BU Roll Market Perking Up.
Comments
-
@SanctionII said:
8. My own collecting has included some modern US Clad Coinage. In doing so, I have found that most of these coins are simply not eye appealing or attractive. However, when I find these coins that are well struck, well preserved, with luster and at times attractive toning I simply appreciate the beauty of the round piece of non precious metal for what it is/they are (coins worthy of collecting IMO).People like mementos and they like their mementos to spur good memories rather than bad. Coin collectors like nice well made attractive coins in VF, AU-58, and in MS-65. This is the problem! There were never large quantities of nice attractive clad and they were allowed to degrade. Awful 1966 clad dimes don't often become beautiful VF. They become bad VF and than VG and then they're gone. These had a 30 year life expectancy and it's 60 years now. Nice looking clad is not often seen so nobody noticed when the heap became a speck. How many nice attractive eagle reverse clad quarters have you seen in the last year, last five years?
I suppose the elimination of the cent is largely responsible for focusing the public on BU rolls and buying memorial sets from wholesalers. The demand is there but the coins are gone. They don't want ugly coins, they want good looking ones. But even nice chBU is turning out to be in short supply.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.1 -
@cameonut2011 said:
I'd like to see co-pilot's snarky one liner. Tell her I give her a F grade.Copilot-
_Snarky Response
Ask Copilot how the Sorites Paradox pretzelizes BU‑roll theories and it’ll tell you the same thing every time:
everyone keeps saying “there must be rolls somewhere,” but fifty years of nobody saving them isn’t a mystery — it’s math. Attrition doesn’t care about feelings; it just quietly wins while people argue categories._tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cladking said:
@WCC said:
I was thinking more in terms of how Grey Sheet has changed over time as an indicator of the actual performance, as opposed to so many posts I've read in this thread not indicating anything.
For the 1982, a prior sale a few weeks or month ago was for $319 but it's dropped off the completed sales history I see now.
The others?
I've seen more than a few at prices from $20 to $40. None now but I've also seen roll quantities in the mint set cello packaging too, at somewhat higher prices versus those in wrappers or tubes.
Quarters are barely affected yet because they aren't selling and most sellers are still trying to stock. Most increases are in other denominations. I've seen strong offers for '67, '69-D, and '71-D. I've seen a few oddball ones for the '88-D.
I believe the market doesn't know common from rare and this is why it's all topsy turvy. There are wholesalers who know what the coins look like but they can't tell common from rare any better than I can. Everybody is guessing as the demand ratchets higher and supply evaporates.
There are just a few common dates like the '72-D and most everything else is tough or tougher. And there are a lot fewer '72-D's than most imagine.
Yes, and "offers" aren't sales, is it?
The coins are selling, just not in the volume and prices you insist it should. Sales volume isn't actually low, except vs. a very low number of outliers like NCLT, 60's US circulating designs, Morgan and Peace dollars, and generic gold.
I've seen completed sales with very wide proportional prices for essentially identical coins. Identical to the majority buying it, not you.
None of these coins are actually "tough". I'm aware some are "tougher" than others, but this doesn't indicate an actual scarcity. Well., at least to anyone understanding dealer economics, who doesn't exaggerate everything about this coinage, and looks in the right place.
0 -
@cameonut2011 said:
@jmlanzaf said:
@MasonG said:
@cameonut2011 said:
Do you really contend that only 20 of those are well made?There are as many (or few) as there needs to be in order to support his conclusion.
Well, since he claims that evidence=confirmation bias...
I’m seeing unsupported opinions. I haven’t seen the evidence.
That was my point in all these threads a few days ago. No one reading this thread or his prior similar threads can see it.
0 -
@cladking said:
@MasonG said:
There are as many (or few) as there needs to be in order to support his conclusion.I've said it before but I'm not sure there are any Gems of this date of the mint set standard. Mint set coins pop and are from brand new dies struck under extra tonnage at lower speeds. You can get total die fill on front and back with nice even rims and sometimes even proof like quality. No 1982-P quarters exist like this. None are fully struck and without marking.
An '82-P is a different thing being graded than an '81-D quarter. An '82 is spectacular if it survives in original condition at all. Very few did and the quality of what survived is random. People didn't go out and seek the best specimens to save except for the mint which failed.
Clean coins are nice. They are not common.
Apparently, the 79 1982-P quarters PCGS and NGC have recorded (less any duplicates) in MS-67 and MS-68 aren't gems. That's 48 MS-67 and two MS-68 at PCGS and 27 MS-67 and two MS-68 at NGC.
0 -
@SanctionII said:
- The hobby, particularly collectors and dealers, did not/do not like moderns, especially clad coinage and thus when 1965 forward coins were produced by the mints and released into commerce they were mostly ignored, resulting in not very many being saved (in MS grades or in higher circulated grades of VF30 - AU58);
PCGS has graded roughly 250,000 MS memorial cents, 54,000 MS 1965-2003 nickels, 67,000 MS FDR clad dimes, 46,000 MS 1965-1998 clad quarters, 75,000 MS clad halves, 100,000 MS clad Ike dollars, and 30,000 MS SBA dollars. That’s roughly 600,000 with over 99% UNC and in the vicinity of 95% MS-64 or better. NGC doesn’t segregate MS from proofs in their summary data, but it should be roughly one-third to one-half of PCGS.
For a collector base who "hates" US moderns or doesn't like it, that's a lot of submisisons.
I'm aware this is spread out over roughly 500 coins, but these numbers aren't low, and there is every reason to believe it's a (very) low fraction of the actual supply, except for the condition census grade and sometimes one grade below it. These numbers are not low, except vs. roughly 1934-1964 US circulation designs, and common dates from other hoarded coinage: Morgan dollars, Peace dollars, and generic gold. It's also currently lower vs. China PRC now.
US collecting just has an exaggerated perception of "common", "scarce", and "rare".
0 -
I bought a roll of Franklin Half’s a few years back and opened them to discover 6 new DDO’s of the same variety that I then sent in for authentication. Very Minor but new varieties. I would buy rolls again.
1 -
@WCC said:
Yes, and "offers" aren't sales, is it?
Nonsense. Offers to buy are bids. Offers to sell are ask. Ask prices tend to be multiple of bid right now.
The coins are selling, just not in the volume and prices you insist it should. Sales volume isn't actually low, except vs. a very low number of outliers like NCLT, 60's US circulating designs, Morgan and Peace dollars, and generic gold.
You say that but unless I see a bid being met I don't really know if there's any volume at all.
I say there are no original rolls of '69 quarters and then you say sales volume isn't low. Right!!! sales volume isn't low it's zero.
I've seen completed sales with very wide proportional prices for essentially identical coins. Identical to the majority buying it, not you.
You're talking About Morgans again aren't you.
You have no clue about moderns.
None of these coins are actually "tough". I'm aware some are "tougher" than others, but this doesn't indicate an actual scarcity. Well., at least to anyone understanding dealer economics, who doesn't exaggerate everything about this coinage, and looks in the right place.
All moderns are common junk. Noted!
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@WCC said:
Apparently, the 79 1982-P quarters PCGS and NGC have recorded (less any duplicates) in MS-67 and MS-68 aren't gems. That's 48 MS-67 and two MS-68 at PCGS and 27 MS-67 and two MS-68 at NGC.No. I said there's a 95% probility that I've seen at least two examples of every die pair used the strike '82-P quarters and have never seen a well stuck coin from good dies. Coupled with the fact that fewer than .15% of all survive in pristine condition it is a virtual impossibility that the coins in high grade holders are fully struck. I never said they aren't nice coins or aren't Gem. I said they are not well struck.
Of course simple logic tells you they are common:
All moderns are common junk.
'82 quarters are moderns.
'82 quarters are common.You live in a nice neat categorical world where everything makes perfect sense and logic is so simple a caveman can do it.
In my world BU roll prices are perking up.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
-
-
True. And many othere collect one or several types and not every series. There are not "millions" of Jefferson Nickel collectors, unless you count Pele with a change jar.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
0 -
Looking at acquiring ASE roll.
Investor0 -
@MasonG said:
Plenty of those millions collect from pocket change and never buy any coins at all.Good luck finding a nice attractive 1969 quarter in any condition.
Or to you maybe a poorly made AG cull is good enough for a clad collector.
In 1969 about a fifth of these looked nice and there were lots of them. Over the years as they've worn out fewer and fewer look nice. Today they are hard to find because most are completely gone and only about 1 or 2% look nice. These are in VG or F at the best in most cases. You could check a roll a week and never find one because every year there are fewer and fewer.
There was a finite supply of nice 1969 quarters in 1969 and now they're gone except in some peoples' minds.
Now it's your turn to do the math. If you were correct that millions only collect from pocket change how come no one ever noticed that there are no nice attractive 1971 nickels in circulation?
You have all the answers for everything so let's hear a coherent theory with or without a few numbers in it.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cladking said:
@MasonG said:
Plenty of those millions collect from pocket change and never buy any coins at all.Good luck finding a nice attractive 1969 quarter in any condition.
Or to you maybe a poorly made AG cull is good enough for a clad collector.
In 1969 about a fifth of these looked nice and there were lots of them. Over the years as they've worn out fewer and fewer look nice. Today they are hard to find because most are completely gone and only about 1 or 2% look nice. These are in VG or F at the best in most cases. You could check a roll a week and never find one because every year there are fewer and fewer.
There was a finite supply of nice 1969 quarters in 1969 and now they're gone except in some peoples' minds.
Now it's your turn to do the math. If you were correct that millions only collect from pocket change how come no one ever noticed that there are no nice attractive 1971 nickels in circulation?
You have all the answers for everything so let's hear a coherent theory with or without a few numbers in it.
@MasonG already explained it. They are plugging holes. They don't care if they are "nice". The number of collectors looking for UNC sets of Jefferson nickels are in the thousands not the millions. And the people looking for GEM sets are even lower
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
0 -
I don't know if I can agree with the statement that clad collectors chase lower grades rather than higher grades. The entire 69/70 market seems to be predicated on modern coins and expecting ultra high grades for circulation moderns seems the logical direction to go in. I'm not saying the coins are actually there. My guess is a lot of collectors get frustrated but even on this site you are far more likely to see someone brag about finding a 66 or higher circ. coin than you are that they found a vg. James
0 -
@seatedlib3991 said:
I don't know if I can agree with the statement that clad collectors chase lower grades rather than higher grades. The entire 69/70 market seems to be predicated on modern coins and expecting ultra high grades for circulation moderns seems the logical direction to go in. I'm not saying the coins are actually there. My guess is a lot of collectors get frustrated but even on this site you are far more likely to see someone brag about finding a 66 or higher circ. coin than you are that they found a vg. JamesI don't think anyone said that clad collectors generally chase lower grades. But this forum gives a rather skewed view of collecting. When I appraise estates, the vast majority have NO slabbed coins and the majority of album sets have a lot of circ hole fillers. And there's nothing wrong with that, but when cladking says there are "millions" of collectors, he's right. But there aren't millions of people chasing registry sets or full gem sets of clad.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
1 -
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that an “AG cull” is not very common for clad coinage. In fact, there is a lowball market for graded ones because of the “rarity.”
0 -
I've told him that a thousand times, it seems. He doesn't get it- just because he's fixated on gem coins doesn't mean everybody is. Way more people are satisfied with a less than gem coin than he can comprehend.
Here are PCGS prices for a 1969 Washington quarter:
MS63- $10
MS64- $14
MS65- $32
MS66- $140
MS67- $2600If I'm buying one for my collection, I'm probably ok with a MS64 example, it's only a couple more dollars than the MS63. I don't know that I'd be interested in paying over twice as much for a one grade jump to MS65 and there's no way in the world I'm even thinking about an MS66, let alone MS67.
I bet there are more people like me, who can be satisfied with a MS64 than there are like him, who demand a MS66 or MS67. Which, by the way, they want to cherrypick for the price of a raw UNC, not pay full retail for.
1 -
I cherry picked two raw 1969 P quarters, from a mint set and from commercially assembled album of 1950-1989 quarters. I submitted them for grading and both graded MS66.
5 -
@jmlanzaf said:
I don't think anyone said that clad collectors generally chase lower grades. But this forum gives a rather skewed view of collecting. When I appraise estates, the vast majority have NO slabbed coins and the majority of album sets have a lot of circ hole fillers. And there's nothing wrong with that, but when cladking says there are "millions" of collectors, he's right. But there aren't millions of people chasing registry sets or full gem sets of clad.One more time.
If you took a small handful of of 1914-S dimes in typical condition you'd have a couple AG, "10" in G, "25 in VG, "5" in F, and "1" in higher grades. Most of these coins would be nice and attractive exhibiting little or no evidence of poor strikes or worn dies. A few would be cull with lower grades a little more likely to be cull.
Most of the '10-S dimes you see in collections are nice attractive examples because collectoirs seek these out.
A sample of 1969 quarters would yield "5" in G, "25" in VG, "5" in F, and none (<.05) in better than F. Most of these coins will be bad culls (~1: 3) and most of the rest will be covered in little scratches. More than half will show evidence of poor manufacture. There might be one nice coin in the lot.
It's pretty easy to get the Barbers; Just order them. It is not so easy to get the '69 quarters because they were not saved and nobody has them. You'd have to look through a bunch of boxes of circulated quarters.
.
This is what happens when coins are so common that no one ever collects them. You think they're common because of high mintage. Those days are long gone. So are the quarters.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cladking said:
@jmlanzaf said:
I don't think anyone said that clad collectors generally chase lower grades. But this forum gives a rather skewed view of collecting. When I appraise estates, the vast majority have NO slabbed coins and the majority of album sets have a lot of circ hole fillers. And there's nothing wrong with that, but when cladking says there are "millions" of collectors, he's right. But there aren't millions of people chasing registry sets or full gem sets of clad.One more time.
If you took a small handful of of 1914-S dimes in typical condition you'd have a couple AG, "10" in G, "25 in VG, "5" in F, and "1" in higher grades. Most of these coins would be nice and attractive exhibiting little or no evidence of poor strikes or worn dies. A few would be cull with lower grades a little more likely to be cull.
Most of the '10-S dimes you see in collections are nice attractive examples because collectoirs seek these out.
A sample of 1969 quarters would yield "5" in G, "25" in VG, "5" in F, and none (<.05) in better than F. Most of these coins will be bad culls (~1: 3) and most of the rest will be covered in little scratches. More than half will show evidence of poor manufacture. There might be one nice coin in the lot.
It's pretty easy to get the Barbers; Just order them. It is not so easy to get the '69 quarters because they were not saved and nobody has them. You'd have to look through a bunch of boxes of circulated quarters.
.
This is what happens when coins are so common that no one ever collects them. You think they're common because of high mintage. Those days are long gone. So are the quarters.
That's absolute nonsense. You're comparing Barbers that are in sets to clad from circulation. If you look at 1969 quarters in albums, 95% of them will be XF or better.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
0 -
@jmlanzaf said:
That's absolute nonsense. You're comparing Barbers that are in sets to clad from circulation. If you look at 1969 quarters in albums, 95% of them will be XF or better.That is truly remarkable!
Google images couldn't even produce a picture of a 1969 quarter in XF. There were a couple cull VF's though.
The next time you see an XF '69 quarter ya' gotta post a picture. I'm sure you don't have one and I seriously doubt you've seen one this millennium.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cameonut2011 said:
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that an “AG cull” is not very common for clad coinage. In fact, there is a lowball market for graded ones because of the “rarity.”You are quite correct.
But that's only because the FED began removing thin coins from circulation back in 2008. Most '69 quarters under G+ were too thin to survive. Today AG's are quite uncommon but they would all be culls if there were any.
Nickels can get down to G/ VG and dimes are sometimes AG but other denominations don't get so worn in circulation naturally.
They didn't destroy large numbers of old worn quarters in 2008 only because clad quarters tend to get lost or destroyed long before they hit VG. Now days they are cull before XF and lost by VF. There are still a lot of older clads in G to F- because they wore out back when velocity was higher and attrition was a lower. But you aren't going to find '69 quarters in XF because they were all worn more than this before the states quarters program when people started looking at circulating coinage. Now you can't find them at all and if you do it's a low grade cull.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cladking said:
@jmlanzaf said:
That's absolute nonsense. You're comparing Barbers that are in sets to clad from circulation. If you look at 1969 quarters in albums, 95% of them will be XF or better.That is truly remarkable!
Google images couldn't even produce a picture of a 1969 quarter in XF. There were a couple cull VF's though.
The next time you see an XF '69 quarter ya' gotta post a picture. I'm sure you don't have one and I seriously doubt you've seen one this millennium.
Do you know how many quarter albums I see in estates. And I said XF OR BETTER.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
0 -
@jmlanzaf said:
Do you know how many quarter albums I see in albums. And I said XF OR BETTER.I haven't looked in decades but they were pretty rare then. I'm quite confident that they still aren't common or I'd see them without even looking. But I have a hard time believing you see any XF's because they are very scarce.
There's not much difference between different parts of the country. There are a few more D rolls out west than P rolls in the east but they are rarely seen anywhere. Mint sets may have been a little more popular in much of the Midwest and maybe the SE. The old coins in circulation are spread around pretty evenly now days.
Do you see folders of circ moderns? Do you see mixed sets of Unc and circ? I'm almost 30 years behind the times but I just never did see it... ...anywhere. Once in the '80's I acquired a small accumulation of nice circ quarters and it was obvious someone was only saving nicer ones. There were about 100 '69's and almost half were XF to AU. Despite looking I haven't seen an original roll of '69's since 1969.
This is all stuff dealers have been putting in the cash register and telling people to spend it for half a century. Where do you think collectors got the XF's you're seeing?
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.1 -
I bet in a short time online with minimal effort, you could buy 40 certified gem coins or better for every single date and mint mark (regular issues only - no varieties).
0 -
@jmlanzaf said:
@cladking said:
@jmlanzaf said:
That's absolute nonsense. You're comparing Barbers that are in sets to clad from circulation. If you look at 1969 quarters in albums, 95% of them will be XF or better.That is truly remarkable!
Google images couldn't even produce a picture of a 1969 quarter in XF. There were a couple cull VF's though.
The next time you see an XF '69 quarter ya' gotta post a picture. I'm sure you don't have one and I seriously doubt you've seen one this millennium.
Do you know how many quarter albums I see in albums. And I said XF OR BETTER.
What you've seen doesn't matter. Just what he has.
0 -
@MasonG said:
@jmlanzaf said:
@cladking said:
@jmlanzaf said:
That's absolute nonsense. You're comparing Barbers that are in sets to clad from circulation. If you look at 1969 quarters in albums, 95% of them will be XF or better.That is truly remarkable!
Google images couldn't even produce a picture of a 1969 quarter in XF. There were a couple cull VF's though.
The next time you see an XF '69 quarter ya' gotta post a picture. I'm sure you don't have one and I seriously doubt you've seen one this millennium.
Do you know how many quarter albums I see in albums. And I said XF OR BETTER.
What you've seen doesn't matter. Just what he has.
If I claimed to have seen a nice gemmy roll of 1804 dollars you might express doubt. I'm not the one who has claimed to see XF '69 quarters in collections. I don't believe it. My guess is that nobody even looks at such coins before popping them in the cash register. I'd be surprised if you could come up with a VF.
In fact the only circulated clad quarters I've ever seen in collections were sliders for the "4" '82 and '83 issues.
Did I ever mention I couldn't even google an image of one.
Some people just don't like points of reference. But how do I establish there aren't an infinite number of Gem '69 quarters if I can't show there are none in XF? Infinite circs, infinite rolls, infinite mint sets and infinite Gems. But no XF's.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cladking said:
@MasonG said:
@jmlanzaf said:
@cladking said:
@jmlanzaf said:
That's absolute nonsense. You're comparing Barbers that are in sets to clad from circulation. If you look at 1969 quarters in albums, 95% of them will be XF or better.That is truly remarkable!
Google images couldn't even produce a picture of a 1969 quarter in XF. There were a couple cull VF's though.
The next time you see an XF '69 quarter ya' gotta post a picture. I'm sure you don't have one and I seriously doubt you've seen one this millennium.
Do you know how many quarter albums I see in albums. And I said XF OR BETTER.
What you've seen doesn't matter. Just what he has.
If I claimed to have seen a nice gemmy roll of 1804 dollars you might express doubt. I'm not the one who has claimed to see XF '69 quarters in collections. I don't believe it. My guess is that nobody even looks at such coins before popping them in the cash register. I'd be surprised if you could come up with a VF.
In fact the only circulated clad quarters I've ever seen in collections were sliders for the "4" '82 and '83 issues.
Did I ever mention I couldn't even google an image of one.
Some people just don't like points of reference. But how do I establish there aren't an infinite number of Gem '69 quarters if I can't show there are none in XF? Infinite circs, infinite rolls, infinite mint sets and infinite Gems. But no XF's.
Since there are a very small number of 1804 dollars ever struck, your example of a gem roll of 1804 dollars is impossible. There were simply not enough coins made. There were 176,212,000 1969 quarters made. Not only is it possible to have a roll of full gems, it is quite likely statistically.
You probably couldn't find an image on Google because there isn't that much demand for images of 1969 quarters.
0 -
Twenty years later...
3 -
The idea that there is an original, unopened OBW roll of 1969P quarters containing 40 quarters that are all Gem (MS65 or better) is laughable.
Have a media campaign that offers $1,000,000.00 to the first person who produces such a roll to our host for grading. If that does not result in the discovery and production of such a roll, that would confirm what CladKing has said.
0 -
@SanctionII said:
The idea that there is an original, unopened OBW roll of 1969P quarters containing 40 quarters that are all Gem (MS65 or better) is laughable.Have a media campaign that offers $1,000,000.00 to the first person who produces such a roll to our host for grading. If that does not result in the discovery and production of such a roll, that would confirm what CladKing has said.
Where did he qualify his statement that it had to be an intact original roll as opposed to say pieced together roll(s) from a Fed box or two? Was something lost in (Copilot) translation? His claim as I understood it was there aren't many extant gem coins period. Did I misunderstand something?
Edited: Looking back, I see he posted "I say there are no original rolls of '69 quarters and then you say sales volume isn't low." He doesn't say original all gem rolls. If there are uncirculated rolls, gem coins can certainly be plucked from them. And you can build gem rolls. That is the point we are making. I'm not saying there aren't sleeper dates or tougher coins, but he makes it sound as if there are less than a 100 or so gem coins for the issue which is highly suspect especially in light of weak interest (relative to classic coins - probably more out there and unaccounted for as few are submitted or advertised) and the large number of submissions reflected in the population reports.
0 -
@SanctionII said:
I have enjoyed reading CladKing's posts on moderns during my 22+ years on the forums. Much back and forth that provides information, insight, analysis, humor, disagreements, banter, debates, etc.What I feel comfortable saying about the topic of modern, post 1964, US coinage is:
These coins were produced in the hundreds of millions or more;
The quality of the coins produced was, for a large portion of the coins minted, very poor (over used dies, clad planchets that are harder than 90% silver planchets and thus more difficult to strike up well, poor quality control);
The hobby, particularly collectors and dealers, did not/do not like moderns, especially clad coinage and thus when 1965 forward coins were produced by the mints and released into commerce they were mostly ignored, resulting in not very many being saved (in MS grades or in higher circulated grades of VF30 - AU58);
Many of the moderns minted no longer exist for multiple reasons (including loss and destruction);
Surviving moderns are likely spread out across a wide spectrum of owners, such that having them migrate to central locations so that an efficient supply source exists is not likely to happen absent a great increase in value (for example I have a number of clad dimes, quarters and half dollars that I collected as a YN from 1965-1980 sitting in Whitman albums, etc. that are MS or upper circulation grades [VF30 -AU58] and I assume many others have done the same; I have no motivation to do anything with these coins at this time and thus they remain out of reach of the hobby);
Many baby boomer collectors simply do not and will not consider moderns coins as ones that are worthy of collecting; and this mindset is like also present in collectors born after 1966. However, at some point in time collectors of more recent birth will become dominant in the hobby and their mind set about past 1964 coins will be different. If they view these coins as OLD COINS worthy of collecting the disdain for these coins may drop or even cease to exist;
If demand for these coins increases and the supply of them (for whatever reason) remains limited, then Economics 101 will come into play and cause the wholesale and retail pricing for these coins to go up [CladKing observes this is happening now]; and
My own collecting has included some modern US Clad Coinage. In doing so, I have found that most of these coins are simply not eye appealing or attractive. However, when I find these coins that are well struck, well preserved, with luster and at times attractive toning I simply appreciate the beauty of the round piece of non precious metal for what it is/they are (coins worthy of collecting IMO).
Let the discussion in this thread continue, as it is very interesting.
I think all but number 6 are logically sound/probable. I think the excerpt below is speculative.
"[T]heir mind set about past 1964 coins will be different."
Maybe, maybe not. I do think there could be sleeper coins in the future, but that is anybody's guess. I do NOT think it is absurd to seek out gem or superb gem raw coins for tougher dates. These have the best value potential. The rest will (likely) languish and struggle to keep up with the pace of inflation.
Edited: Omitted word adds context
0 -
There's a 1969 Washington quarter in PCGS MS67 for sale on eBay right now, priced below PCGS price guide. How quickly do you think it will sell?
edited to add... It'll probably be someone who doesn't post here who buys it although the posters here would be happy to cherrypick a raw one.
0 -
@cameonut2011 said:
@SanctionII said:
The idea that there is an original, unopened OBW roll of 1969P quarters containing 40 quarters that are all Gem (MS65 or better) is laughable.Have a media campaign that offers $1,000,000.00 to the first person who produces such a roll to our host for grading. If that does not result in the discovery and production of such a roll, that would confirm what CladKing has said.
Where did he qualify his statement that it had to be an intact original roll as opposed to say pieced together roll(s) from a Fed box or two? Was something lost in (Copilot) translation? His claim as I understood it was there aren't many extant gem coins period. Did I misunderstand something?
Edited: Looking back, I see he posted "I say there are no original rolls of '69 quarters and then you say sales volume isn't low." He doesn't say original all gem rolls. If there are uncirculated rolls, gem coins can certainly be plucked from them. And you can build gem rolls. That is the point we are making. I'm not saying there aren't sleeper dates or tougher coins, but he makes it sound as if there are less than a 100 or so gem coins for the issue which is highly suspect especially in light of weak interest (relative to classic coins - probably more out there and unaccounted for as few are submitted or advertised) and the large number of submissions reflected in the population reports.
It is statistically likely that there are multiple BU OBW rolls. Are they all 65 or better? Probably not, but who cares? He's gone so far as to say there are no gems at all. Not even XF apparently.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
1 -
@jmlanzaf said:
@cameonut2011 said:
@SanctionII said:
The idea that there is an original, unopened OBW roll of 1969P quarters containing 40 quarters that are all Gem (MS65 or better) is laughable.Have a media campaign that offers $1,000,000.00 to the first person who produces such a roll to our host for grading. If that does not result in the discovery and production of such a roll, that would confirm what CladKing has said.
Where did he qualify his statement that it had to be an intact original roll as opposed to say pieced together roll(s) from a Fed box or two? Was something lost in (Copilot) translation? His claim as I understood it was there aren't many extant gem coins period. Did I misunderstand something?
Edited: Looking back, I see he posted "I say there are no original rolls of '69 quarters and then you say sales volume isn't low." He doesn't say original all gem rolls. If there are uncirculated rolls, gem coins can certainly be plucked from them. And you can build gem rolls. That is the point we are making. I'm not saying there aren't sleeper dates or tougher coins, but he makes it sound as if there are less than a 100 or so gem coins for the issue which is highly suspect especially in light of weak interest (relative to classic coins - probably more out there and unaccounted for as few are submitted or advertised) and the large number of submissions reflected in the population reports.
It is statistically likely that there are multiple BU OBW rolls. Are they all 65 or better? Probably not, but who cares? He's gone so far as to say there are no gems at all. Not even XF apparently.
No!
I said there are probably fewer than "200" original unopened rolls of 1969 quarters. Among all the coins in these rolls there could be as few as no well made still pristine coins. Even if they're mostly pretty nice rolls it's unlikely there are more than a few dozen individual Gems because 1969 quarters were very poorly made and then banged up at the mint.
Almost all '69 Gems will come from mint sets that included about .75% Gem. Who knows how many of these "15,000" coins survive but it's probably fewer than most think. There are only ~300,000 of these sets left leaving about 2,000 Gems which are currently tarnished but most can be restored. Even chBU's are elusive in the sets because most of the coins are ugly.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cladking said:
Even chBU's are elusive in the sets because most of the coins are ugly.You can't even be certain they're ugly until you get the tarnish off of them.
This is what happens when you neglect and ignore coins for more than half a century. Coins don't collect themselves since 1972 because the FED switched to FIFO accounting.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cameonut2011 said:
I bet in a short time online with minimal effort, you could buy 40 certified gem coins or better for every single date and mint mark (regular issues only - no varieties).There are a fraction as many Gem Ikes as Morgans.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cladking said:
@jmlanzaf said:
@cameonut2011 said:
@SanctionII said:
The idea that there is an original, unopened OBW roll of 1969P quarters containing 40 quarters that are all Gem (MS65 or better) is laughable.Have a media campaign that offers $1,000,000.00 to the first person who produces such a roll to our host for grading. If that does not result in the discovery and production of such a roll, that would confirm what CladKing has said.
Where did he qualify his statement that it had to be an intact original roll as opposed to say pieced together roll(s) from a Fed box or two? Was something lost in (Copilot) translation? His claim as I understood it was there aren't many extant gem coins period. Did I misunderstand something?
Edited: Looking back, I see he posted "I say there are no original rolls of '69 quarters and then you say sales volume isn't low." He doesn't say original all gem rolls. If there are uncirculated rolls, gem coins can certainly be plucked from them. And you can build gem rolls. That is the point we are making. I'm not saying there aren't sleeper dates or tougher coins, but he makes it sound as if there are less than a 100 or so gem coins for the issue which is highly suspect especially in light of weak interest (relative to classic coins - probably more out there and unaccounted for as few are submitted or advertised) and the large number of submissions reflected in the population reports.
It is statistically likely that there are multiple BU OBW rolls. Are they all 65 or better? Probably not, but who cares? He's gone so far as to say there are no gems at all. Not even XF apparently.
No!
I said there are probably fewer than "200" original unopened rolls of 1969 quarters. Among all the coins in these rolls there could be as few as no well made still pristine coins. Even if they're mostly pretty nice rolls it's unlikely there are more than a few dozen individual Gems because 1969 quarters were very poorly made and then banged up at the mint.
Almost all '69 Gems will come from mint sets that included about .75% Gem. Who knows how many of these "15,000" coins survive but it's probably fewer than most think. There are only ~300,000 of these sets left leaving about 2,000 Gems which are currently tarnished but most can be restored. Even chBU's are elusive in the sets because most of the coins are ugly.
I've gone back 5 pages and cannot find the 200 roll quote.
0 -
@cameonut2011 said:
@cladking said:
@MasonG said:
@jmlanzaf said:
@cladking said:
@jmlanzaf said:
That's absolute nonsense. You're comparing Barbers that are in sets to clad from circulation. If you look at 1969 quarters in albums, 95% of them will be XF or better.That is truly remarkable!
Google images couldn't even produce a picture of a 1969 quarter in XF. There were a couple cull VF's though.
The next time you see an XF '69 quarter ya' gotta post a picture. I'm sure you don't have one and I seriously doubt you've seen one this millennium.
Do you know how many quarter albums I see in albums. And I said XF OR BETTER.
What you've seen doesn't matter. Just what he has.
If I claimed to have seen a nice gemmy roll of 1804 dollars you might express doubt. I'm not the one who has claimed to see XF '69 quarters in collections. I don't believe it. My guess is that nobody even looks at such coins before popping them in the cash register. I'd be surprised if you could come up with a VF.
In fact the only circulated clad quarters I've ever seen in collections were sliders for the "4" '82 and '83 issues.
Did I ever mention I couldn't even google an image of one.
Some people just don't like points of reference. But how do I establish there aren't an infinite number of Gem '69 quarters if I can't show there are none in XF? Infinite circs, infinite rolls, infinite mint sets and infinite Gems. But no XF's.
Since there are a very small number of 1804 dollars ever struck, your example of a gem roll of 1804 dollars is impossible. There were simply not enough coins made. There were 176,212,000 1969 quarters made. Not only is it possible to have a roll of full gems, it is quite likely statistically.
You probably couldn't find an image on Google because there isn't that much demand for images of 1969 quarters.
Maybe a roll was sent to Rutland Vermont to back specie and was recently found after all this time. Only "16" are known to have been made.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cladking said:
@cameonut2011 said:
@cladking said:
@MasonG said:
@jmlanzaf said:
@cladking said:
@jmlanzaf said:
That's absolute nonsense. You're comparing Barbers that are in sets to clad from circulation. If you look at 1969 quarters in albums, 95% of them will be XF or better.That is truly remarkable!
Google images couldn't even produce a picture of a 1969 quarter in XF. There were a couple cull VF's though.
The next time you see an XF '69 quarter ya' gotta post a picture. I'm sure you don't have one and I seriously doubt you've seen one this millennium.
Do you know how many quarter albums I see in albums. And I said XF OR BETTER.
What you've seen doesn't matter. Just what he has.
If I claimed to have seen a nice gemmy roll of 1804 dollars you might express doubt. I'm not the one who has claimed to see XF '69 quarters in collections. I don't believe it. My guess is that nobody even looks at such coins before popping them in the cash register. I'd be surprised if you could come up with a VF.
In fact the only circulated clad quarters I've ever seen in collections were sliders for the "4" '82 and '83 issues.
Did I ever mention I couldn't even google an image of one.
Some people just don't like points of reference. But how do I establish there aren't an infinite number of Gem '69 quarters if I can't show there are none in XF? Infinite circs, infinite rolls, infinite mint sets and infinite Gems. But no XF's.
Since there are a very small number of 1804 dollars ever struck, your example of a gem roll of 1804 dollars is impossible. There were simply not enough coins made. There were 176,212,000 1969 quarters made. Not only is it possible to have a roll of full gems, it is quite likely statistically.
You probably couldn't find an image on Google because there isn't that much demand for images of 1969 quarters.
Maybe a roll was sent to Rutland Vermont to back specie and was recently found after all this time. Only "16" are known to have been made.
What?
0 -
@cameonut2011 said:
@cladking said:
@jmlanzaf said:
@cameonut2011 said:
@SanctionII said:
The idea that there is an original, unopened OBW roll of 1969P quarters containing 40 quarters that are all Gem (MS65 or better) is laughable.Have a media campaign that offers $1,000,000.00 to the first person who produces such a roll to our host for grading. If that does not result in the discovery and production of such a roll, that would confirm what CladKing has said.
Where did he qualify his statement that it had to be an intact original roll as opposed to say pieced together roll(s) from a Fed box or two? Was something lost in (Copilot) translation? His claim as I understood it was there aren't many extant gem coins period. Did I misunderstand something?
Edited: Looking back, I see he posted "I say there are no original rolls of '69 quarters and then you say sales volume isn't low." He doesn't say original all gem rolls. If there are uncirculated rolls, gem coins can certainly be plucked from them. And you can build gem rolls. That is the point we are making. I'm not saying there aren't sleeper dates or tougher coins, but he makes it sound as if there are less than a 100 or so gem coins for the issue which is highly suspect especially in light of weak interest (relative to classic coins - probably more out there and unaccounted for as few are submitted or advertised) and the large number of submissions reflected in the population reports.
It is statistically likely that there are multiple BU OBW rolls. Are they all 65 or better? Probably not, but who cares? He's gone so far as to say there are no gems at all. Not even XF apparently.
No!
I said there are probably fewer than "200" original unopened rolls of 1969 quarters. Among all the coins in these rolls there could be as few as no well made still pristine coins. Even if they're mostly pretty nice rolls it's unlikely there are more than a few dozen individual Gems because 1969 quarters were very poorly made and then banged up at the mint.
Almost all '69 Gems will come from mint sets that included about .75% Gem. Who knows how many of these "15,000" coins survive but it's probably fewer than most think. There are only ~300,000 of these sets left leaving about 2,000 Gems which are currently tarnished but most can be restored. Even chBU's are elusive in the sets because most of the coins are ugly.
I've gone back 5 pages and cannot find the 200 roll quote.
I don't remember it came up in this thread before.
But I did mention many pages back that the biggest seller of these sold only about "150" rolls and the second biggest "100". Another guy in NJ had "100" rolls (many of these survive by the way). I figure with all sellers combined and inadvertent saving combined with attrition "200" shouldn't be too far off. I looked at a lot of these rolls from various sources in 1969 (all local unfortunately) and they were uniformly awful. I've looked at '69 quarters in pocket change for 57 years and the vast majority are bad to awful.
People didn't go out looking for nice clad in those days. In those days they didn't even care about MS-68 Morgans.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cameonut2011 said:
@cladking said:
@cameonut2011 said:
@cladking said:
@MasonG said:
@jmlanzaf said:
@cladking said:
@jmlanzaf said:
That's absolute nonsense. You're comparing Barbers that are in sets to clad from circulation. If you look at 1969 quarters in albums, 95% of them will be XF or better.That is truly remarkable!
Google images couldn't even produce a picture of a 1969 quarter in XF. There were a couple cull VF's though.
The next time you see an XF '69 quarter ya' gotta post a picture. I'm sure you don't have one and I seriously doubt you've seen one this millennium.
Do you know how many quarter albums I see in albums. And I said XF OR BETTER.
What you've seen doesn't matter. Just what he has.
If I claimed to have seen a nice gemmy roll of 1804 dollars you might express doubt. I'm not the one who has claimed to see XF '69 quarters in collections. I don't believe it. My guess is that nobody even looks at such coins before popping them in the cash register. I'd be surprised if you could come up with a VF.
In fact the only circulated clad quarters I've ever seen in collections were sliders for the "4" '82 and '83 issues.
Did I ever mention I couldn't even google an image of one.
Some people just don't like points of reference. But how do I establish there aren't an infinite number of Gem '69 quarters if I can't show there are none in XF? Infinite circs, infinite rolls, infinite mint sets and infinite Gems. But no XF's.
Since there are a very small number of 1804 dollars ever struck, your example of a gem roll of 1804 dollars is impossible. There were simply not enough coins made. There were 176,212,000 1969 quarters made. Not only is it possible to have a roll of full gems, it is quite likely statistically.
You probably couldn't find an image on Google because there isn't that much demand for images of 1969 quarters.
Maybe a roll was sent to Rutland Vermont to back specie and was recently found after all this time. Only "16" are known to have been made.
What?
I say that at least a dozen times per page when I read this.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
1 -
@cameonut2011 said:
@SanctionII said:
I have enjoyed reading CladKing's posts on moderns during my 22+ years on the forums. Much back and forth that provides information, insight, analysis, humor, disagreements, banter, debates, etc.What I feel comfortable saying about the topic of modern, post 1964, US coinage is:
These coins were produced in the hundreds of millions or more;
The quality of the coins produced was, for a large portion of the coins minted, very poor (over used dies, clad planchets that are harder than 90% silver planchets and thus more difficult to strike up well, poor quality control);
The hobby, particularly collectors and dealers, did not/do not like moderns, especially clad coinage and thus when 1965 forward coins were produced by the mints and released into commerce they were mostly ignored, resulting in not very many being saved (in MS grades or in higher circulated grades of VF30 - AU58);
Many of the moderns minted no longer exist for multiple reasons (including loss and destruction);
Surviving moderns are likely spread out across a wide spectrum of owners, such that having them migrate to central locations so that an efficient supply source exists is not likely to happen absent a great increase in value (for example I have a number of clad dimes, quarters and half dollars that I collected as a YN from 1965-1980 sitting in Whitman albums, etc. that are MS or upper circulation grades [VF30 -AU58] and I assume many others have done the same; I have no motivation to do anything with these coins at this time and thus they remain out of reach of the hobby);
Many baby boomer collectors simply do not and will not consider moderns coins as ones that are worthy of collecting; and this mindset is like also present in collectors born after 1966. However, at some point in time collectors of more recent birth will become dominant in the hobby and their mind set about past 1964 coins will be different. If they view these coins as OLD COINS worthy of collecting the disdain for these coins may drop or even cease to exist;
If demand for these coins increases and the supply of them (for whatever reason) remains limited, then Economics 101 will come into play and cause the wholesale and retail pricing for these coins to go up [CladKing observes this is happening now]; and
My own collecting has included some modern US Clad Coinage. In doing so, I have found that most of these coins are simply not eye appealing or attractive. However, when I find these coins that are well struck, well preserved, with luster and at times attractive toning I simply appreciate the beauty of the round piece of non precious metal for what it is/they are (coins worthy of collecting IMO).
Let the discussion in this thread continue, as it is very interesting.
I think all but number 6 are logically sound/probable. I think the excerpt below is speculative.
"[T]heir mind set about past 1964 coins will be different."
Maybe, maybe not. I do think there could be sleeper coins in the future, but that is anybody's guess. I do think it is absurd to seek out gem or superb gem raw coins for tougher dates. These have the best value potential. The rest will (likely) languish and struggle to keep up with the pace of inflation.
People have collected coins for two and a half millennia and have never omitted anything before. Being made poorly in infinite supply and of garbage probably won't stop it either.
There are many moderns that were hard to get when they were brand new because of low mintage, local distribution, poor quality, and a host of other factors. Even coins that were easy for large numbers of people to save often simply were not saved due to the perception that clad is uncollectible, poor quality, and made in tremendous numbers. People imagined everyone was saving it so there was no need. One could say that increases in the BU roll market is testing these assumptions but more realistically the roll market could only increase after the assumption has failed.
There are no lost and sealed warehouses brimming with brand new pallets of 1969 quarters. The closest thing we have are dumps full of them many of which are unidentifiable. They grew thin and exist no more. Ironically there were no BU rolls and the mint sets are gone.
This date came awful so attractive specimens never were common.
.
All I'm really asking in this thread is how we would know if demand outstripped supply. People have always gotten their '69 quarters from mint sets so what's the first sign that there aren't enough coins to satisfy demand? I don't really know anything except that watching patterns often provides a means to expect what's coming and I expect demand for moderns to hit a vacuum of supply. I don't know what future collectors will want or why they'll want it but it looks like current collectors want BU rolls and are finding them difficult. When I consider how paltry this demand is that driving the market there is a suggestion that this could get interesting.It certainly has my attention.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
@cameonut2011 said:
What?Every year more old coins are found in hoards, stashes, earthenware crocks, shipwrecks, attics, vaults, in the ground, and old collections but every year there are 3% fewer '69 quarters because everyone says they aren't collectible.
Mebbe we're running out of '69 quarters not to collect. 1804 dollars are unlikely to show up in hoards but so are bags and pallets of '69 quarters.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.0 -
Thanks for telling me the obvious. There are "offers" on eBay all the time that go unsold.
@cladking said:
@WCC said:
The coins are selling, just not in the volume and prices you insist it should. Sales volume isn't actually low, except vs. a very low number of outliers like NCLT, 60's US circulating designs, Morgan and Peace dollars, and generic gold.
You say that but unless I see a bid being met I don't really know if there's any volume at all.
I say there are no original rolls of '69 quarters and then you say sales volume isn't low. Right!!! sales volume isn't low it's zero.
And there is the source of your error demonstrating that YOU don't know anything about the coin market, not even US moderns. The coin market doesn't revolve around your observations. Look on eBay. You have heard of it, havent you?
I never said anything about "original" roll of '69 quarters. This is a ridiculous standard of scarcity too.
Is this thread about Morgan dollars? Why would I post about Morgan dollars without providing context?
That's what you do.
No, I was talking about US moderns, on eBay. But since you don't actually know virtually anything about the coin market, you don't know what's sold or listed there, proving you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes, I have seen many sales of US moderns in near proximity (days or weeks) on eBay of "essentially identical" coins for widely different proportional prices. It's in the completed sold listings. But go ahead and call my observations "hearsay" like you do with those two posters in a prior thread.
1 -
@WCC said:
Thanks for telling me the obvious. There are "offers" on eBay all the time that go unsold.
@cladking said:
@WCC said:
The coins are selling, just not in the volume and prices you insist it should. Sales volume isn't actually low, except vs. a very low number of outliers like NCLT, 60's US circulating designs, Morgan and Peace dollars, and generic gold.
You say that but unless I see a bid being met I don't really know if there's any volume at all.
I say there are no original rolls of '69 quarters and then you say sales volume isn't low. Right!!! sales volume isn't low it's zero.
And there is the source of your error demonstrating that YOU don't know anything about the coin market, not even US moderns. The coin market doesn't revolve around your observations. Look on eBay. You have heard of it, havent you?
I never said anything about "original" roll of '69 quarters. This is a ridiculous standard of scarcity too.
Is this thread about Morgan dollars? Why would I post about Morgan dollars without providing context?
That's what you do.
No, I was talking about US moderns, on eBay. But since you don't actually know virtually anything about the coin market, you don't know what's sold or listed there, proving you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes, I have seen many sales of US moderns in near proximity (days or weeks) on eBay of "essentially identical" coins for widely different proportional prices. It's in the completed sold listings. But go ahead and call my observations "hearsay" like you do with those two posters in a prior thread.
$10 for 2. The demand is so high and the coins are so scarce that prices are soaring
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
0
Leave a Comment
Categories
- All Categories
- 520.1K Coins and Currency - PCGS
- 328.5K U.S. Coin Forum
- 14.8K PCGS Set Registry Forum
- 5.2K Q & A Forum
- 41.4K World & Ancient Coins Forum
- 3K U.S. & World Currency Forum
- 96.4K Buy, Sell, & Trade - U.S. Coins
- 7.3K Buy, Sell & Trade - World & Ancient Coins
- 1.5K Buy, Sell & Trade - Currency
- 61 Random
- 246.2K Trading Cards, Autographs and Memorabilia - PSA
- 90.3K Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
- 1.7K Autographs Forum
- 16.4K PSA Set Registry Forum
- 22K Sports Talk
- 115K Buy, Sell & Trade - Cards & Memorabilia
- 663 Buy, Sell & Trade - Autographs
- 2.2K Stamps
- 1.5K Stamps Forum
- 670 Buy, Sell & Trade - Stamps
- 83 Coin Shows
- 83 General Coin Show Information and Discussion
- 11.9K Misc
- 11.9K Testing Forum