very rare in high grades. But the PCGS RD variety in the highest grade is only a MS67! However looking at the PCGS pops for early 60's Lincoln cents, this is not the lowest population for a Lincoln cent. the 1965 and 1964 had even fewer coins that got above a MS65.
By the way there is one for sale on EBay in an NGC holder that's MS68, certif. # 120285-017 selling for about $105. I checked the NGC cert lookup tool. It checks out.
Not my cup of tea, though.
The coin comes very nice but it wasn't widely saved and attrition has decimated it.
@cladking said:
Old time collections that formed before 1965 can't have a '66 Gem and old time collections formed after 1965 don't have a '66 cent.
You are moving the goalposts. Your previous comment, which I quoted and is even included in your post said nothing about gems: "There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
"BU 1966 pennies in any grade"
And the rest is just silly. My Lincoln collection started in the early 60's and as soon as 1966 rolled around, a 1966 cent was added to it. I guarantee my set is not the only one like that.
@cladking said:
Old time collections that formed before 1965 can't have a '66 Gem and old time collections formed after 1965 don't have a '66 cent.
You are moving the goalposts. Your previous comment, which I quoted and is even included in your post said nothing about gems: "There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
"BU 1966 pennies in any grade"
And the rest is just silly. My Lincoln collection started in the early 60's and as soon as 1966 rolled around, a 1966 cent was added to it. I guarantee my set is not the only one like that.
What year did Whitman stop selling cent folders? Oh, wait, they still do???? I wonder why that is...🤔
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
It's not impossible there are two million Gems but I'm the only person I know who put a lot of effort into this date. I rejected many rolls and entire bags. I saved "2000" specimens and recovered only "25" Gems. I know there are people who toss around bags but there has been a market for these coins. Before 1979 I never heard of anyone looking for modern Gems. I was scouring the country and people were looking at me funny because nobody ever heard of looking for Gems. It's not something that's easy to do.
Sure I couldda advertised to buy the coins at high prices but they wouldn't come in. I did advertise to buy Gem '82 quarters all through the '80's and '90's but they didn't come in. Someone could have positioned himself in the heart of the business and acquired substantial quantities 50/ 100 bags of nice choice coins but they wouldn't be Gems and their cost would be enormous in time and effort. I don't think it happened. I was there. I was virtually alone. There were a few big concerns trying to position themselves in clads and they may still have significant accumulations but few people knew the best examples were in the min sets and their number is known. Their incidence is known. The coins simply aren't out there and nice Gem '66 cents are even less out there because it was lightly saved (~1.5 million) and they were of random quality. "Random quality" in some dates almost means they are all awful but '66 cents come nice so about 4% approach Gem. The bags and rolls are gone and Gems are tough. We don't know how many people set them aside and someone could have been lucky and found a bag of mostly Gems.
There is no market to give us a good idea of what exists.
@cladking said:
Old time collections that formed before 1965 can't have a '66 Gem and old time collections formed after 1965 don't have a '66 cent.
You are moving the goalposts. Your previous comment, which I quoted and is even included in your post said nothing about gems: "There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
"BU 1966 pennies in any grade"
And the rest is just silly. My Lincoln collection started in the early 60's and as soon as 1966 rolled around, a 1966 cent was added to it. I guarantee my set is not the only one like that.
What year did Whitman stop selling cent folders? Oh, wait, they still do???? I wonder why that is...🤔
But can you still find 60 year old gems in your change to put into it?
@cladking said:
Old time collections that formed before 1965 can't have a '66 Gem and old time collections formed after 1965 don't have a '66 cent.
You are moving the goalposts. Your previous comment, which I quoted and is even included in your post said nothing about gems: "There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
"BU 1966 pennies in any grade"
And the rest is just silly. My Lincoln collection started in the early 60's and as soon as 1966 rolled around, a 1966 cent was added to it. I guarantee my set is not the only one like that.
What year did Whitman stop selling cent folders? Oh, wait, they still do???? I wonder why that is...🤔
But can you still find 60 year old gems in your change to put into it?
Lol. I don't know why that's the standard. How many gem 1890 Indian cents are there? It doesn't stop people from collecting 1890 Indian cents.
Edited to add: I got curious. Less than 30.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@cladking said:
Old time collections that formed before 1965 can't have a '66 Gem and old time collections formed after 1965 don't have a '66 cent.
You are moving the goalposts. Your previous comment, which I quoted and is even included in your post said nothing about gems: "There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
"BU 1966 pennies in any grade"
And the rest is just silly. My Lincoln collection started in the early 60's and as soon as 1966 rolled around, a 1966 cent was added to it. I guarantee my set is not the only one like that.
What year did Whitman stop selling cent folders? Oh, wait, they still do???? I wonder why that is...🤔
But can you still find 60 year old gems in your change to put into it?
Lol. I don't know why that's the standard.
Not to worry. There'll be a new standard anytime now.
@rooksmith said:
I had no idea that 1966 MS Lincoln Cents could be this controversial. Yes, they are very rare in high grades. But the PCGS RD variety in the highest grade is only a MS67! However looking at the PCGS pops for early 60's Lincoln cents, this is not the lowest population for a Lincoln cent. the 1965 and 1964 had even fewer coins that got above a MS65.
By the way there is one for sale on EBay in an NGC holder that's MS68, certif. # 120285-017 selling for about $105. I checked the NGC cert lookup tool. It checks out.
Fascinating discussion. In 1966 all us kid collectors were pissed off that they took off mint marks! The Mint done this to keep more coins in circulation, to actively fight collector and roll/bag hoarders. The great withdrawal of ALL silver coins had been happening and at that era credit cards didn’t account for much everyday useage, so nearly every transaction required a few one cent coins. One thing that amazes me is in my stack of Whitman’s only a very few are red, or even red brown. The Only older Red Lincoln I ever found was a 1940. ••••. We were all hunting for the days great rarities then in circulation, the 55/55, 1960 small date and the elusive 1955 S. And yeah cladding is right, no one saved 1966 cents, but I’ll bet a lot are in blue Whitman’s out there we put in a half century ago.
But you're still missing my point. Even if you had a thousand of these sets the '82-P will be AU. the '69 will be an ugly fright, and the '66 with be a blob. Only a few coins in these sets can be sold as "chBU" and sets will not include the tough dates.
As I said earlier the off grade coins don't exist in huge numbers either. People just imagine all moderns are common but a lot of off grades find their way into circulation.
@rooksmith said:
I had no idea that 1966 MS Lincoln Cents could be this controversial. Yes, they are very rare in high grades. But the PCGS RD variety in the highest grade is only a MS67! However looking at the PCGS pops for early 60's Lincoln cents, this is not the lowest population for a Lincoln cent. the 1965 and 1964 had even fewer coins that got above a MS65.
By the way there is one for sale on EBay in an NGC holder that's MS68, certif. # 120285-017 selling for about $105. I checked the NGC cert lookup tool. It checks out.
But you're still missing my point. Even if you had a thousand of these sets the '82-P will be AU. the '69 will be an ugly fright, and the '66 with be a blob. Only a few coins in these sets can be sold as "chBU" and sets will not include the tough dates.
As I said earlier the off grade coins don't exist in huge numbers either. People just imagine all moderns are common but a lot of off grades find their way into circulation.
@rooksmith said:
I had no idea that 1966 MS Lincoln Cents could be this controversial. Yes, they are very rare in high grades. But the PCGS RD variety in the highest grade is only a MS67! However looking at the PCGS pops for early 60's Lincoln cents, this is not the lowest population for a Lincoln cent. the 1965 and 1964 had even fewer coins that got above a MS65.
By the way there is one for sale on EBay in an NGC holder that's MS68, certif. # 120285-017 selling for about $105. I checked the NGC cert lookup tool. It checks out.
@ambro51 said:
Fascinating discussion. In 1966 all us kid collectors were pissed off that they took off mint marks! The Mint done this to keep more coins in circulation, to actively fight collector and roll/bag hoarders. The great withdrawal of ALL silver coins had been happening and at that era credit cards didn’t account for much everyday useage, so nearly every transaction required a few one cent coins. One thing that amazes me is in my stack of Whitman’s only a very few are red, or even red brown. The Only older Red Lincoln I ever found was a 1940. ••••. We were all hunting for the days great rarities then in circulation, the 55/55, 1960 small date and the elusive 1955 S. And yeah cladding is right, no one saved 1966 cents, but I’ll bet a lot are in blue Whitman’s out there we put in a half century ago.
I've disassembled hundred of these sets. There is a bland sameness to them. They all end between about 1965 and 1972 and the coins are from circulation meaning only the current date is Unc and it will usually be tarnished even after only 25 years. chBU isn't rare in the sets but Gem is. And the chBU tend to be later dates than 1966. Most of these sets were apparently assembled starting between 1960 and 1972. Collectors were pulling the coins from circulation but by 1973 the incidence of wheat cents had dropped to well under 10% and people gave up getting any of the tougher dates and just quit. Even sets that were obviously begun earlier stop shortly after the advent of clad. People just didn't collect moderns then and they still don't.
The demand for moderns has grown and grown for decades and now it's up to "tiny". But the supply isn't there and prices are increasing.
I remember that 1969 Red Lincoln rolls were selling at $5 per roll. I had 40 original rolls that I got from a bank in the early 70s. I sold all the rolls. Are you saying I goofed by selling them?
I consider anything after 1840 to be modern. Where is my thinking wrong?
@cladking said:
Old time collections that formed before 1965 can't have a '66 Gem and old time collections formed after 1965 don't have a '66 cent.
You are moving the goalposts. Your previous comment, which I quoted and is even included in your post said nothing about gems: "There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
"BU 1966 pennies in any grade"
And the rest is just silly. My Lincoln collection started in the early 60's and as soon as 1966 rolled around, a 1966 cent was added to it. I guarantee my set is not the only one like that.
No I'm not.
Without '66 pennies in old time collections there is no source for dealers to restock after they sell a coin. You are merely imagining some sort of independent market that services demand for moderns but it doesn't exist and never did. Dealers keep partial roll sets of old coins but they do not stock moderns. You can call every B&M coin shop in the country and ask if they can actually ship you a nice chBU '66 cent and you might not get one no matter the price. You'll have to specialty dealers and these are the types of coins most won't have available due to little supply or demand. The few out there are being offered for sale at very high prices. Retail prices. I would guess most of these really are nice chBU because no returns is the name of the game in these markets. You want repeat customers, not returns.
Don't expect to get nice coins anywhere but retail. You might. You might get an entire roll for 5 or $6., but the odds are you'll get junk; poor luster, poor manufacture, and damaged surfaces.
Most of the penny collections that come into coin shops are junk. These are not old time collections they are stuff people sent away for in the '80's and '90's; complete collection in tubes for $7. The coins were substandard then and time has not been kind to them. This is a "consumer culture" and not a lot of sophisticated collectors bothered with "pennies". Everyone knows moderns are "common junk".
Again collectors collect and I have no way of "knowing" someone didn't assemble bag sets of Gem. But even if someone did how far are "5000" coins going to go supplying a modern market serving 335 million people in this country and 8 billion elsewhere? This isn't 1966 any longer. We have instant communication and a lot more people. We can all locate almost anything online with a few clicks of the mouse... ...except for nice chBU '66 cents.
@EastonCollection said:
I remember that 1969 Red Lincoln rolls were selling at $5 per roll. I had 40 original rolls that I got from a bank in the early 70s. I sold all the rolls. Are you saying I goofed by selling them?
I consider anything after 1840 to be modern. Where is my thinking wrong?
If you sold them for $5 in the mid 80's, that would be the equivalent purchasing power of $15.88 today. BU rolls are currently selling on eBay for $15-$20.
So- there's been no effective increase in value over the past 40 years. But who knows? Maybe if you held them for another 40 years...
@MasonG said:
And the rest is just silly. My Lincoln collection started in the early 60's and as soon as 1966 rolled around, a 1966 cent was added to it. I guarantee my set is not the only one like that.
Do you still have it? What condition is it in? Can it be sold as a nice chBU?
@cladking said:
Old time collections that formed before 1965 can't have a '66 Gem and old time collections formed after 1965 don't have a '66 cent.
You are moving the goalposts. Your previous comment, which I quoted and is even included in your post said nothing about gems: "There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
"BU 1966 pennies in any grade"
And the rest is just silly. My Lincoln collection started in the early 60's and as soon as 1966 rolled around, a 1966 cent was added to it. I guarantee my set is not the only one like that.
What year did Whitman stop selling cent folders? Oh, wait, they still do???? I wonder why that is...🤔
When the '66 was current they sold millions of folders.
They sold very very few from 1974 to 1994. They are filled mostly with coins from circulation. Today the slot for 1966 pennies will normally be empty because this coin is very hard to find in circulation. When it is found it will be in poor condition, not chBU.
The coins aren't out there. The '66 is scarce in MS-64+ and I doubt it's widely available in MS-63. If it were easiliy found in MS-63 then why are people paying retail prices for chBU? If it were easily found then why are dealers restocking driving up the price of BU rolls?
@MasonG said:
And the rest is just silly. My Lincoln collection started in the early 60's and as soon as 1966 rolled around, a 1966 cent was added to it. I guarantee my set is not the only one like that.
Do you still have it? What condition is it in? Can it be sold as a nice chBU?
Yes I do. It's a nice Ch BU. Which is something (my collection, including a BU 1966 penny) you said didn't exist.
cladking: "There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
When you make up stuff like that, it makes it difficult to take your claims seriously.
@MasonG said:
And the rest is just silly. My Lincoln collection started in the early 60's and as soon as 1966 rolled around, a 1966 cent was added to it. I guarantee my set is not the only one like that.
Do you still have it? What condition is it in? Can it be sold as a nice chBU?
Yes I do. It's a nice Ch BU. Which is something (my collection, including a BU 1966 penny) you said didn't exist.
cladking: "There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
When you make up stuff like that, it makes it difficult to take your claims seriously.
I see multiple such sets yearly in estates. Local dealer offered my a pile of such folders but he wanted 2 cents per cent for them, so I passed. He actually talked a hoarder into buying them for 3 cents each for the "copper content".
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Comments
I looked through my Whitman Lincoln albums and pulled out the 1965, 1966 and 1967 coins.
Five are dated 1965. Ten are dated 1966. Fourteen are dated 1967. Most of them are MSRD.
Here is the best 1965 from the Whitman albums.
Here is the best 1966.
Here is best best 1967.
I started collecting in 1963. I have no memory of when I collected these 65-67 cents, though some of them were pulled from circulation in the year of issue.
A few of these coins would, IMO, grade a 64RD. Many of them, though MS and RD are flawed with dings, hits and carbon spots.
You missed the post in this thread where I said my grading of Mint State 1966 pennies aligns VERY closely with grading services due to the nature of this specific date.
Where I disagree with the services is on moderns that are very poorly made from heavily worn dies or that have ugly unattractive surfaces for other reasons. IN MY OPINION poorly made coins can not be Gems at all. I simply reserve the term "Gem" for nice attractive coins in grading MODERN coins.
This is simple really. Old coins have issues with wear and otherwise degraded surfaces so collectors seek coins that are clean and free of marks. Almost all old coins were attractive when they left the dies. Modern coins are a monument to sloppy work, inattention to detail, and Gresham's Law. I seek the exception and call them "Gems".
Modern Gems simply prove that there are good things about the Modern Consumer Age. They give me hope that the next product I buy won't fail on its first day.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. I can find rare moderns in pocket change but every 1793 half cent has been sorted, saved, and collected by many generations of collectors. The coin is a known quantity and each individual specimen has been weighed, compared, and matched against every other specimen. They're fun to collect but there can be no surprises. Prices are established by mature markets which price in every nuance of its condition.
Moderns are very different and nobody even knows where the market is headed much less the scarcity of each coin.
Well, everyone else just hauls it to the bank.
Mebbe you should get with the program.
Yes, I said THAT. But I never said they were all gems. Read all the words.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Most of the old collections are all uncs for the clad era. They aren't all 66s, which has suddenly become his point.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm talking about "uncirculated" world moderns having increased many many fold. Grading of Gems is more a US (and now Chinese) phenomenon. Other countries tend to have better and more consistent quality than our old clad coins but as a rule of thumb the higher prices apply only to what I call "chBU". The typical 1966 penny left the mint in chBU but the typical 1966 quarter was an ugly misshapen lump when it was made.
There have been collectors who said they owned large numbers of coins I've cited but then when they check their accumulation they find they're missing them. The coins have never been sorted, saved, and collected. They havent been graded, cataloged or even looked at.
If coin collectors don't have them then who does.
That's a great looking coin! Without seeing it in hand it looks like it might not be an SMS but it's so nice it makes me think it must be!
This is a way nicer coin than I'd expect from a folder. Most are atrocious and many are AU. It can't be sold as a "chBU".
I'm surprised you have any intact ort complete sets.
But you're still missing my point. Even if you had a thousand of these sets the '82-P will be AU. the '69 will be an ugly fright, and the '66 with be a blob. Only a few coins in these sets can be sold as "chBU" and sets will not include the tough dates.
As I said earlier the off grade coins don't exist in huge numbers either. People just imagine all moderns are common but a lot of off grades find their way into circulation.
My bar for “gems” is may be lower due to my experience examining coins compared to others.
Or, it may be higher because of naive expectation.
The term gem is subjective when someone describes a raw coin. The “gem” 1966 cent to which a TPG would not give a grade of 66+ wastes my time and space, unless I pay to slab them for posterity.
The gem 2019 W that is not 70 will not find its value in my lifetime.
All are are correct:
“Modern gems” are all but gone,
“Modern gems” are unwanted,
“Modern gems” are desirable,
“Modern gems” are out there
Which modern gems? The “gems” just at the worth-of-cost line, or the gems the above that line and beyond?
The point that I’m making is that is that you can get one or the other for roughly the same dollar amount. I’ll select a gem modern cent as well as the classic type rather than blowing four figures on one super gem modern. Remember that according to PCGS there are over two million(!!!!) 1966 gem uncs. That is quite a common coin. To each their own.
Go to ANA and offer a 1793 1/2 cent and a 1966 penny that is worth its equivalent. Guess which one will sell within five minutes or less.
He didn't say gems and nobody has said all those old-time collections contained them. He said:
"There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
This is laughably false.
I had no idea that 1966 MS Lincoln Cents could be this controversial. Yes, they are very rare in high grades. But the PCGS RD variety in the highest grade is only a MS67! However looking at the PCGS pops for early 60's Lincoln cents, this is not the lowest population for a Lincoln cent. the 1965 and 1964 had even fewer coins that got above a MS65.
By the way there is one for sale on EBay in an NGC holder that's MS68, certif. # 120285-017 selling for about $105. I checked the NGC cert lookup tool. It checks out.
Not my cup of tea, though.
I just finished a shopping expedition and came home with a few dimes one of which is as nice as you'll find in circulation any longer without great effort. A '66 cent is very difficult to find in circulation so highly improbable unless you have a very large sample. But the dime is still common and a three roll sample should be sufficient.
This dime is remarkably nice and I'd call it a Fine. Maybe F+. Despite its light wear it still can't be sold as a "Good or Better" because of rim dings. It's covered in little scratches but not as badly as most. The most remarkable thing about it isn't the light wear it's that it was well made by good dies. It has a lot of the typical strike weakness for the date but it was Gem when it left the dies. Only about 5% of this date are well made. There are probably not even twenty million coins surviving with less wear. Of these only about one million is as well made. If there were a market for G and better 1966 dimes this still couldn't be sold as a G.
If there were a demand for these coins; if they were sorted and collected this coin would survive most cuts. Herein is the root of what I'm trying to get across. These coins are not being sorted or collected and so long as they aren't the attrition on dimes will be severe. 4% are being "consumed" and lost each year. The rest are subject to continued degradation regardless of their quality or rarity. As long as there is so little value attached to "chBU" their attrition will remain high as well because collectors do the best job of preserving coins. Look at @SanctionII 's Gems above.
If 4% are being consumed per year and we started with 2 billion, there should still be 173 million left. We'll be down to 2.9 million in 2126.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
You were less likely to find a 1906 cent in circulation 60 years after it was minted than a 1966 cent 60 years later. This is not a surprise to anyone who thinks about it for even a minute, yet you keep saying it as though it's somehow significant.
Indeed. We're all framing reality differently and we're all right within the limitations of our premises.
But make no mistake; reality exists and within this reality it is a a virtual certainty "1966 cents are tough in high grade". It doesn't matter who defines reality the coins are still not out there because they have been ignored and degraded by a consumer society.
Anyone can say half a billion surviving coins means it's common and will be common forever just as they used to say two billion coins means it will always be common. But there is still no force in evidence that stop anyone from saying 100,000,000 means it's common. People only imagine these coins aren't degrading.
Soon enough the government will lift the melting ban and millions more '66 pennies will be lost.
Instead of slowing the attrition rate can soar and the coins still aren't being sorted are they?
I tend to agree. For the main part I would avoid pop tops as well and look for an exception specimen one or two grades down. I think a lot of people will just collect moderns in Gem and most will include slightly inferior specimens I call "gemmy". I believe this will be the sweet spot for many collectors and there will be a price differential between MS-63 and MS-64. I believe collectors will be strike conscious because so many moderns aren't hard trop find clean, they're hard to find with detail that was on the dies. Very few regular issuer moderns will be tough in chBU but the '66 cent is a candidate for one that may be. To date the demand is for chBU but I believe most buyers keep looking until they find an attractive well made coin and a ;lot of chBU are not attractive.
It's the same way with the half cent. I would want to buy a nice choice well worn specimen that's as attractive as possible. I'd avoid strike deficiencies and uneven wear or unnatural surfaces. ...just a nice collector version.
In the old days It wasn't uncommon for "old time collections" to come to market. These are defined as collections that contained many coins that hadn't been seen in many years. ...valuable coins. ...unobtainable coins often i high grades. They might contain some highly esoteric coins like rolls of BU Guatemalan silver from 50 years before. These sorts of collections rarely come on the market any longer but when they do there are no 1966 pennies in any grade. There may be no coins made after 1965 other than rarities like a '69-S DDO cent.
The psychology changed in 1965 because modern coins were deemed common junk and uncollectible so they were never collected. Old time collections that formed before 1965 can't have a '66 Gem and old time collections formed after 1965 don't have a '66 cent.
The coin comes very nice but it wasn't widely saved and attrition has decimated it.
I get a laugh out of many of their estimates.
You are moving the goalposts. Your previous comment, which I quoted and is even included in your post said nothing about gems: "There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
"BU 1966 pennies in any grade"
And the rest is just silly. My Lincoln collection started in the early 60's and as soon as 1966 rolled around, a 1966 cent was added to it. I guarantee my set is not the only one like that.
What year did Whitman stop selling cent folders? Oh, wait, they still do???? I wonder why that is...🤔
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
It's not impossible there are two million Gems but I'm the only person I know who put a lot of effort into this date. I rejected many rolls and entire bags. I saved "2000" specimens and recovered only "25" Gems. I know there are people who toss around bags but there has been a market for these coins. Before 1979 I never heard of anyone looking for modern Gems. I was scouring the country and people were looking at me funny because nobody ever heard of looking for Gems. It's not something that's easy to do.
Sure I couldda advertised to buy the coins at high prices but they wouldn't come in. I did advertise to buy Gem '82 quarters all through the '80's and '90's but they didn't come in. Someone could have positioned himself in the heart of the business and acquired substantial quantities 50/ 100 bags of nice choice coins but they wouldn't be Gems and their cost would be enormous in time and effort. I don't think it happened. I was there. I was virtually alone. There were a few big concerns trying to position themselves in clads and they may still have significant accumulations but few people knew the best examples were in the min sets and their number is known. Their incidence is known. The coins simply aren't out there and nice Gem '66 cents are even less out there because it was lightly saved (~1.5 million) and they were of random quality. "Random quality" in some dates almost means they are all awful but '66 cents come nice so about 4% approach Gem. The bags and rolls are gone and Gems are tough. We don't know how many people set them aside and someone could have been lucky and found a bag of mostly Gems.
There is no market to give us a good idea of what exists.
But can you still find 60 year old gems in your change to put into it?
Lol. I don't know why that's the standard. How many gem 1890 Indian cents are there? It doesn't stop people from collecting 1890 Indian cents.
Edited to add: I got curious. Less than 30.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Not to worry. There'll be a new standard anytime now.
It's an SMS...
https://www.ebay.com/itm/800275495835?_skw=1966+lincoln+cent+ngc&itmmeta=01KXEBRVN2R1JSYJP2MJHDX2ZY&hash=itemba5422fb9b:g:~DYAAeSwEJNqRdm9&itmprp=enc:AQALAAAA8GfYFPkwiKCW4ZNSs2u11xBoJ2LvTwhZFFHdnclqSP+Fnj9d1L6RhZf8MW7TPRYOdAVahU2uR2ulrCEqLGXkFfk2gkEwe/JnMUI9uHA05dKBxZq8QK5PX1iH3TWCSfJpBCvZlpZzK1+eVeb3qI821eNlyVTgm3m8DNvHAZm+JlCqAa8QiExRL+H5Q5J/x7+epdkT0BAXY0cHtUEsknH/CKJJAxgXcZaqf8felGxQ/1Fhm/tLC7OJSeN+EVOJky81yuxu75aPnFUaJ7huPY9s6UV8cXeGPTy9zfKCgon79XEE7BNztCTftAXEZBcc3SVzZw==|tkp:BFBM2rrjy-tn
Fascinating discussion. In 1966 all us kid collectors were pissed off that they took off mint marks! The Mint done this to keep more coins in circulation, to actively fight collector and roll/bag hoarders. The great withdrawal of ALL silver coins had been happening and at that era credit cards didn’t account for much everyday useage, so nearly every transaction required a few one cent coins. One thing that amazes me is in my stack of Whitman’s only a very few are red, or even red brown. The Only older Red Lincoln I ever found was a 1940. ••••. We were all hunting for the days great rarities then in circulation, the 55/55, 1960 small date and the elusive 1955 S. And yeah cladding is right, no one saved 1966 cents, but I’ll bet a lot are in blue Whitman’s out there we put in a half century ago.
Yes indeed Good catch--- SMS cant compared
Yea, and that seller doesn't look very appealing. His '95 ddo doesn't look ddo. 98.9 isn't a good look either.
I've disassembled hundred of these sets. There is a bland sameness to them. They all end between about 1965 and 1972 and the coins are from circulation meaning only the current date is Unc and it will usually be tarnished even after only 25 years. chBU isn't rare in the sets but Gem is. And the chBU tend to be later dates than 1966. Most of these sets were apparently assembled starting between 1960 and 1972. Collectors were pulling the coins from circulation but by 1973 the incidence of wheat cents had dropped to well under 10% and people gave up getting any of the tougher dates and just quit. Even sets that were obviously begun earlier stop shortly after the advent of clad. People just didn't collect moderns then and they still don't.
The demand for moderns has grown and grown for decades and now it's up to "tiny". But the supply isn't there and prices are increasing.
Thank you. Now if I just didn't have a "unique grasp" of everything (including reality) things would be easier.
I remember that 1969 Red Lincoln rolls were selling at $5 per roll. I had 40 original rolls that I got from a bank in the early 70s. I sold all the rolls. Are you saying I goofed by selling them?
I consider anything after 1840 to be modern. Where is my thinking wrong?
No I'm not.
Without '66 pennies in old time collections there is no source for dealers to restock after they sell a coin. You are merely imagining some sort of independent market that services demand for moderns but it doesn't exist and never did. Dealers keep partial roll sets of old coins but they do not stock moderns. You can call every B&M coin shop in the country and ask if they can actually ship you a nice chBU '66 cent and you might not get one no matter the price. You'll have to specialty dealers and these are the types of coins most won't have available due to little supply or demand. The few out there are being offered for sale at very high prices. Retail prices. I would guess most of these really are nice chBU because no returns is the name of the game in these markets. You want repeat customers, not returns.
Don't expect to get nice coins anywhere but retail. You might. You might get an entire roll for 5 or $6., but the odds are you'll get junk; poor luster, poor manufacture, and damaged surfaces.
Most of the penny collections that come into coin shops are junk. These are not old time collections they are stuff people sent away for in the '80's and '90's; complete collection in tubes for $7. The coins were substandard then and time has not been kind to them. This is a "consumer culture" and not a lot of sophisticated collectors bothered with "pennies". Everyone knows moderns are "common junk".
Again collectors collect and I have no way of "knowing" someone didn't assemble bag sets of Gem. But even if someone did how far are "5000" coins going to go supplying a modern market serving 335 million people in this country and 8 billion elsewhere? This isn't 1966 any longer. We have instant communication and a lot more people. We can all locate almost anything online with a few clicks of the mouse... ...except for nice chBU '66 cents.
If you sold them for $5 in the mid 80's, that would be the equivalent purchasing power of $15.88 today. BU rolls are currently selling on eBay for $15-$20.
So- there's been no effective increase in value over the past 40 years. But who knows? Maybe if you held them for another 40 years...
Do you still have it? What condition is it in? Can it be sold as a nice chBU?
When the '66 was current they sold millions of folders.
They sold very very few from 1974 to 1994. They are filled mostly with coins from circulation. Today the slot for 1966 pennies will normally be empty because this coin is very hard to find in circulation. When it is found it will be in poor condition, not chBU.
The coins aren't out there. The '66 is scarce in MS-64+ and I doubt it's widely available in MS-63. If it were easiliy found in MS-63 then why are people paying retail prices for chBU? If it were easily found then why are dealers restocking driving up the price of BU rolls?
Yes I do. It's a nice Ch BU. Which is something (my collection, including a BU 1966 penny) you said didn't exist.
cladking: "There are not old time collections containing BU 1966 pennies in any grade."
When you make up stuff like that, it makes it difficult to take your claims seriously.
I see multiple such sets yearly in estates. Local dealer offered my a pile of such folders but he wanted 2 cents per cent for them, so I passed. He actually talked a hoarder into buying them for 3 cents each for the "copper content".
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.