@ambro51 said:
This thread is getting toxic I bail
People hate having their premises and assumptions challenged. Common wisdom says moderns are uncollectible so when evidence is presented that they are being noticed and collected it's not liked.
I'll try to do a better job of deescalating. It's all good posters here so that should be easy enough.
Eventually moderns will be collected and I believe that time has finally arrived. We're going to find out that there aren't many out there whether that applies to the '66 cent or not!
@ambro51 said:
For such a common coin, only ONE certified example has been posted on this thread. As for the once common now rare situation, please find me a pristine copy of the Philadelphia Inquirer Newspaper from September 16, 1966. Go ahead……find me one, pristine…..they made hundreds of thousands of them.
It sounds like you missed this earlier post from @FlyingAI:
I did point out earlier in this thread that unlike most bags of moderns from that era that every bag is going to have numerous chBU and Gem coins in it. I'd guess the typical non-skunked bag will be about 4% MS-65 and better but this is variable even for this date since you can get a lot of good or bad die runs in a bag. I agree with @ambro51 that it looks like someone was trying to get an MS-67. There wee probably a few 65's and a a few 67's not included in this lot.
I'd guess this is the product of at least a couple of pretty nice bags. I'd guess they also rolled up a bunch of nice chBU and hauled a bunch of junk to the bank. You can sell off quality modern proofs but there is no market for off quality modern BU. Indeed even better (low mintage or mint sets only) moderns are hard to move when they are off quality so most of it ends up in circulation.
It was largely poor quality that caused people to stop collecting moderns and now poor quality still gets no takers. These are different markets. People don't open rolls of 1828 quarters and cherry pick the Gems and varieties before spending the rest of them.
The real rarity in moderns is VF/ XF clad quarters. A lot of them are pretty well made because the initial releases are prone to more attrition and the high grades are more likely to be from BU rolls and mint sets released in the last half century. You used to see the '66 quarters that were almost slick coming off the dies in VG and F but the FED has been screening out thin coins so you just don't see many of them any longer.
@jmlanzaf said:
I thought there were thousands of Aunt Marthas....
It would be much easier if the point didn't keep changing
He must be a Donovan fan...
"First there is a Martha, then there is no Martha, then there is..."
Everything comes and goes. The same ground that was once a mountain can again. indeed, the weight of a mountain depresses the crust under it and creates a mirror mountain underneath. And 1827 quarters were mintage modern junk in 1827 or more would have been saved intentionally.
@FlyingAl said:
For those counting, that's 63 Gem BU examples available on ONE SITE, RIGHT NOW.
Would you agree then that if there are 63 coins and only 62 buyers they have no value?
I thought there were thousands of Aunt Marthas....
It would be much easier if the point didn't keep changing
The demand is growing. That's what's causing BU roll prices like chBU '66 cents to go higher. Wait'll you see what happens to mint sets when people figure out that's the origin of BU rolls!
@FlyingAl said:
For those counting, that's 63 Gem BU examples available on ONE SITE, RIGHT NOW.
Would you agree then that if there are 63 coins and only 62 buyers they have no value?
I thought there were thousands of Aunt Marthas....
It would be much easier if the point didn't keep changing
The demand is growing. That's what's causing BU roll prices like chBU '66 cents to go higher. Wait'll you see what happens to mint sets when people figure out that's the origin of BU rolls!
And right after that everyone will realize there are no mint sets with '66 chBU pennies.
But most coin collectors simply can't believe or even process the idea that nice attractive specimens of a coin made in the billions can ever be desirable or scarce.
That's because you aren't and haven't been describing an actual scarcity. Any US modern as a date/MM is more common than in the vicinity of 99% of all coins dated prior to 2000 in comparable market quality. The coin market, even the US coin market, also consists of a lot more than US moderns vs. 1960's circulating designs which is almost always your implied comparison.
Your collecting parameters have no market relevance economically. That's what it really comes down to. Prices demonstrate that US collecting almost entirely doesn't care about your non-market quality criteria. It also disproportionately doesn't care about the price differences between US moderns and 60's US circulating designs or the scarcity difference between this coinage either. Virtually no collector entirely ignores the prices of all other coinage either where they would ever pay the prices you insist this coinage should be worth, which you won't even pay yourself but think others should.
This is a very interesting date from many perspectives but it's not the coins I saved back (the "25" Gems) that are most undervalued; it's any nice chBU like the ones I shipped for relative peanuts.
I own 25 Peru pillar 1/2R, 1R, and 2R in NGC and PCGS holders MS-60 or higher. Duplicates of some dates. Three MS-65s. Another 20 in a grade of AU-53, AU-55, or AU-58. None are known hoard coins.
This coinage wasn't preserved because it was so valuable (it was circulating pocket change for in the vicinity of a century, or more), or because of the metal content (there is no contemporary base metal coinage at all), or because there were so many collectors at the time either.
Your experience isn't representative of the supply.
Congrats on building such an impressive holding of early Peru coinage!
Thanks, but as you know, it's the vast majority of series covering 3+ centuries from Latin America to the 19th century to one degree or another, except where it's a hoard coin or as you stated it mostly circulated outside the western hemisphere. There are numerous series noticeably and maybe far scarcer, Peru cob denominations being several.
But then, anyone who actually understood how people generally view coin collecting, now or previously, or is actually knowledgeable of the coin market would know this.
@WCC said:
No one can know what you claim to know, and I'm not even interpreting your claims literally.
Why would you think such a thing? Nothing prevented me from watching the flows of used and new coins in circulation. You didn't observe brand new '71-D quarters entering circulation for years as the FED rotated their old stocks but I did. I looked at rolls of '71 quarters from various sources but most people who begin looking for '71 original quarter quarter rolls today will never see one because they were rare in 1973 and most have been spent or busted up by now. I owned a couple but spent them because... ...drumroll please... ...they were awful. It's entirely possible every surviving original 1971 quarter roll today is awful. Rare, butt ugly. You can't ship ugly coins as "chBU". The market doesn't want "ugly" it wants "chBU".
I was there in the '70's when dealers would give me nice chBU '71 quarters in change from the till. Not because I collected them but because that's where mint set coins went whether they were ugly or Gem. I was there in the '80's when '65 -9 mint sets were being melted for their silver. I was there in the '90's when coin collecting was failing and the mint sets were being spent. You just can't imagine I'm right because you never looked and you never looked because you never cared. I did.
I've watched my pocket change and checked circulating coinage since 1957. I tried to pay attention to everything that I could.
Because your posts conclusively demonstrate you don’t understand virtually anything on this subject, that’s why. No one understanding the subject would ever write the posts you do. I've told you this repeatedly, but here you are asking the same question, again.
You’re using an argument from authority fallacy where you are supposedly the authority, knowing more than anyone can possibly know and more than everyone else combined. Your scarcity claims are predominantly derived using an argument from ignorance fallacy, an absence of evidence from coins you didn’t observe or coins someone else told you they didn’t observe either. Your premises purporting (key word) to support your experience contradict obvious market behavior (including yours) reflected in the public industry data I’ve used as rebuttals to your claims. You’re exhibiting confirmation bias where you infer your premises demonstrate your views when it doesn’t. Every premise of yours where we disagree is nonsensical. You disregard or clearly do not understand the concept of network effect.
Why else would you claim and infer such ridiculously low survivorship for US moderns and world “moderns” while simultaneously implying such inflated estimates for coins which are known to be much scarcer, especially when your posts demonstrate you don’t even know virtually anything about most of the coin market? You aren’t even familiar with the TPG data and eBay inventory, instead writing as if the coin market still revolves around your local B&M and implying it’s unusual high-quality 60 year-old circulating coins aren’t available in change.
Your primary premise is your “hate” claim where you claim to believe 00s of 000s to millions buying US moderns and world “moderns” don’t and didn’t want what they bought. This assumption doesn’t have anything to do with the real coin market because yes, you just “made it up”.
Since no one’s experience is representative in this context, we have to use other methods. That’s why I use comparative analysis. That was the entire point of using my collection as a rebuttal to your claim. This should have been obvious, but it still wasn't to you.
What else am I supposed to believe when it is more common than in the vicinity of 99% of all coins dated prior to 2000? Are you actually telling me it isn't?
Are in the vicinity of 99% of all coins dated prior to 2000 scarce? What kind of "scarcity" is that?
@WCC said:
Thanks, but as you know, it's the vast majority of series covering 3+ centuries from Latin America to the 19th century to one degree or another, except where it's a hoard coin or as you stated it mostly circulated outside the western hemisphere. There are numerous series noticeably and maybe far scarcer, Peru cob denominations being several.
But then, anyone who actually understood how people generally view coin collecting, now or previously, or is actually knowledgeable of the coin market would know this.
You can stick what I know about cob coinage in your ear (of corn).
But I wager I've talked to far more collectors than you have.
Real collectors share many traits and most of us believe in live and let live. We value quality, rarity, art, and historical importance. We tend to thirst for knowledge and understanding and this shows in how we collect. We’re not trying to win arguments about who knows the most obscure series, we’re trying to understand the coins and the people who made them.
@cladking said:
But I wager I've talked to far more collectors than you have.
You don't get it and never will. No amount of evidence or reasoning is enough to disabuse you of your illogical thinking.
@cladking said:
We’re not trying to win arguments about who knows the most obscure series, we’re trying to understand the coins and the people who made them.
I'd agree with this if you were actually describing the real coin market, but you aren't. No one has to know anything specific about the coins I collect or similar coins to understand what I have told you.
@WCC said:
Thanks, but as you know, it's the vast majority of series covering 3+ centuries from Latin America to the 19th century to one degree or another, except where it's a hoard coin or as you stated it mostly circulated outside the western hemisphere. There are numerous series noticeably and maybe far scarcer, Peru cob denominations being several.
But then, anyone who actually understood how people generally view coin collecting, now or previously, or is actually knowledgeable of the coin market would know this.
You can stick what I know about cob coinage in your ear (of corn).
But I wager I've talked to far more collectors than you have.
Real collectors share many traits and most of us believe in live and let live. We value quality, rarity, art, and historical importance. We tend to thirst for knowledge and understanding and this shows in how we collect. We’re not trying to win arguments about who knows the most obscure series, we’re trying to understand the coins and the people who made them.
How can you claim to not be trying to win an argument when you respond to EVERYONE on these threads, INCLUDING YOURSELF!?!? if you don't like the suggestion that you are trying to "win an argument", you are most definitely trying to push a narrative and ignore every counterargument, no matter how factual.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
But I wager I've talked to far more collectors than you have.
Based on the way you interact with other collectors here, I doubt those other conversations were very productive.
Presumably, if you heard something that supported your hypothesis then you accepted it, but if it was contradictory then you rejected or ignored it.
My style of discourse is to try to draw out peoples' premises because everybody makes sense in terms of their premises. @WCC 's and your premises are completely different than mine AS IT CONCERNS COINS and the desirability of specific coins. I'm not "trying to win an argument" so much as to understand why you think what you think. Just because I believe your premises are not reflective of reality doesn't mean your wrong and it might mean I am. But the only way to iron out differences is through exploration of these premises. Somehow people got the idea that coins have to be rare to be valuable but then they don't notice that they also think they have to be "old", "US" "precious metal" desirable to the most well heeled segment of numismatists. I don't believe any of these things are true. When I was young a '50-D nickel was worth over $350 in today's money and a nice chBU '66 cent is, IMO, much scarcer than the '50-D. Indeed, I'd wager the total number of '66 circulation quality cents set aside in any grade at all has fewer extent examples than the '50-D nickel today. Yet, somehow, even Gems of the date are deemed to common and too junky to collect. An 1877 cent is collectible enough but not a 1966.
So why do you believe there is less and less demand and more and more coins to fill it? Why is there such pushback as this? Why are the coin events of the mid-'60's wholly irrelevant to the state of numismatics today? Why do you find it so impossible that the growing demand for moderns could continue through today or even next week?
Nobody really knows what's going to happen five minutes from now but the authors of paper in question are saying that 1966 pennies are tougher in high grade than people think. How many do you think there are? I've stated my estimates several times and provided many of the details for how I made those estimates. I seriously doubt that those in this thread disputing the thesis have any knowledge relevant to estimating the surviving population of ANY MODERN AT ALL.
Don't make me get my AI back out. We might try some good cop/ bad cop.
_"JBK, my way of talking with collectors — here or anywhere — is to try to understand the premises they’re using. Everyone makes sense in terms of their premises, and yours and WCC’s are simply different from mine when it comes to what makes certain coins desirable. I’m not trying to win an argument so much as understand how you’re seeing the market.
If I think someone’s premises don’t line up with reality, that doesn’t make them wrong. It might mean I’m wrong. The only way to sort that out is to explore the assumptions behind our views. Somewhere along the line, many collectors came to believe coins must be rare, old, U.S., precious metal, or appealing to the highest‑budget segment to be “worth” collecting. I don’t think those criteria are universal.
When I was young, a ’50‑D nickel brought the equivalent of over $350 today. A nice chBU ’66 cent is, in my view, scarcer than the ’50‑D — and I’d wager fewer ’66 circulation‑quality cents were ever saved in any grade. Yet Gems of the date are dismissed as too common or too “junky.” An 1877 cent is collectible enough, but a 1966 isn’t.
So I’m asking questions, not making accusations:
Why do you see demand shrinking while supply grows?
Why is there pushback on the idea that moderns might have genuine scarcity?
Why are the mid‑’60s coin events treated as irrelevant today?
Why is it unthinkable that demand for moderns could continue through today or even next week?
None of us knows what will happen five minutes from now. But the authors of the paper are saying 1966 cents are tougher in high grade than people assume. How many do you think exist? I’ve given my estimates and explained how I arrived at them. I doubt many people disputing the thesis have meaningful knowledge about the surviving population of any modern.
Don’t make me get my AI back out. We might have to try good cop / bad cop."_
@WCC said:
Thanks, but as you know, it's the vast majority of series covering 3+ centuries from Latin America to the 19th century to one degree or another, except where it's a hoard coin or as you stated it mostly circulated outside the western hemisphere. There are numerous series noticeably and maybe far scarcer, Peru cob denominations being several.
But then, anyone who actually understood how people generally view coin collecting, now or previously, or is actually knowledgeable of the coin market would know this.
You can stick what I know about cob coinage in your ear (of corn).
But I wager I've talked to far more collectors than you have.
Real collectors share many traits and most of us believe in live and let live. We value quality, rarity, art, and historical importance. We tend to thirst for knowledge and understanding and this shows in how we collect. We’re not trying to win arguments about who knows the most obscure series, we’re trying to understand the coins and the people who made them.
Guess which coin every person would want to know and learn about if I placed a VF Lima cob and a 1966 penny on a table at a coin show, a dinner part or whatever.
The cob represents the quality, rarity, art, and historical importance that you yourself alluded to. Many of those cobs were melted down in order to strike Massachusetts silver. Btw, collecting cobs is certainly not an obscure series.
@jmlanzaf said:
you are most definitely trying to push a narrative and ignore every counterargument, no matter how factual.
That narrative (or one of them, anyway) is that gem BU coins are scarce/rare and increasing demand from collectors preferring gem BU coins will drive up prices. What that narrative ignores is that most collectors have a limited amount of money to spend on coins and they will look for ways to minimize spending when they can.
The pricing (from PCGS price guide) for a 1966 cent goes like this:
MS63: $7
MS64: $10
MS65: $18
MS66: $32
MS67: $950
If one of each is available when the typical collector is looking to buy, I believe most collectors will likely settle on the MS64, since it's not much more than a 63 and a 65 is almost twice as much. They won't even think about a 66 or 67.
You have to remember that for people putting together date/mint sets, these coins are not bought as a one-off. They need all the dates/mints. I didn't count them up but I would guess that if you were doing cent to half dollar sets, between 1965 and 2000, you'd need about 500 different coins. A $20 difference in price (MS64 to MS66 for the 1966 Lincoln, for example) translates into a $10,000 increase in cost for the set. You'd have to be a fool to think the typical collector doesn't recognize that reality.
@Colonialcoin said:
Guess which coin every person would want to know and learn about if I placed a VF Lima cob and a 1966 penny on a table at a coin show, a dinner part or whatever.
You might be surprised. I've tried exactly such experiments with things like like a BU liberty nickel and a early BU clad quarter. A lot of people will notice the clad quarter is in unusual condition and assume the liberty nickel is supposed to look that way.
The question isn't what appeals or is noticed by non-collectors but what real collectors do. They collect. And more people are starting to collect moderns because they are available and nice gemmy coins are in their price range.
@MasonG said:
That narrative (or one of them, anyway) is that gem BU coins are scarce/rare and increasing demand from collectors preferring gem BU coins will drive up prices. What that narrative ignores is that most collectors have a limited amount of money to spend on coins and they will look for ways to minimize spending when they can.
The pricing (from PCGS price guide) for a 1966 cent goes like this:
MS63: $7
MS64: $10
MS65: $18
MS66: $32
MS67: $950
If one of each is available when the typical collector is looking to buy, I believe most collectors will likely settle on the MS64, since it's not much more than a 63 and a 65 is almost twice as much. They won't even think about a 66 or 67.
You have to remember that for people putting together date/mint sets, these coins are not bought as a one-off. They need all the dates/mints. I didn't count them up but I would guess that if you were doing cent to half dollar sets, between 1965 and 2000, you'd need about 500 different coins. A $20 difference in price (MS64 to MS66 for the 1966 Lincoln, for example) translates into a $10,000 increase in cost for the set. You'd have to be a fool to think the typical collector doesn't recognize that reality.
I’ve told him this before, repeatedly.
What he also ignores is that virtually no collector ignores the prices of all other coinage.
He writes as if the entire coin market consists of US moderns vs. 1960’s circulating designs and world “moderns” vs. “older” coinage (that’s roughly 1900-1945 to everyone else). This is almost always his implied comparison, as if the rest of the coin market doesn't exist.
There are too many other coins with a much higher preference available for a similar cumulative cost to a 4+ figure memorial cent set, or any other US modern series.
@WCC said:
There are too many other coins with a much higher preference available for a similar cumulative cost to a 4+ figure memorial cent set, or any other US modern series.
You keep inventing new ways to say nobody's ever going to collect modern crap.
But more and more are and more and more are collecting regular issue series made by the US Mint. This includes thing like 1966 Lincoln cents in all grades from VG to MS-67+.
They were common but billions of them no longer exist or have been severely degraded. For whatever reason some find them fun to collect. To each his own.
I'm not "trying to win an argument" so much as to understand why you think what you think. Just because I believe your premises are not reflective of reality doesn't mean your wrong and it might mean I am. But the only way to iron out differences is through exploration of these premises.
Is it really too much to ask you to discuss the real coin market? No one acts the way you write, not even you in some instances.
My primary objection to your claims is that you disproportionately don’t have a legitimate difference of opinion. You disregard evidence and arguments much better than yours, or which refute your claims definitively. You extrapolate your preferences onto the collector base while misrepresenting it as if it’s a common viewpoint when it isn’t. You have an astronomically exaggerated perception of this coinage.
Given our prior exchanges, how can you claim not to understand what I have told you? I could literally write a book from our prior post exchanges. There isn’t anything I’ve ever told you that is hard to understand. You just don’t like it when anyone contradicts your narrative, and the most believable reason is that you have been financially promoting this coinage. Why else would you demonstrate such intransigence in repeatedly promoting so many obvious errors?
@cladking said:
Somehow people got the idea that coins have to be rare to be valuable but then they don't notice that they also think they have to be "old", "US" "precious metal" desirable to the most well heeled segment of numismatists. I don't believe any of these things are true.
It’s not for this reason, or any other reason you’ve ever given. It’s the collective coin attributes. Due to cultural reasons, US moderns and world “moderns” collectively have the least preferred attributes, and that’s why it has the lowest aggregate preference. You can’t explain how cultural perception will ever change, or else you would have done it long ago.
@cladking said:
When I was young a '50-D nickel was worth over $350 in today's money and a nice chBU '66 cent is, IMO, much scarcer than the '50-D. Indeed, I'd wager the total number of '66 circulation quality cents set aside in any grade at all has fewer extent examples than the '50-D nickel today. Yet, somehow, even Gems of the date are deemed to common and too junky to collect. An 1877 cent is collectible enough but not a 1966.
The price of the 50-D nickel 60+ years ago has no relevance to the price of any US modern since you’ve been posting on any coin forum. It was a price bubble. But then, since you claim speculation is collecting while any price below your preference is “ignored”, you claim to be “confused”.
As for the 1877 cent vs. 1966 cents, the 1877 is a key date from a series with a higher preference with a relatively low number of high or average circulated quality survivors. Given the mintage, your estimate is likely too low, far too low. The number of memorial cent collectors isn't low to you and MS coins aren't hard to buy either.
@cladking said:
So why do you believe there is less and less demand and more and more coins to fill it? Why is there such pushback as this?
What are you talking about?
@cladking said:
Why are the coin events of the mid-'60's wholly irrelevant to the state of numismatics today?
No one said this. Why does any coin have to worth what you think it should be?
@cladking said:
Why do you find it so impossible that the growing demand for moderns could continue through today or even next week?
Nobody said this either. There is a difference between what you just asked, and the astronomically inflated perception you have of this coinage.
@cladking said:
Nobody really knows what's going to happen five minutes from now but the authors of paper in question are saying that 1966 pennies are tougher in high grade than people think.
The future isn’t a coin toss. There is a difference between actual uncertainty and what you've repeatedly implied.
Members on this forum also aren’t as ignorant. Others here know that this coinage is scarcer than commonly believed by the general collector population. I still know that you don’t demonstrate any understanding of the subject, your collecting parameters have no market relevance, and when you have previously provided specific estimates, your numbers (2,000 to 50,000) aren't actually low either.
@cladking said:
How many do you think there are? I've stated my estimates several times and provided many of the details for how I made those estimates. I seriously doubt that those in this thread disputing the thesis have any knowledge relevant to estimating the surviving population of ANY MODERN AT ALL.
This is where you go wrong. If you really believe what you’ve written, you don’t understand virtually anything about the subject. No one will ever derive any reasonable estimate given your inaccurate premises which don’t have anything to do with anything in collecting.
It’s also a matter of probabilities. To you, “possible”, “probable”, and “likely” are synonymous. No, you can’t misuse consensus word definitions while imposing yours on anyone else.
I explained this to you in detail before, and what was your reply? You completely ignored everything I told you and literally quoting my post immediately asking exactly the same question, again.
@WCC said:
There are too many other coins with a much higher preference available for a similar cumulative cost to a 4+ figure memorial cent set, or any other US modern series.
You keep inventing new ways to say nobody's ever going to collect modern crap.
But more and more are and more and more are collecting regular issue series made by the US Mint. This includes thing like 1966 Lincoln cents in all grades from VG to MS-67+.
They were common but billions of them no longer exist or have been severely degraded. For whatever reason some find them fun to collect. To each his own.
This is really funny coming from you. You're writing about an imaginary coin market you've invented, yet you tell me this?
I've never claimed the collector base won't increase or the price won't increase. I've only disagreed with your exorbitantly inflated future collector base, your hugely inflated future financial scale, and your outrageous price claims and inferences.
Comments
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. She's busy looking for one of those scarce 1966 pennies, so it may be a while.
I wager there are at least a handful of Aunt Marthas watching.
People hate having their premises and assumptions challenged. Common wisdom says moderns are uncollectible so when evidence is presented that they are being noticed and collected it's not liked.
I'll try to do a better job of deescalating. It's all good posters here so that should be easy enough.
Eventually moderns will be collected and I believe that time has finally arrived. We're going to find out that there aren't many out there whether that applies to the '66 cent or not!
I did point out earlier in this thread that unlike most bags of moderns from that era that every bag is going to have numerous chBU and Gem coins in it. I'd guess the typical non-skunked bag will be about 4% MS-65 and better but this is variable even for this date since you can get a lot of good or bad die runs in a bag. I agree with @ambro51 that it looks like someone was trying to get an MS-67. There wee probably a few 65's and a a few 67's not included in this lot.
I'd guess this is the product of at least a couple of pretty nice bags. I'd guess they also rolled up a bunch of nice chBU and hauled a bunch of junk to the bank. You can sell off quality modern proofs but there is no market for off quality modern BU. Indeed even better (low mintage or mint sets only) moderns are hard to move when they are off quality so most of it ends up in circulation.
It was largely poor quality that caused people to stop collecting moderns and now poor quality still gets no takers. These are different markets. People don't open rolls of 1828 quarters and cherry pick the Gems and varieties before spending the rest of them.
The real rarity in moderns is VF/ XF clad quarters. A lot of them are pretty well made because the initial releases are prone to more attrition and the high grades are more likely to be from BU rolls and mint sets released in the last half century. You used to see the '66 quarters that were almost slick coming off the dies in VG and F but the FED has been screening out thin coins so you just don't see many of them any longer.
Evidently my point did not get across.
Here's five more:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2158191/1966-Lincoln-Cent-PCGS-MS-66-RD-5-Coins
Six more:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2158192/1966-Lincoln-Cent-PCGS-MS-66-RD-6-Coins
Seven more:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2158190/1966-Lincoln-Cent-PCGS-MS-66-RD-7-Coins
Ten more:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2158245/1966-Lincoln-Cent-PCGS-MS-66-RD-10-Coins
Ten more:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2158246/1966-Lincoln-Cent-PCGS-MS-66-RD-10-Coins
Seven more:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2171122/1966-Lincoln-Cent-PCGS-MS-65-RD-7-Coins
For those counting, that's 63 Gem BU examples available on ONE SITE, RIGHT NOW.
Coin Photography
They are clearly fake listings. 🤪
A lot of sequential numbers. Someone had one or more of the allegedly extinct BU rolls.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Somebody alert Aunt Martha and she'll snap them all up. She can't get enough of them.
Well, yeah- but suppose demand increases? That still won't be enough.
That additional information still might not get your point across (to a very small portion of the audience).😏
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Would you agree then that if there are 63 coins and only 62 buyers they have no value?
It would be silly to think so.
I thought there were thousands of Aunt Marthas....
It would be much easier if the point didn't keep changing
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
He must be a Donovan fan...
"First there is a Martha, then there is no Martha, then there is..."
Please don’t take (too much) offense, but you post like a Hurdy Gurdy man. ☺️
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No worries. It could have been The Intergalactic Laxative, you know...
Everything comes and goes. The same ground that was once a mountain can again. indeed, the weight of a mountain depresses the crust under it and creates a mirror mountain underneath. And 1827 quarters were mintage modern junk in 1827 or more would have been saved intentionally.
There's not love he's wearing but this might be heaven.
I confess, I didn’t know that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The demand is growing. That's what's causing BU roll prices like chBU '66 cents to go higher. Wait'll you see what happens to mint sets when people figure out that's the origin of BU rolls!
And right after that everyone will realize there are no mint sets with '66 chBU pennies.
You could look it up. I'd post a link but it's NSFW, probably.
Thanks, but as you know, it's the vast majority of series covering 3+ centuries from Latin America to the 19th century to one degree or another, except where it's a hoard coin or as you stated it mostly circulated outside the western hemisphere. There are numerous series noticeably and maybe far scarcer, Peru cob denominations being several.
But then, anyone who actually understood how people generally view coin collecting, now or previously, or is actually knowledgeable of the coin market would know this.
Because your posts conclusively demonstrate you don’t understand virtually anything on this subject, that’s why. No one understanding the subject would ever write the posts you do. I've told you this repeatedly, but here you are asking the same question, again.
You’re using an argument from authority fallacy where you are supposedly the authority, knowing more than anyone can possibly know and more than everyone else combined. Your scarcity claims are predominantly derived using an argument from ignorance fallacy, an absence of evidence from coins you didn’t observe or coins someone else told you they didn’t observe either. Your premises purporting (key word) to support your experience contradict obvious market behavior (including yours) reflected in the public industry data I’ve used as rebuttals to your claims. You’re exhibiting confirmation bias where you infer your premises demonstrate your views when it doesn’t. Every premise of yours where we disagree is nonsensical. You disregard or clearly do not understand the concept of network effect.
Why else would you claim and infer such ridiculously low survivorship for US moderns and world “moderns” while simultaneously implying such inflated estimates for coins which are known to be much scarcer, especially when your posts demonstrate you don’t even know virtually anything about most of the coin market? You aren’t even familiar with the TPG data and eBay inventory, instead writing as if the coin market still revolves around your local B&M and implying it’s unusual high-quality 60 year-old circulating coins aren’t available in change.
Your primary premise is your “hate” claim where you claim to believe 00s of 000s to millions buying US moderns and world “moderns” don’t and didn’t want what they bought. This assumption doesn’t have anything to do with the real coin market because yes, you just “made it up”.
Since no one’s experience is representative in this context, we have to use other methods. That’s why I use comparative analysis. That was the entire point of using my collection as a rebuttal to your claim. This should have been obvious, but it still wasn't to you.
What else am I supposed to believe when it is more common than in the vicinity of 99% of all coins dated prior to 2000? Are you actually telling me it isn't?
Are in the vicinity of 99% of all coins dated prior to 2000 scarce? What kind of "scarcity" is that?
No, I'm not actually asking.
You can stick what I know about cob coinage in your ear (of corn).
But I wager I've talked to far more collectors than you have.
Real collectors share many traits and most of us believe in live and let live. We value quality, rarity, art, and historical importance. We tend to thirst for knowledge and understanding and this shows in how we collect. We’re not trying to win arguments about who knows the most obscure series, we’re trying to understand the coins and the people who made them.
Delete
You don't get it and never will. No amount of evidence or reasoning is enough to disabuse you of your illogical thinking.
I'd agree with this if you were actually describing the real coin market, but you aren't. No one has to know anything specific about the coins I collect or similar coins to understand what I have told you.
How can you claim to not be trying to win an argument when you respond to EVERYONE on these threads, INCLUDING YOURSELF!?!? if you don't like the suggestion that you are trying to "win an argument", you are most definitely trying to push a narrative and ignore every counterargument, no matter how factual.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Based on the way you interact with other collectors here, I doubt those other conversations were very productive.
Presumably, if you heard something that supported your hypothesis then you accepted it, but if it was contradictory then you rejected or ignored it.
My style of discourse is to try to draw out peoples' premises because everybody makes sense in terms of their premises. @WCC 's and your premises are completely different than mine AS IT CONCERNS COINS and the desirability of specific coins. I'm not "trying to win an argument" so much as to understand why you think what you think. Just because I believe your premises are not reflective of reality doesn't mean your wrong and it might mean I am. But the only way to iron out differences is through exploration of these premises. Somehow people got the idea that coins have to be rare to be valuable but then they don't notice that they also think they have to be "old", "US" "precious metal" desirable to the most well heeled segment of numismatists. I don't believe any of these things are true. When I was young a '50-D nickel was worth over $350 in today's money and a nice chBU '66 cent is, IMO, much scarcer than the '50-D. Indeed, I'd wager the total number of '66 circulation quality cents set aside in any grade at all has fewer extent examples than the '50-D nickel today. Yet, somehow, even Gems of the date are deemed to common and too junky to collect. An 1877 cent is collectible enough but not a 1966.
So why do you believe there is less and less demand and more and more coins to fill it? Why is there such pushback as this? Why are the coin events of the mid-'60's wholly irrelevant to the state of numismatics today? Why do you find it so impossible that the growing demand for moderns could continue through today or even next week?
Nobody really knows what's going to happen five minutes from now but the authors of paper in question are saying that 1966 pennies are tougher in high grade than people think. How many do you think there are? I've stated my estimates several times and provided many of the details for how I made those estimates. I seriously doubt that those in this thread disputing the thesis have any knowledge relevant to estimating the surviving population of ANY MODERN AT ALL.
Don't make me get my AI back out. We might try some good cop/ bad cop.
Copilot-
_"JBK, my way of talking with collectors — here or anywhere — is to try to understand the premises they’re using. Everyone makes sense in terms of their premises, and yours and WCC’s are simply different from mine when it comes to what makes certain coins desirable. I’m not trying to win an argument so much as understand how you’re seeing the market.
If I think someone’s premises don’t line up with reality, that doesn’t make them wrong. It might mean I’m wrong. The only way to sort that out is to explore the assumptions behind our views. Somewhere along the line, many collectors came to believe coins must be rare, old, U.S., precious metal, or appealing to the highest‑budget segment to be “worth” collecting. I don’t think those criteria are universal.
When I was young, a ’50‑D nickel brought the equivalent of over $350 today. A nice chBU ’66 cent is, in my view, scarcer than the ’50‑D — and I’d wager fewer ’66 circulation‑quality cents were ever saved in any grade. Yet Gems of the date are dismissed as too common or too “junky.” An 1877 cent is collectible enough, but a 1966 isn’t.
So I’m asking questions, not making accusations:
Why do you see demand shrinking while supply grows?
Why is there pushback on the idea that moderns might have genuine scarcity?
Why are the mid‑’60s coin events treated as irrelevant today?
Why is it unthinkable that demand for moderns could continue through today or even next week?
None of us knows what will happen five minutes from now. But the authors of the paper are saying 1966 cents are tougher in high grade than people assume. How many do you think exist? I’ve given my estimates and explained how I arrived at them. I doubt many people disputing the thesis have meaningful knowledge about the surviving population of any modern.
Don’t make me get my AI back out. We might have to try good cop / bad cop."_
Guess which coin every person would want to know and learn about if I placed a VF Lima cob and a 1966 penny on a table at a coin show, a dinner part or whatever.
The cob represents the quality, rarity, art, and historical importance that you yourself alluded to. Many of those cobs were melted down in order to strike Massachusetts silver. Btw, collecting cobs is certainly not an obscure series.
That narrative (or one of them, anyway) is that gem BU coins are scarce/rare and increasing demand from collectors preferring gem BU coins will drive up prices. What that narrative ignores is that most collectors have a limited amount of money to spend on coins and they will look for ways to minimize spending when they can.
The pricing (from PCGS price guide) for a 1966 cent goes like this:
MS63: $7
MS64: $10
MS65: $18
MS66: $32
MS67: $950
If one of each is available when the typical collector is looking to buy, I believe most collectors will likely settle on the MS64, since it's not much more than a 63 and a 65 is almost twice as much. They won't even think about a 66 or 67.
You have to remember that for people putting together date/mint sets, these coins are not bought as a one-off. They need all the dates/mints. I didn't count them up but I would guess that if you were doing cent to half dollar sets, between 1965 and 2000, you'd need about 500 different coins. A $20 difference in price (MS64 to MS66 for the 1966 Lincoln, for example) translates into a $10,000 increase in cost for the set. You'd have to be a fool to think the typical collector doesn't recognize that reality.
You might be surprised. I've tried exactly such experiments with things like like a BU liberty nickel and a early BU clad quarter. A lot of people will notice the clad quarter is in unusual condition and assume the liberty nickel is supposed to look that way.
The question isn't what appeals or is noticed by non-collectors but what real collectors do. They collect. And more people are starting to collect moderns because they are available and nice gemmy coins are in their price range.
Every nice chBU roll will have at least a few nice gemmy coins in it and most dates will have one or two real Gems.
Why are you talking to yourself?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
1966 was not a good year for the minting process...
Copilot's busy?
Busy or fed up?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
haven't figured out edit function on upper right star or 2+ people posting on same account?
I was looking and it seems ALL of the 1966 mint sets are gone, or there never were any +++
There were SMS sets.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I’ve told him this before, repeatedly.
What he also ignores is that virtually no collector ignores the prices of all other coinage.
He writes as if the entire coin market consists of US moderns vs. 1960’s circulating designs and world “moderns” vs. “older” coinage (that’s roughly 1900-1945 to everyone else). This is almost always his implied comparison, as if the rest of the coin market doesn't exist.
There are too many other coins with a much higher preference available for a similar cumulative cost to a 4+ figure memorial cent set, or any other US modern series.
You keep inventing new ways to say nobody's ever going to collect modern crap.
But more and more are and more and more are collecting regular issue series made by the US Mint. This includes thing like 1966 Lincoln cents in all grades from VG to MS-67+.
They were common but billions of them no longer exist or have been severely degraded. For whatever reason some find them fun to collect. To each his own.
Is it really too much to ask you to discuss the real coin market? No one acts the way you write, not even you in some instances.
My primary objection to your claims is that you disproportionately don’t have a legitimate difference of opinion. You disregard evidence and arguments much better than yours, or which refute your claims definitively. You extrapolate your preferences onto the collector base while misrepresenting it as if it’s a common viewpoint when it isn’t. You have an astronomically exaggerated perception of this coinage.
Given our prior exchanges, how can you claim not to understand what I have told you? I could literally write a book from our prior post exchanges. There isn’t anything I’ve ever told you that is hard to understand. You just don’t like it when anyone contradicts your narrative, and the most believable reason is that you have been financially promoting this coinage. Why else would you demonstrate such intransigence in repeatedly promoting so many obvious errors?
It’s not for this reason, or any other reason you’ve ever given. It’s the collective coin attributes. Due to cultural reasons, US moderns and world “moderns” collectively have the least preferred attributes, and that’s why it has the lowest aggregate preference. You can’t explain how cultural perception will ever change, or else you would have done it long ago.
The price of the 50-D nickel 60+ years ago has no relevance to the price of any US modern since you’ve been posting on any coin forum. It was a price bubble. But then, since you claim speculation is collecting while any price below your preference is “ignored”, you claim to be “confused”.
As for the 1877 cent vs. 1966 cents, the 1877 is a key date from a series with a higher preference with a relatively low number of high or average circulated quality survivors. Given the mintage, your estimate is likely too low, far too low. The number of memorial cent collectors isn't low to you and MS coins aren't hard to buy either.
What are you talking about?
No one said this. Why does any coin have to worth what you think it should be?
Nobody said this either. There is a difference between what you just asked, and the astronomically inflated perception you have of this coinage.
The future isn’t a coin toss. There is a difference between actual uncertainty and what you've repeatedly implied.
Members on this forum also aren’t as ignorant. Others here know that this coinage is scarcer than commonly believed by the general collector population. I still know that you don’t demonstrate any understanding of the subject, your collecting parameters have no market relevance, and when you have previously provided specific estimates, your numbers (2,000 to 50,000) aren't actually low either.
This is where you go wrong. If you really believe what you’ve written, you don’t understand virtually anything about the subject. No one will ever derive any reasonable estimate given your inaccurate premises which don’t have anything to do with anything in collecting.
It’s also a matter of probabilities. To you, “possible”, “probable”, and “likely” are synonymous. No, you can’t misuse consensus word definitions while imposing yours on anyone else.
I explained this to you in detail before, and what was your reply? You completely ignored everything I told you and literally quoting my post immediately asking exactly the same question, again.
This is really funny coming from you. You're writing about an imaginary coin market you've invented, yet you tell me this?
I've never claimed the collector base won't increase or the price won't increase. I've only disagreed with your exorbitantly inflated future collector base, your hugely inflated future financial scale, and your outrageous price claims and inferences.