@WCC said:
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.
If you think I did that then maybe I misunderstood you. I would guess it was something else.
Some times when a question or statement contain a faulty premise I'll ignore it and concentrate on the premise.
I can not agree with most of your premises regarding coins, coin collectors, attrition, and desirability. This doesn't mean you're wrong but it is where the argument exists.
The number of memorial cent collectors isn't low to you and MS coins aren't hard to buy either.
Try to buy a raw 1966 cent in MS-64/5 condition.
All you have is words and your words are not mapping to reality. The very point of the thread is that these coins are tough in Gem. So where are the raw ones? Who sells them this way?
I often tell people the cheapest way to acquire modern coins is to buy out of the money slabs. I worked very hard and wore out a lot shoe leather and rubber tires over decades to get the few I have. If you think they're easier to find now then you do not understand the nature of time and attrition. I was hunting these back when the woods were full of them and bagged only 25. Go ahead and see if you can find one!
Why do you keep trying to hype this thing if it’s so “rare”? You shouldn’t tell a soul about it so you could find more. Btw, someone on this thread mentioned that there are a bunch of them being offered at auction.
Sorry, but I have zero faith in red copper. You can pay for “perfect” today, and then it will tone or, worse yet, grow a black spot. The red copper I buy has been Proof coins in slabs or Capital Plastics holders. I’ve had good luck with those, but I don’t pay high prices for them.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
This isn't a Gem. It's a low end MS-64. It's not just the mushiness of the obverse but the missing steps on the reverse. It appears to have a small carbon spot. There's a gouge under Lincolns statue. It's a nice enough coin for most collectors but a chBU roll will have a couple nicer ones. With a bid of $5 why not buy a roll?
@BillJones said:
Sorry, but I have zero faith in red copper. You can pay for “perfect” today, and then it will tone or, worse yet, grow a black spot. The red copper I buy has been Proof coins in slabs or Capital Plastics holders. I’ve had good luck with those, but I don’t pay high prices for them.
I don't disagree but this date is relatively stable. If you're going to collect copper then there's little choice but to take a chance.
@Colonialcoin said:
Why do you keep trying to hype this thing if it’s so “rare”? You shouldn’t tell a soul about it so you could find more. Btw, someone on this thread mentioned that there are a bunch of them being offered at auction.
There are better moderns that are easier to find than an MS-65 '66 Lincoln.
I've been selling everything because of my age. If I were a young man I'd be trading chBU for Gems now and aggressively pursuing foreign moderns. There are a lot of opportunities today for long term holds and for the first time there are opportunities for short terms holds in moderns. Great collections can be assembled at very low cost. 30 years ago it was EXTREMELY difficult to assemble modern collections because the coins were all raw and difficult to find. Now many are in holders and more are actually on the market.
The best epoch to collect moderns started about five years ago and might last another fifteen or twenty. I never found many of the coins I sought. Now you can get them on eBay sometimes.
There are more than enough 1966 cents to go around right now.
If the collector base expands significantly then the law of supply and demand suggests that prices will increase.
If prices increase then you can expect that hidden or forgotten bags and rolls will emerge.
That's good enough for me.
A lot depends on your perspective and definitions. If there were "enough to go around" then why can't you find a raw Gem for sale? If there were "enough to go around" then why are prices increasing?
There are more than enough 1966 cents to go around right now.
If the collector base expands significantly then the law of supply and demand suggests that prices will increase.
If prices increase then you can expect that hidden or forgotten bags and rolls will emerge.
That's good enough for me.
A lot depends on your perspective and definitions. If there were "enough to go around" then why can't you find a raw Gem for sale? If there were "enough to go around" then why are prices increasing?
Grade rarities are a different issue.
If you want a '66 in circulated or decent uncirculated condition you can easily get them.
@BillJones said:
Sorry, but I have zero faith in red copper. You can pay for “perfect” today, and then it will tone or, worse yet, grow a black spot. The red copper I buy has been Proof coins in slabs or Capital Plastics holders. I’ve had good luck with those, but I don’t pay high prices for them.
I don't disagree but this date is relatively stable. If you're going to collect copper then there's little choice but to take a chance.
I have been burned on red copper. I am done. PERIOD.
I can buy white metal 19th century political with tin pest and arrest it, for over 10 years, with proper storage. I can work with that. Red copper can turn on you for no reason. It’s like trying to preserve a December snow ball in July.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
If you want a '66 in circulated or decent uncirculated condition you can easily get them.
No. This is exactly the point. There are only a couple '66 Lincolns in a whole box of pennies now days and 90% of them are in abysmal condition. The other 10% tend to be nice F/ VF but many will be spotted or discolored.
There are not a lot of coins that grade chBU which is why it's a tough date to find. Not rare, just not readily available.
@MasonG said:
Sold May 16, 2026
1966 Lincoln Memorial Cent - PCGS MS65RD - Red
$9.00
2 bids
If slabbed gems can be had at this price, why would anyone with two brain cells to rub together bother with listing raw gems?
This is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. The best value is out of the money slabs. But don't underestimate chBU rolls. Some slabs are overgraded and some Gems will be found in chBU rolls,.
@Colonialcoin said:
Why do you keep trying to hype this thing if it’s so “rare”? You shouldn’t tell a soul about it so you could find more. Btw, someone on this thread mentioned that there are a bunch of them being offered at auction.
There are better moderns that are easier to find than an MS-65 '66 Lincoln.
I've been selling everything because of my age. If I were a young man I'd be trading chBU for Gems now and aggressively pursuing foreign moderns. There are a lot of opportunities today for long term holds and for the first time there are opportunities for short terms holds in moderns. Great collections can be assembled at very low cost. 30 years ago it was EXTREMELY difficult to assemble modern collections because the coins were all raw and difficult to find. Now many are in holders and more are actually on the market.
The best epoch to collect moderns started about five years ago and might last another fifteen or twenty. I never found many of the coins I sought. Now you can get them on eBay sometimes.
@Colonialcoin said:
Why do you keep trying to hype this thing if it’s so “rare”? You shouldn’t tell a soul about it so you could find more. Btw, someone on this thread mentioned that there are a bunch of them being offered at auction.
There are better moderns that are easier to find than an MS-65 '66 Lincoln.
I've been selling everything because of my age. If I were a young man I'd be trading chBU for Gems now and aggressively pursuing foreign moderns. There are a lot of opportunities today for long term holds and for the first time there are opportunities for short terms holds in moderns. Great collections can be assembled at very low cost. 30 years ago it was EXTREMELY difficult to assemble modern collections because the coins were all raw and difficult to find. Now many are in holders and more are actually on the market.
The best epoch to collect moderns started about five years ago and might last another fifteen or twenty. I never found many of the coins I sought. Now you can get them on eBay sometimes.
Best of luck.
Thanks.
I'm working only a few minor collections now days and am many times over a net seller. I've been collecting coins since 1957 and moderns since 1972 and "promoting" them since 1986. It appears I've been more successful with the former than the latter. I do not understand why such great coins have so little collector base.
@WCC said:
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.
You're trying to reduce the world and reality itself to abstractions and categories. This can be done in the laboratory with some success but you also want to reduce human behavior to your own premises and perspectives. You ASSUME "the lowest aggregate preference" is a characteristic of coins but I know it is a characteristic of collectors which is why no modern coins were saved. With no supply small demand gets blown out of proportion.
Obviously, it is the collectors and not the coins. It's collector perception toward the coin attributes, exactly as I stated.
Scarce isn't any coin which can be bought any day of the week in multiple, whether the mintage is “low” or it’s a “key” date. It’s not measured by a self-imposed personal preference, your non-market quality criteria. which you insist on imposing on everyone else as the market grading standard. It’s not any supply deficit for this imaginary "mass market" you continue to write about which will never exist.
“Scarce” and “rare” isn’t determined from what you saw in your local dealer(s) inventory, or what you observed from circulation change, or what you didn’t find in bank rolls, or what anyone told you who doesn't understand the subject either, or the relative availability vs. 1933-1964 US coinage including the 1950-D nickel, or your too many to cite inaccurate assumptions of the coin market, or your ignorance in estimating supply and availability, and certainly not due to you looking in the wrong place for over 50 years.
You place such exaggerated emphasis on personal experience. The TPG data represents the collective experience of at minimum tens of 000s to 00s of 000s of individuals, and it doesn’t even represent most of the supply or anywhere near it for most of the coin market.
Where did you get the idea that your experience is more accurate than the entire coin market combined? I'm only asking because that’s what you are actually claiming by contradicting the TPG data.
@cladking said:
Perhaps you're right that there is something inherently uncollectible about 1950's East German aluminum, Soviet cu/ni, and 1966 US cents but you don't get to define what is desirable and what isn't. Every collector makes these determinations for themselves.
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
See the verbiage in bold?
This is really amusing. You insist on imposing your preferences on everyone else, yet you tell me this?
I've never claimed or even hinted this coinage isn't worth collecting. It's one of numerous claims you've repeatedly misrepresented to my posts. I've only disagreed with your inflated opinions of this coinage.
@cladking said:
Everybody make sense all the time in terms of their premises. People don't change so much as premises change. In 1964 everybody though moderns were a great collectible, but not in 1965.
What are you even talking about?
Your collecting parameters have no market relevance. The generic relative preference between US moderns and 1960’s US circulating designs isn’t actually large. The price differences between the vast majority of most post-1933 US coinage are financially immaterial. It’s material to you, but that’s because you are a large-scale low-priced hoarder.
@cladking said:
Tear a page off the calendar and be punished by the FED and mint and premises changed. The quarter didn't change nearly as much in 1965 as peoples' premises. The quarter was still worth 25c which is exactly the same a silver quarter was worth. But people didn't set aside the new 25c coin like they did the old one.
This quote also pretty much sums up your thinking. Even as you’ve recently been “cheerleading” higher silver spot on the Precious Metals Forum with your “disconcordant” thread, you again imply that collectors should ignore a 5,000-year metal preference between disproportionately very common coins.
This perception is never going to change, unless society’s perception between silver and base metals reflected in the relative spot price changes with it. What do you not understand about that?
Do you expect collectors to exhibit schizophrenic behavior where they demonstrate no metal preference in their collecting while doing so in the commodity markets? That’s what you do in your posts, and the most believable explanation for it is that you really are financially promoting this coinage.
@cladking said:
After so many years of so many hating moderns it seems to you nothing can ever change but just as premises ands people change so too do populations. In 1965 everyone hated clads and moderns but it's a new generation. Look at all the young people entering the hobby. These collectors are replacing us. You may see them as replicants but I see them as the future and these collectors don't hate clad even when they don't collect them.
This hate claim, you just “made it up”. It has no basis in reality.
If you tell me otherwise, why have you been collecting coins you didn’t want since 1957? If millions of mint sets buyers hate it, so do you. If anyone “hates” coins they don’t collect, so do you. If anyone has to pay prices you insist, so do you. You’re the large-scale low-priced hoarder.
Your “demographics is everything” pet theory, you “made it up” too. I know it’s a somewhat widely believed idea, but reality isn’t a popularity contest.
It’s not anyone “hating” anything and it’s not a function of collector age. It’s the collecting culture. What’s going to change in collecting culture to align aggregate collector preferences with yours?
There is no evidence collector age has any noticeable impact on collector preferences. Whatever difference exists can easily be explained by other variables. It was and is primarily a budget limitation, not a change or difference in preference. Outside of key dates and somewhat for semi-key dates, US collectors never actually preferred their circulating change in the 60's. A two-minute review of any 60's Red Book makes this apparent. It's the internet and improved communication, which also explains the lopsided collecting of 60's US circulating designs at the time. It's generic changes in (US) collecting such as post-1986 with quality.
One of these days I'm going to dig into my coin cabinet and pull out all the mint sets that supposedly don't still exist. And I'll bet they're all still bright and shiny. (Nothing from the 60s, just 1972 onward). 😃
@WCC said:
This hate claim, you just “made it up”. It has no basis in reality.
To be fair, I have read comments from those who say they hate clads. Of course, there are also those who say they hate Morgan dollars and some people hate slabs.
The number of memorial cent collectors isn't low to you and MS coins aren't hard to buy either.
Try to buy a raw 1966 cent in MS-64/5 condition.
All you have is words and your words are not mapping to reality. The very point of the thread is that these coins are tough in Gem. So where are the raw ones? Who sells them this way?
You don’t understand network effect. Here’s what Google has to “say” about it:
“A lack of network effect means a product or service does not gain significant value as more users join, making it harder to attract and retain customers because the increasing user base doesn't contribute to its utility. This leads to a struggle for early adoption and competition, as potential users must be convinced by the product's intrinsic value rather than network benefits.”
Substitute “users” with collectors (including those you claim aren’t collecting), “product or service” with US moderns and world “moderns”, and “early adoption” with “collecting” and that’s what you have, lack of a network effect, not an actual scarcity. This coinage only benefits very weakly from the one which exists for the (US) coin market generically. But then, you haven’t been describing the real coin market, have demonstrated you don’t understand or won’t recognize virtually anything about (collector) perception toward coin collecting except your own, disregard verifiable evidence contrary to your preference, and also disregard everyone’s time preference except for yours.
What does a lack of network effect represent in the context of coin collecting?
The collector base correlates very weakly with prices where it can increase substantially without virtually any price increase. (No, not your definition of “collector”. The real one.) It means prices are almost entirely very low because the coins aren’t competitive as collectibles due to the relative preference, except as indicated by the market price, and it’s entirely due to the collective coin attributes, not any claim you’ve ever made. So, not enough owners offer the coins for sale or market it, and not enough buyers (dealers or collectors) are incentivized to make bids. It’s not worth the time and effort to create an active two-way market anywhere near the financial scale you insist should exist, so there isn’t one.
Concurrently, lack of an active two-way market for most of this coinage doesn’t equal “low supply” or “scarce”. This also doesn’t mean “no market”, or else this coinage wouldn’t be so easy to buy except using narrow or market irrelevant criteria like yours. It just means the prices are very low and below your preference, even though US moderns are about as easy to buy as it gets, all except US 1933-1964 and a very low number of others in US coinage. It isn’t substantially different for world “moderns”, to anyone who will actually look in the right place which you don’t and didn’t.
@cladking said:
I often tell people the cheapest way to acquire modern coins is to buy out of the money slabs. I worked very hard and wore out a lot shoe leather and rubber tires over decades to get the few I have. If you think they're easier to find now then you do not understand the nature of time and attrition. I was hunting these back when the woods were full of them and bagged only 25. Go ahead and see if you can find one!
Except that I never claimed it was easy looking as you have. Why would anyone expect to find a 60-year-old in this quality in circulating change or bank rolls? Why would dealers inventory coins below their minimum margin? (I’m not actually asking.)
You also keep on writing in the context of your non-market quality criteria. Your criteria are exactly that, yours. It has no economic market relevance, well, except to CRH looking to “make the coin” or large-scale low-priced hoarders like you looking to monetize a financial windfall.
@JBK said:
One of these days I'm going to dig into my coin cabinet and pull out all the mint sets that supposedly don't still exist. And I'll bet they're all still bright and shiny. (Nothing from the 60s, just 1972 onward). 😃
The '72 and '73 look fine except for the '72-P cent. The '74 is OK. The '75 is a mess and the philly Ike was a dog even before it tarnished. The '76, '77, and '78 won't look bad to you but they are hazed and can't be sold as chBU. The '80 ands '81 are near perfect except the '81-P are a;ll made with uneven surfaces except the nickel is a little better. You don't have any '82 or '83 mint sets of any type. The '84 looks good but has two bad pennies with the philly having very uneven surfaces and carbon spotted. The '85 and later are mostly OK except a few stray tarnished coins like the '89-D quarter. Almost all of the '87 and later coins are scratched up. You have only five or six Gems in the entire lot and a couple of them need cleaning. You have multiple '87 sets.
Now give me a hard one. And give me a few more clues. This is hard with so few.
@WCC said:
This hate claim, you just “made it up”. It has no basis in reality.
To be fair, I have read comments from those who say they hate clads. Of course, there are also those who say they hate Morgan dollars and some people hate slabs.
FWIW...
Not as he claims.
He's claiming the vast majority of mint set buyers buying roughly 2MM to 4MM sets from 1968 to 1990 and 00s of 000s since almost entirely didn't want what they bought. This is the only believable conclusion from his posts.
Now, watch him misrepresent your post to inaccurately support his claims.
@WCC said:
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.
You're trying to reduce the world and reality itself to abstractions and categories. This can be done in the laboratory with some success but you also want to reduce human behavior to your own premises and perspectives. You ASSUME "the lowest aggregate preference" is a characteristic of coins but I know it is a characteristic of collectors which is why no modern coins were saved. With no supply small demand gets blown out of proportion.
Obviously, it is the collectors and not the coins. It's collector perception toward the coin attributes, exactly as I stated.
Scarce isn't any coin which can be bought any day of the week in multiple, whether the mintage is “low” or it’s a “key” date. It’s not measured by a self-imposed personal preference, your non-market quality criteria. which you insist on imposing on everyone else as the market grading standard. It’s not any supply deficit for this imaginary "mass market" you continue to write about which will never exist.
“Scarce” and “rare” isn’t determined from what you saw in your local dealer(s) inventory, or what you observed from circulation change, or what you didn’t find in bank rolls, or what anyone told you who doesn't understand the subject either, or the relative availability vs. 1933-1964 US coinage including the 1950-D nickel, or your too many to cite inaccurate assumptions of the coin market, or your ignorance in estimating supply and availability, and certainly not due to you looking in the wrong place for over 50 years.
You place such exaggerated emphasis on personal experience. The TPG data represents the collective experience of at minimum tens of 000s to 00s of 000s of individuals, and it doesn’t even represent most of the supply or anywhere near it for most of the coin market.
Where did you get the idea that your experience is more accurate than the entire coin market combined? I'm only asking because that’s what you are actually claiming by contradicting the TPG data.
@cladking said:
Perhaps you're right that there is something inherently uncollectible about 1950's East German aluminum, Soviet cu/ni, and 1966 US cents but you don't get to define what is desirable and what isn't. Every collector makes these determinations for themselves.
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
See the verbiage in bold?
This is really amusing. You insist on imposing your preferences on everyone else, yet you tell me this?
I've never claimed or even hinted this coinage isn't worth collecting. It's one of numerous claims you've repeatedly misrepresented to my posts. I've only disagreed with your inflated opinions of this coinage.
@cladking said:
Everybody make sense all the time in terms of their premises. People don't change so much as premises change. In 1964 everybody though moderns were a great collectible, but not in 1965.
What are you even talking about?
Your collecting parameters have no market relevance. The generic relative preference between US moderns and 1960’s US circulating designs isn’t actually large. The price differences between the vast majority of most post-1933 US coinage are financially immaterial. It’s material to you, but that’s because you are a large-scale low-priced hoarder.
@cladking said:
Tear a page off the calendar and be punished by the FED and mint and premises changed. The quarter didn't change nearly as much in 1965 as peoples' premises. The quarter was still worth 25c which is exactly the same a silver quarter was worth. But people didn't set aside the new 25c coin like they did the old one.
This quote also pretty much sums up your thinking. Even as you’ve recently been “cheerleading” higher silver spot on the Precious Metals Forum with your “disconcordant” thread, you again imply that collectors should ignore a 5,000-year metal preference between disproportionately very common coins.
This perception is never going to change, unless society’s perception between silver and base metals reflected in the relative spot price changes with it. What do you not understand about that?
Do you expect collectors to exhibit schizophrenic behavior where they demonstrate no metal preference in their collecting while doing so in the commodity markets? That’s what you do in your posts, and the most believable explanation for it is that you really are financially promoting this coinage.
I really can't take you seriously until you run this through Copilot and repost it 15 times.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I love how this entire thread is just a massive war between y'all about 1966 LINCOLN PENNIES.
I have my opinions and I know who is right and who most certainly is not. But I'll reserve them for my own enjoyment...
“Land of the free because of the brave”
“Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone”
In Deo solo confidimus
ΙΧΘΥΣ
ΙϹ ΧϹ ΝΙΚΑ (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΝΙΚΑ)
Member since 2026
Successful BST transactions with: Ted 1, JWP, bigjpst, Vetter, nickelsciolist, ajaan,
@DesertCoin said:
I love how this entire thread is just a massive war between y'all about 1966 LINCOLN PENNIES.
I have my opinions and I know who is right and who most certainly is not. But I'll reserve them for my own enjoyment...
I thought you were going to say that you’d withhold judgment regarding who’s right until you see a few more hundred posts from each of the major participants.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
After 8 pages of this utter nonsense, the reality is simply the vast majority of all collectors can still buy (60 years later) a beautiful Gem 1966 cent for about $2 out of a very low mintage 1966 SMS set. They could care less that it was specially produced as compared to the non-specially produced “regular” ones with a 2 billion mintage. What a waste of a 100,000 words! lol.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@WCC said:
He's claiming the vast majority of mint set buyers buying roughly 2MM to 4MM sets from 1968 to 1990 and 00s of 000s since almost entirely didn't want what they bought. This is the only believable conclusion from his posts.
Now, watch him misrepresent your post to inaccurately support his claims.
Yes. And I have said this more times than I can count. Buyers of the ~two million mint sets made each year weren't buying each of the coins in the set. Some wanted the pennies, some the nickels, and some the half dollars. Some just wanted a mint product or a handy source of new coins. Most were purchased for the novelty of them being new and the ability to resell most of their sets for more than they paid for all of them. There were many reasons they were purchased but they were an inexpensive mint product. Almost nobody was collecting all the coins in them as evidenced by the fact that virtually none were cut up for the coins at the time of issue and almost nobody was collecting intact sets as evidenced by the fact that no such collections come into coin shops.
You are merely imagining numerous and vast collections of moderns but they don't exist. If there were collectors of moderns the rarities would be priced higher than the common coins but they aren't always. Gem 1966 cents aren't the best example of low priced Gems but improper pricing is how anyone can tell that these coins have yet to be shaken out. It doesn't matter what the cause is of the anomalies but that they exist proves just how inefficient these markets are. It's like a stock market being led not by high tech but by buggy whip manufacturers.
@wondercoin said:
After 8 pages of this utter nonsense, the reality is simply the vast majority of all collectors can still buy (60 years later) a beautiful Gem 1966 cent for about $2 out of a very low mintage 1966 SMS set. They could care less that it was specially produced as compared to the non-specially produced “regular” ones with a 2 billion mintage. What a waste of a 100,000 words! lol.
Wondercoin
Mitch, I have one major disagreement with your post - its last three letters. They should have been COL (crying out loud).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@wondercoin said:
After 8 pages of this utter nonsense, the reality is simply the vast majority of all collectors can still buy (60 years later) a beautiful Gem 1966 cent for about $2 out of a very low mintage 1966 SMS set. They could care less that it was specially produced as compared to the non-specially produced “regular” ones with a 2 billion mintage. What a waste of a 100,000 words! lol.
Wondercoin
I don't disagree but there's nothing collectors love more than a distinction.
I nabbed a few non-SMS coins but never put much effort into them because the SMS are simply beautiful. The 1967 quarters are becoming kind of valuable because so few were saved. Keep an eye on those 40%'ers too.
You may not have noticed but those SMS coins are starting to increase as well.
@wondercoin said:
After 8 pages of this utter nonsense, the reality is simply the vast majority of all collectors can still buy (60 years later) a beautiful Gem 1966 cent for about $2 out of a very low mintage 1966 SMS set. They could care less that it was specially produced as compared to the non-specially produced “regular” ones with a 2 billion mintage. What a waste of a 100,000 words! lol.
Wondercoin
I don't disagree but there's nothing collectors love more than a distinction.
I nabbed a few non-SMS coins but never put much effort into them because the SMS are simply beautiful. The 1967 quarters are becoming kind of valuable because so few were saved. Keep an eye on those 40%'ers too.
You may not have noticed but those SMS coins are starting to increase as well.
You think Mitch failed to notice the market for moderns? Your hubris knows no bounds.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@wondercoin said:
After 8 pages of this utter nonsense, the reality is simply the vast majority of all collectors can still buy (60 years later) a beautiful Gem 1966 cent for about $2 out of a very low mintage 1966 SMS set. They could care less that it was specially produced as compared to the non-specially produced “regular” ones with a 2 billion mintage. What a waste of a 100,000 words! lol.
Wondercoin
To be fair, since his point keeps...er... evolving... it's probably only 10,000 words per point.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@wondercoin said:
After 8 pages of this utter nonsense, the reality is simply the vast majority of all collectors can still buy (60 years later) a beautiful Gem 1966 cent for about $2 out of a very low mintage 1966 SMS set. They could care less that it was specially produced as compared to the non-specially produced “regular” ones with a 2 billion mintage. What a waste of a 100,000 words! lol.
Wondercoin
I don't disagree but there's nothing collectors love more than a distinction.
I nabbed a few non-SMS coins but never put much effort into them because the SMS are simply beautiful. The 1967 quarters are becoming kind of valuable because so few were saved. Keep an eye on those 40%'ers too.
You may not have noticed but those SMS coins are starting to increase as well.
I don’t think the quarters were 40%’ers.
Coinstar would have rejected them.
@oldglorycoins I think you would get a kick out of this thread if you haven't seen it yet...
“Land of the free because of the brave”
“Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone”
In Deo solo confidimus
ΙΧΘΥΣ
ΙϹ ΧϹ ΝΙΚΑ (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΝΙΚΑ)
Member since 2026
Successful BST transactions with: Ted 1, JWP, bigjpst, Vetter, nickelsciolist, ajaan,
@Coinscratch said:
I don’t think the quarters were 40%’ers.
Coinstar would have rejected them.
I meant don't write off the regular issue '65- 7 half dollars. None of these are nearly so common as is believed. They are usually badly marked and chBU can be tough.
@Coinscratch said:
I don’t think the quarters were 40%’ers.
Coinstar would have rejected them.
I meant don't write off the regular issue '65- 7 half dollars. None of these are nearly so common as is believed. They are usually badly marked and chBU can be tough.
Those are tough in mint state 69 and slightly rare in 68. Plenty of 6s and 7s and worse which get stacked.
@wondercoin said:
“You may not have noticed but those SMS coins are starting to increase as well.”
Perhaps the next 8 page thread (and PCGS Monthly article)? The 1966 SMS cents are the real “sleepers” especially in superb gem grade! 😉
Wondercoin.
Indeed. It is entirely possible that the non-SMS coins will never be widely collected so 50,000 nice specimens is more than adequate. Meanwhile the SMS can become wildly popular despite being more numerous just because they are such high quality. Some of the frosted versions look virtually like proofs and many SMS are very very clean. They are almost invariably well made. If not for all the tarnish and attrition they'd almost be "common".
Comments
If you think I did that then maybe I misunderstood you. I would guess it was something else.
Some times when a question or statement contain a faulty premise I'll ignore it and concentrate on the premise.
I can not agree with most of your premises regarding coins, coin collectors, attrition, and desirability. This doesn't mean you're wrong but it is where the argument exists.
Why do you keep trying to hype this thing if it’s so “rare”? You shouldn’t tell a soul about it so you could find more. Btw, someone on this thread mentioned that there are a bunch of them being offered at auction.
Sorry, but I have zero faith in red copper. You can pay for “perfect” today, and then it will tone or, worse yet, grow a black spot. The red copper I buy has been Proof coins in slabs or Capital Plastics holders. I’ve had good luck with those, but I don’t pay high prices for them.
A few realities:
There are more than enough 1966 cents to go around right now.
If the collector base expands significantly then the law of supply and demand suggests that prices will increase.
If prices increase then you can expect that hidden or forgotten bags and rolls will emerge.
That's good enough for me.
Currently available for purchase on eBay:
Just sayin'.
This isn't a Gem. It's a low end MS-64. It's not just the mushiness of the obverse but the missing steps on the reverse. It appears to have a small carbon spot. There's a gouge under Lincolns statue. It's a nice enough coin for most collectors but a chBU roll will have a couple nicer ones. With a bid of $5 why not buy a roll?
The redundancy of this thread is beyond my comprehension level. May I refer youhttps://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1046885/the-forum-needs-a-little-music-noise#latest
I don't disagree but this date is relatively stable. If you're going to collect copper then there's little choice but to take a chance.
I didn't say it was a gem. I didn't even offer an opinion for the grade, YOU graded it MS-64, which leads to...
And there you go- a raw 1966 cent in MS-64/5 condition, available for purchase.
Did you forget you said that earlier, or what?
There are better moderns that are easier to find than an MS-65 '66 Lincoln.
I've been selling everything because of my age. If I were a young man I'd be trading chBU for Gems now and aggressively pursuing foreign moderns. There are a lot of opportunities today for long term holds and for the first time there are opportunities for short terms holds in moderns. Great collections can be assembled at very low cost. 30 years ago it was EXTREMELY difficult to assemble modern collections because the coins were all raw and difficult to find. Now many are in holders and more are actually on the market.
The best epoch to collect moderns started about five years ago and might last another fifteen or twenty. I never found many of the coins I sought. Now you can get them on eBay sometimes.
A lot depends on your perspective and definitions. If there were "enough to go around" then why can't you find a raw Gem for sale? If there were "enough to go around" then why are prices increasing?
Sold May 16, 2026
1966 Lincoln Memorial Cent - PCGS MS65RD - Red
$9.00
2 bids
If slabbed gems can be had at this price, why would anyone with two brain cells to rub together bother with listing raw gems?
Grade rarities are a different issue.
If you want a '66 in circulated or decent uncirculated condition you can easily get them.
I have been burned on red copper. I am done. PERIOD.
I can buy white metal 19th century political with tin pest and arrest it, for over 10 years, with proper storage. I can work with that. Red copper can turn on you for no reason. It’s like trying to preserve a December snow ball in July.
No. This is exactly the point. There are only a couple '66 Lincolns in a whole box of pennies now days and 90% of them are in abysmal condition. The other 10% tend to be nice F/ VF but many will be spotted or discolored.
There are not a lot of coins that grade chBU which is why it's a tough date to find. Not rare, just not readily available.
This is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. The best value is out of the money slabs. But don't underestimate chBU rolls. Some slabs are overgraded and some Gems will be found in chBU rolls,.
Well, no. You asked:
"If there were "enough to go around" then why can't you find a raw Gem for sale?"
I told you why.
Brother,where art thy speed scroll.
Best of luck.
Thanks.
I'm working only a few minor collections now days and am many times over a net seller. I've been collecting coins since 1957 and moderns since 1972 and "promoting" them since 1986. It appears I've been more successful with the former than the latter. I do not understand why such great coins have so little collector base.
Obviously, it is the collectors and not the coins. It's collector perception toward the coin attributes, exactly as I stated.
Scarce isn't any coin which can be bought any day of the week in multiple, whether the mintage is “low” or it’s a “key” date. It’s not measured by a self-imposed personal preference, your non-market quality criteria. which you insist on imposing on everyone else as the market grading standard. It’s not any supply deficit for this imaginary "mass market" you continue to write about which will never exist.
“Scarce” and “rare” isn’t determined from what you saw in your local dealer(s) inventory, or what you observed from circulation change, or what you didn’t find in bank rolls, or what anyone told you who doesn't understand the subject either, or the relative availability vs. 1933-1964 US coinage including the 1950-D nickel, or your too many to cite inaccurate assumptions of the coin market, or your ignorance in estimating supply and availability, and certainly not due to you looking in the wrong place for over 50 years.
You place such exaggerated emphasis on personal experience. The TPG data represents the collective experience of at minimum tens of 000s to 00s of 000s of individuals, and it doesn’t even represent most of the supply or anywhere near it for most of the coin market.
Where did you get the idea that your experience is more accurate than the entire coin market combined? I'm only asking because that’s what you are actually claiming by contradicting the TPG data.
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
See the verbiage in bold?
This is really amusing. You insist on imposing your preferences on everyone else, yet you tell me this?
I've never claimed or even hinted this coinage isn't worth collecting. It's one of numerous claims you've repeatedly misrepresented to my posts. I've only disagreed with your inflated opinions of this coinage.
What are you even talking about?
Your collecting parameters have no market relevance. The generic relative preference between US moderns and 1960’s US circulating designs isn’t actually large. The price differences between the vast majority of most post-1933 US coinage are financially immaterial. It’s material to you, but that’s because you are a large-scale low-priced hoarder.
This quote also pretty much sums up your thinking. Even as you’ve recently been “cheerleading” higher silver spot on the Precious Metals Forum with your “disconcordant” thread, you again imply that collectors should ignore a 5,000-year metal preference between disproportionately very common coins.
This perception is never going to change, unless society’s perception between silver and base metals reflected in the relative spot price changes with it. What do you not understand about that?
Do you expect collectors to exhibit schizophrenic behavior where they demonstrate no metal preference in their collecting while doing so in the commodity markets? That’s what you do in your posts, and the most believable explanation for it is that you really are financially promoting this coinage.
This hate claim, you just “made it up”. It has no basis in reality.
If you tell me otherwise, why have you been collecting coins you didn’t want since 1957? If millions of mint sets buyers hate it, so do you. If anyone “hates” coins they don’t collect, so do you. If anyone has to pay prices you insist, so do you. You’re the large-scale low-priced hoarder.
Your “demographics is everything” pet theory, you “made it up” too. I know it’s a somewhat widely believed idea, but reality isn’t a popularity contest.
It’s not anyone “hating” anything and it’s not a function of collector age. It’s the collecting culture. What’s going to change in collecting culture to align aggregate collector preferences with yours?
There is no evidence collector age has any noticeable impact on collector preferences. Whatever difference exists can easily be explained by other variables. It was and is primarily a budget limitation, not a change or difference in preference. Outside of key dates and somewhat for semi-key dates, US collectors never actually preferred their circulating change in the 60's. A two-minute review of any 60's Red Book makes this apparent. It's the internet and improved communication, which also explains the lopsided collecting of 60's US circulating designs at the time. It's generic changes in (US) collecting such as post-1986 with quality.
One of these days I'm going to dig into my coin cabinet and pull out all the mint sets that supposedly don't still exist. And I'll bet they're all still bright and shiny. (Nothing from the 60s, just 1972 onward). 😃
To be fair, I have read comments from those who say they hate clads. Of course, there are also those who say they hate Morgan dollars and some people hate slabs.
FWIW...
You don’t understand network effect. Here’s what Google has to “say” about it:
“A lack of network effect means a product or service does not gain significant value as more users join, making it harder to attract and retain customers because the increasing user base doesn't contribute to its utility. This leads to a struggle for early adoption and competition, as potential users must be convinced by the product's intrinsic value rather than network benefits.”
Substitute “users” with collectors (including those you claim aren’t collecting), “product or service” with US moderns and world “moderns”, and “early adoption” with “collecting” and that’s what you have, lack of a network effect, not an actual scarcity. This coinage only benefits very weakly from the one which exists for the (US) coin market generically. But then, you haven’t been describing the real coin market, have demonstrated you don’t understand or won’t recognize virtually anything about (collector) perception toward coin collecting except your own, disregard verifiable evidence contrary to your preference, and also disregard everyone’s time preference except for yours.
What does a lack of network effect represent in the context of coin collecting?
The collector base correlates very weakly with prices where it can increase substantially without virtually any price increase. (No, not your definition of “collector”. The real one.) It means prices are almost entirely very low because the coins aren’t competitive as collectibles due to the relative preference, except as indicated by the market price, and it’s entirely due to the collective coin attributes, not any claim you’ve ever made. So, not enough owners offer the coins for sale or market it, and not enough buyers (dealers or collectors) are incentivized to make bids. It’s not worth the time and effort to create an active two-way market anywhere near the financial scale you insist should exist, so there isn’t one.
Concurrently, lack of an active two-way market for most of this coinage doesn’t equal “low supply” or “scarce”. This also doesn’t mean “no market”, or else this coinage wouldn’t be so easy to buy except using narrow or market irrelevant criteria like yours. It just means the prices are very low and below your preference, even though US moderns are about as easy to buy as it gets, all except US 1933-1964 and a very low number of others in US coinage. It isn’t substantially different for world “moderns”, to anyone who will actually look in the right place which you don’t and didn’t.
Except that I never claimed it was easy looking as you have. Why would anyone expect to find a 60-year-old in this quality in circulating change or bank rolls? Why would dealers inventory coins below their minimum margin? (I’m not actually asking.)
You also keep on writing in the context of your non-market quality criteria. Your criteria are exactly that, yours. It has no economic market relevance, well, except to CRH looking to “make the coin” or large-scale low-priced hoarders like you looking to monetize a financial windfall.
The '72 and '73 look fine except for the '72-P cent. The '74 is OK. The '75 is a mess and the philly Ike was a dog even before it tarnished. The '76, '77, and '78 won't look bad to you but they are hazed and can't be sold as chBU. The '80 ands '81 are near perfect except the '81-P are a;ll made with uneven surfaces except the nickel is a little better. You don't have any '82 or '83 mint sets of any type. The '84 looks good but has two bad pennies with the philly having very uneven surfaces and carbon spotted. The '85 and later are mostly OK except a few stray tarnished coins like the '89-D quarter. Almost all of the '87 and later coins are scratched up. You have only five or six Gems in the entire lot and a couple of them need cleaning. You have multiple '87 sets.
Now give me a hard one. And give me a few more clues. This is hard with so few.
What kind of cabinet is it? What room of the house? Are there other coins in the cabinet?
I need clues to work or I'm left to make guesses.
Not as he claims.
He's claiming the vast majority of mint set buyers buying roughly 2MM to 4MM sets from 1968 to 1990 and 00s of 000s since almost entirely didn't want what they bought. This is the only believable conclusion from his posts.
Now, watch him misrepresent your post to inaccurately support his claims.
Please folks, take your posts to The Most Beaten Dead Horse (EVER) And By Far forum.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You want to get back to talking about 1964 SMS pennies, right?
I rather like the back and forth, on and on and on and on; how else would I get to sleep each night if they stop?
I really can't take you seriously until you run this through Copilot and repost it 15 times.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Can't we stay here on the Click Bait Forum?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I love how this entire thread is just a massive war between y'all about 1966 LINCOLN PENNIES.
I have my opinions and I know who is right and who most certainly is not. But I'll reserve them for my own enjoyment...
“Land of the free because of the brave”
“Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone”
In Deo solo confidimus
ΙΧΘΥΣ
ΙϹ ΧϹ ΝΙΚΑ (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΝΙΚΑ)
Member since 2026
Successful BST transactions with: Ted 1, JWP, bigjpst, Vetter, nickelsciolist, ajaan,
I thought you were going to say that you’d withhold judgment regarding who’s right until you see a few more hundred posts from each of the major participants.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
After 8 pages of this utter nonsense, the reality is simply the vast majority of all collectors can still buy (60 years later) a beautiful Gem 1966 cent for about $2 out of a very low mintage 1966 SMS set. They could care less that it was specially produced as compared to the non-specially produced “regular” ones with a 2 billion mintage. What a waste of a 100,000 words! lol.
Wondercoin
Yes. And I have said this more times than I can count. Buyers of the ~two million mint sets made each year weren't buying each of the coins in the set. Some wanted the pennies, some the nickels, and some the half dollars. Some just wanted a mint product or a handy source of new coins. Most were purchased for the novelty of them being new and the ability to resell most of their sets for more than they paid for all of them. There were many reasons they were purchased but they were an inexpensive mint product. Almost nobody was collecting all the coins in them as evidenced by the fact that virtually none were cut up for the coins at the time of issue and almost nobody was collecting intact sets as evidenced by the fact that no such collections come into coin shops.
You are merely imagining numerous and vast collections of moderns but they don't exist. If there were collectors of moderns the rarities would be priced higher than the common coins but they aren't always. Gem 1966 cents aren't the best example of low priced Gems but improper pricing is how anyone can tell that these coins have yet to be shaken out. It doesn't matter what the cause is of the anomalies but that they exist proves just how inefficient these markets are. It's like a stock market being led not by high tech but by buggy whip manufacturers.
Mitch, I have one major disagreement with your post - its last three letters. They should have been COL (crying out loud).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't disagree but there's nothing collectors love more than a distinction.
I nabbed a few non-SMS coins but never put much effort into them because the SMS are simply beautiful. The 1967 quarters are becoming kind of valuable because so few were saved. Keep an eye on those 40%'ers too.
You may not have noticed but those SMS coins are starting to increase as well.
You think Mitch failed to notice the market for moderns? Your hubris knows no bounds.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
To be fair, since his point keeps...er... evolving... it's probably only 10,000 words per point.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
To me distinctions are life!
“You may not have noticed but those SMS coins are starting to increase as well.”
Perhaps the next 8 page thread (and PCGS Monthly article)? The 1966 SMS cents are the real “sleepers” especially in superb gem grade! 😉
Wondercoin.
I don’t think the quarters were 40%’ers.
Coinstar would have rejected them.
@oldglorycoins I think you would get a kick out of this thread if you haven't seen it yet...
“Land of the free because of the brave”
“Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone”
In Deo solo confidimus
ΙΧΘΥΣ
ΙϹ ΧϹ ΝΙΚΑ (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΝΙΚΑ)
Member since 2026
Successful BST transactions with: Ted 1, JWP, bigjpst, Vetter, nickelsciolist, ajaan,
I meant don't write off the regular issue '65- 7 half dollars. None of these are nearly so common as is believed. They are usually badly marked and chBU can be tough.
Those are tough in mint state 69 and slightly rare in 68. Plenty of 6s and 7s and worse which get stacked.
Wrong year, wrong coin but time for another pic...
Indeed. It is entirely possible that the non-SMS coins will never be widely collected so 50,000 nice specimens is more than adequate. Meanwhile the SMS can become wildly popular despite being more numerous just because they are such high quality. Some of the frosted versions look virtually like proofs and many SMS are very very clean. They are almost invariably well made. If not for all the tarnish and attrition they'd almost be "common".