I think anyone that pays a 100x one point grade premium for a classic coin needs to have their head examined.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
RotatedRainbows: Yes. This is modern bashing. Has it possibly occured to you that this is 2003 for the classics also. Most of the classics are not only in the same expensive holders but also in safety deposit boxes. And while this may bring you surprise, I went to the store yesterday and not only wasn't my change in holders but the ignorant clerk just slapped it down on the counter after getting her fingers all over them.
Dang it, too. The 1965 quarter would have gone MS-70 before she got rough with it.
i have a 1946 Wayte Raymond catalogue of U.S. coins and he lists a 1938 Boone 3-piece set at an astounding $65 or over 40 times face and numerous other less than 10 year old commems for multiples of their face value/issue price. a 1936 Proof set is listed for $55, a 1942 for $8. a 1932-D Washington in Unc. is listed at $15 or 60 times face. a 1931-D double eagle is listed at $400.
interesting.
al h.
editted to add i missed the below. interesting that someone else might consider some of our deemed "originals" aren't really so!! not to mention it used to be an acceptable practice to clean coins
> I don't know why it's considered "bashing" to say that I like old coins better than new coins. I don't think you're so dense as to not know what people mean when they say "modern bashing".
"Your collection will be worthless in 20 years"
"My collection is better than yours because it's older"
"Why don't you just crack it out and spend it?"
"That MS67 you just made is of no interest to anyone because there are thousands of them in MS64"
Yes, it's things a modern basher might say.
>Nobody bashes classics because that's what the very word implies: a "classic" is something that never goes out of style, Agreed. From now on I will call them Old Dirty Coins (trademark pending). That way they won't immediately be seen as better.
"<< ...and that there is not much interest FOR ME, in paying a lot of money for a super-duper nice modern coin when a very nice example of the same coin is available for just a few dollars, and if the coin is available lightly circulated at face value. >>"
From the 8/15/03 Bluesheet I just pulled out of the trashcan:
1896(o) Morgan Dollar: MS61: $855; MS65: $88,000 1901(p) Morgan Dollar: MS61: $1500; MS65: $70,000 1884(s) Morgan Dollar: MS61: $3775; MS65: $98,500 1893(o) Morgan Dollar: MS61: $1330; MS65: $120,000 and my favorite:
1886(o) Morgan Dollar: MS61: $464; MS65: $140,000
Yeah - those modern coins in better grades of Mint State are sure stupid for rising in price so much
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
i dont think anyone should bash the classics..just the moderns...i think those big prices for the modern stuff is gonna come flopping down when a few oldtimers get retired and start cracking open the mint and proof sets and rolls and rolls and make a bunch of proof and mintstate 69's and 70's...moderns are a joke im sorry just gotta say it..but to each his own...other than the kennedy and franklin series anything post 1950 is a joke.. bruce scher
"other than the kennedy and franklin series anything post 1950 is a joke.."
CLADKING - BEFORE YOU RESPOND - THIS IS TRULY PROGRESS. BRUCE HAS NEVER INCLUDED KENNEDIES IN WITH THE FRANKLINS AS NEAT MODERN COINS!! THIS IS TRULY A TURNING POINT!! LET'S GIVE HIM ANOTHER 6 MONTHS
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Very few of the old timers I've met have any modern rolls OR mint and proof sets. Most of the people who have put this kind of material aside were on the fringes of the hobby and have since retired or moved on. Proof sets have a little wider dispersal but not mint sets and there are precious few BU rolls in anyone's hands.
It's OK to hold these coins in no esteem I guess (since I can't change that), but we should try to keep our slams accurate. -And no one's hit either of them yet.
When you really start to think about it, you can come up with a reason to bash almost anything. To an outsider, we have one of the most ridiculous hobbies you could imagine. We're a bunch of nerds that sit and play with our pocket change and we're so unbelievably anal about it that we'll even pay several thousand dollars more to get our pocket change with one less mark!! Same goes for classics too. We have got to be one of the most tedious hobbies on the face of the earth. We sit here with loupes looking for tiny flaws that most people wouldn't give a hoot about, we pay extraordinary amounts of money for one grading companies' opinion. What other hobby does that? You don't see people sending in their antique toys to the professional toy grading service to have graded do you? Well gee, there is a mark on your doll's face Sir so I'm sorry, I'm going to have to drop the grade one point and now your doll is worth $15,000 less. How's that for bashing the entire hobby? Like I said, you can bash anytime you want to when you put your mind to it..tongue in cheek.
<< <i>When you really start to think about it, you can come up with a reason to bash almost anything. To an outsider, we have one of the most ridiculous hobbies you could imagine. We're a bunch of nerds that sit and play with our pocket change and we're so unbelievably anal about it that we'll even pay several thousand dollars more to get our pocket change with one less mark!! Same goes for classics too. We have got to be one of the most tedious hobbies on the face of the earth. We sit here with loupes looking for tiny flaws that most people wouldn't give a hoot about, we pay extraordinary amounts of money for one grading companies' opinion. What other hobby does that? You don't see people sending in their antique toys to the professional toy grading service to have graded do you? Well gee, there is a mark on your doll's face Sir so I'm sorry, I'm going to have to drop the grade one point and now your doll is worth $15,000 less. How's that for bashing the entire hobby? Like I said, you can bash anytime you want to when you put your mind to it..tongue in cheek. >>
I'm beginning to believe that much of the "modern bashing" is a knee jerk responce of collectors/investors not cherrypicking or putting aside easily obtainable modern rarities while the opportunity was/is here. Instead of putting the blame where it belongs (upon themselves), they gnash their teeth and hurl their inner digust with their own stupidity upon the modern sector of collecting with hopes that this will make the feeling that comes with the knowledge of making a blunder a bit more palatable. What also amazes me is that instead of putting ultra grade current moderns aside now, with full knowledge that these coins will be the sought after coins of the future, they continue to bash and ridicule those more astute collectors that make money and/or add to their collection at great prices compared to what these "soon to be classics" will cost years from now. They don't bash classics because they weren't in the position to assemble them when they were readily available while being minted; thus had NO CONTROL. Now, when they HAVE CONTROL, they would rather bash moderns while they lament over things they had no control over. As I stated, typical "knee jerk" responce.
I think $1000 for a Morgan that sat in a pile for 100 years is worthy of bashing. I mean, there's only $5 worth of silver and there's no history if it sat in a pile. "Yes, little Jimmy, Grandpa's 1883 dollar sat in a pile and never moved. Ain't that somethin?"
And the Barbers?? I thought that was a Roman dude.......
Internet stocks. The "new paradigm" crowd just didn't understand why the "old money" kept bashing internet stocks, when all the internet stocks did was go up and up and promise to keep going up forever! the new crowd pooh pooh'ed the idea of "fundamental value" and said, welcome to Modern Times!
well, they found out, once the music stopped. Yes a lot of people made a lot of money trading these issues, while they were on the rise and the public couldn't get enough of them, but huge numbers of people got left holding the bag when it turned out that these stocks were very common and not valuable, after all.
Yes, Claus, I am gnashing my teeth for not putting aside high grade moderns when they were dirt cheap. Yes, that would be great to sell them now, and If there were a way to short them, I would do it. What i would not to is buy and hold them during a HOT market, because it may cycle back down.
There are likely many reasons people have for modern bashing and I doubt that they are all petty. I was one of the most rabid modern bashers up until 1972 when many of the reasons I had for bashing were being transformed or ended. Much of my reason was that these coins displaced the neat coins that were in circulation and replaced them with ugl debased little slugs. There was even doubt in my mind that the American economy could possibly survive the lack of real money. I fully expected the currency to collapse in short order causing me and everyone a great deal more suffer- ing. Likely some of the bashing is just left over from the old days when there really was nearly nothing to like about them. It was very difficult to know in 1972 that any nice coins even existed. It was very difficult to look at these coins and imagine anyone would ever see anything other than junk. It was difficult to believe these coins really weren't being set aside by the bag and room full.
Many people have hardly thought about the coins except to identify the proper denomination to tender at the supermarket for decades. Then suddenly they hear that some maniac is paying four or five figures just because one looks "a little" nicer than another. It's little won- der that they see this as a threat to their hobby and to the wealth of the maniacs involved. Really it's the bashers who are more able to change probably than those who just continue to ignore the whole thing. While in most cases expecting a change might be unrealistic, where there's life there's hope.
While this thread was never intended as a classic or a modern bashing thread it does seem to be capable of change.
Yes, Claus, I am gnashing my teeth for not putting aside high grade moderns when they were dirt cheap. Yes, that would be great to sell them now, and If there were a way to short them, I would do it. What i would not to is buy and hold them during a HOT market, because it may cycle back down. >>
There may be a way to short these. PM me if you're interested, but no promises.
I'll warn you that the guys doing this are getting killed and loving it.
<< <i>I look at it like art. It's safe to buy dead artists work because they aren't still cranking them out. You know what's out there and they've stood the test of time re: value. I've also been a lifelong collector of antiques. No reason to buy a new table when you can find a nice antique one - same mindset with coins, I guess.
Few of us are good enough to pick out contemporary art that will appreciate in value over time. If your able to do so with coins, great. Your smarter than the rest of us. >>
Lakesammman - Couldn't agree more -
THere's nothing wrong with collecting modern coins - that's where we should learn about coins - (it used to be the mistakes were affordable learning experiences - but w/1963 LHCs at $39K, I guess that's not true anymore) - but once we learn to understand & appreciate coins, then we can get into the good stuff (which for some might even be Frankies & Roosies - after all both of these series are approaching their 60th anniversary). but when you really get hooked, then you buy the stuff that's not made anymore & the fun is in finding the great examples that you drool over - I saw a 5 piece gilt Stella pattern set at LB & I had to get a paper towel to wipe up the saliva - & that was before I held the finest know coiled hair stella! At Baltimore I got to hold 2 Ultra high Reliefs (Thanks to Ira Goldberg) - so its classics for me - but there's a place for both moderns & classics & watching a YN learn about coins is almost as good as holding that coiled hair stella.
Collecting eye-appealing Proof and MS Indian Head Cents, 1858 Flying Eagle and IHC patterns and beautiful toned coins.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain Newmismatist
As a passionate collector of both moderns and classics, I can tell you that the reason we don't bash them is because we have evolved our numismatic palate to appreciate both. There is no reason for a advanced collector to stoop to that level. There are those who have serious problems grading in the 66-70 spectrum and others who don't understand the concept of a condition census rarity. This is simply beyond their grasp. So, my answer is , "who cares?" , you and I are above that, and so is every other real collector. Bias and bashing is too time consuming, collecting a Barber half in EF is alot more fun, although I have just as much fun with my MS68 State Quarters. A very nice post Sam, as always.
THere's nothing wrong with collecting modern coins - that's where we should learn about coins - (it used to be the mistakes were affordable learning experiences - but w/1963 LHCs at $39K, I guess that's not true anymore) - but once we learn to understand & appreciate coins, then we can get into the good stuff (which for some might even be Frankies & Roosies - after all both of these series are approaching their 60th anniversary). but when you really get hooked, then you buy the stuff that's not made anymore & the fun is in finding the great examples that you drool over ... >>
I started with the classics and now collect most all the moderns.
It might be noted that Ikes, SBA's, and the eagle reverse quarters are all obsolete.
You've hit on the only real key complaint I have with the average anti-modern post. Although many of the arguments and warnings regarding pricing of common coins have merit, they all tend to lump the truly collectible coins with the common conditionally rare coins. Many collectors have searched for a very long time for some of the modern issues. The easy examples to bring to mind are dcam 65-66 SMS coins, high grade 71-72 clad Ikes, 50-59 dcams, etc... I have my own list, but those are a few highlights. Each of those coins has value to me without a holder, as do some others. If memory serves, when I began collecting, a 55 doubled-die Lincoln in gem sold for $350. I wouldn't pretend to advise fellow collectors regarding their collection, but I have and do gamble that those coins will continue to be long-term winners. Now, back to the regular discussion.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Believe it or not one can drool over moderns >>
Cladking - no argument from me on that issue - I like Pr DCam LHCs & Frankies & Washington quarters, etc, etc (not Ikes & SBAs though - but for aesthetic reasons - they just aren't very attractive - although I did see a toned Pr Ike with great colors & a cameo look - it was a drooly) -& I have collected & still have collections of these coins - even the Ikes
- BUT if I'm gonna spend $39K it won't be on a coin of which 3 Million were made & most are still available in the original sealed mint holders - I don't care if PCGS calls it a "PR100DCam with angelic toning floating on its pristine surfaces never touched by human hands even when it slipped from its sonically sealed mint plastic to the confines a special gold plated PCGS slab"- it's not a rare coin - it's a common coin - & even as the finest one graded (and even if there was a written guarantee that PCGS has viewed everyone of the 3 Million made, & promised never to grade one higher), its still not rare.
BUT I'd spend $39K in a heartbeat for a few of those wonderful and very rare patterns that Rick Kay has for sale, or for an 1893-S Morgan (though I'm not sure how nice the Morgan would be at $39K) or any number of Proof $5 or $10 gold Libs where the mintages are less than 50 coins & maybe 5-10 have survived - because in addition to being coins that you can drool over, they are excessively rare coins. I would guess, but I haven't added them up, that there are less total gold proof coins minted prior to 1915 of ALL gold coins minted by the US Mint, than there are Proof 1963 Lincoln pennies currently available to purchase.
So, although I like and collect some of the modern coins, what I want to own are rare coins that exemplify the coiners art - I'd take every one of those coins in Jeff Garrett's 100 greatest coins & think that I'd died and gone to heaven. I collect all coins, from ancient greek gold staters to some of the most recent State quarters - but if I'm gonna spend real money - its goes for real rarities - not coins where the rarity is based solely some grader's opinion that it looks better that the other 3 million examples & he assigns an artificial number that gives only the "appearance" of rarity.
I don't think the debate is about modern coins vs. classic coins, both are equally collectible. I think the real debate is where are the RARITIES with real value - & bashing modern coins or classic coins only serves to hide the real issue.
Collecting eye-appealing Proof and MS Indian Head Cents, 1858 Flying Eagle and IHC patterns and beautiful toned coins.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain Newmismatist
How disingenuous to use as ones example perhaps the silliest purchase in the history of coins IMHO - NOT TO MENTION A CLASSIC COIN FROM 1963 (MOST STATE MODERNS START IN 1965 BUT THEY CONVENIENTLY USE 1963 AS A "MODERN" WHEN IT SUITS THEM) . It would be like finding the fellow who bought the most rediculous pattern coin purchase (like a $1,000 coin some guy paid $40,000 for) in the history of the world and using that example on a daily basis to argue that pattern coins sucked. THINK ABOUT IT HOW SILLY THE REFERENCE IS
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
A 1963 Lincoln looks a lot like a 1965 Lincoln, hard to call one a classic and the other a modern. In fact, a 1963 Lincoln looks a lot like a 2003 Lincoln. But, since you are calling a 1963 Lincoln cent a classic, I guess it will be easy to bash classic's too. (I think most bash plastic, not coins)
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
DD55: And, of course, a 1963 Lincoln looks like a 1959 Lincoln and so on and so on
Bringing up the 1963 Lincoln to bolster's one's position is like telling school kids a joke with a bad curse word in the joke. Sure you can get a "cheap laugh" - but, a witty joke "earns" those laughs
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
The ironic thing is that he's a Lincoln collector. I am assuming based on the user name. Hmm. Very interesting indeed? I guess every 1955 Lincoln cent looks the same.
What was your point behind posting the prices of MS-61 versus MS-65 coins? Are you comparing those four point differences in grade that represent substantial differences in preservation and the premiums you sighted to the miniscule differences and similiar premiums between MS-67 or 67 and 68 coins?
Cladking
You want to make this a modern versus classic issue. It's not. The issue is the myopic focus on one aspect of the coin as a whole and saying that that one very narrow characteristic, which boils down to a few ".." or the minute differences in luster or strike that exist between accurate grade MS-67 and 68 or 68 and 69 coins, should account for 99% of a coins value. The rejection of that premise has nothing to do with modern versus classic except that these types of one point premiums are more often paid for modern coins rather than classic coins.
I collect both modern and classic coins BUT I never assign 99% of a coins value based on a one point difference in grade. I try to balance all of the coins characteristics (absolute rarity, historical significance, preservation, etc.) in determining my assessment of a coins value. Using that type of balance in assessing value prohibits the things that account for one point differences in the higher MS grades to account for a huge percentage of the coins value over the value of coins in the next lower grade.
Ditto Newmismatist.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
"Wondercoin: What was your point behind posting the prices of MS-61 versus MS-65 coins? Are you comparing those four point differences in grade that represent substantial differences in preservation and the premiums you sighted to the miniscule differences and similiar premiums between MS-67 or 67 and 68 coins?"
pmh1nic: I was addressing the specific comment of that poster. But, to address your separate point - that 1886(o) Morgan sheets at $4650 in MS64 and $140,000 in MS65. Since this is truly not a modern/classic debate, feel free to use this 1886(o) Morgan example as the "poster boy" for a $135,350 price jump for a tiny point on a coin sheeting for under $5,000 in the undergrade
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I am just as happy to pay a serious premium for a full band 1945 gem Merc as I am for a condition census commem in MS70. It is obviously a loosing proposition to try to explain to someone the idea of a condition census coin or their inability to grade in the upper 67-70 spectrum. Certain people cannot evolve beyond a certain level.
I used the baseball card analogy on another thread; here, I will use baseball the sport. Maybe there is a tendency to bash whatever is newer and contemporary just because it is so. No one bashes Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, or even that nasty Ty Cobb! They have been immotalized. But Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Pete Rose, arguably the modern equivalents, take a lot of heat. I wonder if in the 20's and 30's, Ruth and Gehrig were maligned while Harry and George Wright (of the 1870's Cincinnati Red Stockings) were praised and considered the measure of the ballplayer.
I collect both modern and classic coins BUT I never assign 99% of a coins value based on a one point difference in grade. I try to balance all of the coins characteristics (absolute rarity, historical significance, preservation, etc.) in determining my assessment of a coins value. Using that type of balance in assessing value prohibits the things that account for one point differences in the higher MS grades to account for a huge percentage of the coins value over the value of coins in the next lower grade.
. >>
I have very little control over this market. While I personally would also avoid such premiums in many cases there are the many reasons for them which have been put forth by me and others. Most of these reasons are mostly just speculation derived from observed facts and extrapolation of known data. Again though, these markets will do what the actual buyers and sellers want to do. Then those who observe the market or print the price guides will attempt to make sense of it. These truly are thinly traded markets and it seems every time we learn something of the principals in the transactions they turn out to simply be collectors.
We can see the more heavily traded markets and these are increasing broadly in depth. These to lead us to similar conclusions.
That people are willing to pay such premiums says many things about many things. Not the least of which is the inescapable conclusion that some of these coins are rare.
Check out the Cent Thread on the registry forum. Perhaps this can provide some insights.
<< <i>I used the baseball card analogy on another thread; here, I will use baseball the sport. Maybe there is a tendency to bash whatever is newer and contemporary just because it is so. No one bashes Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, or even that nasty Ty Cobb! They have been immotalized. But Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Pete Rose, arguably the modern equivalents, take a lot of heat. I wonder if in the 20's and 30's, Ruth and Gehrig were maligned while Harry and George Wright (of the 1870's Cincinnati Red Stockings) were praised and considered the measure of the ballplayer. >>
There was at least one move to remove Ty Cobb from baseball completely. There were rumblings during his entire career.
"that 1886(o) Morgan sheets at $4650 in MS64 and $140,000 in MS65."
Whoever paid that premium needs to have their head examined (IMHO ). Not quite as bad as paying that type of premium for the differences between a 67 and 68 but still an out of balance perspective of the coin as a whole (all just MHO).
I say that realize that the guy buying the MS65 for $140,000 may view the additional $135,000+ as deposible pocket change .
Cladking
"I have very little control over this market."
True. The only thing we have under our control (ususually ) as individual collectors is what we're will to pay for out of our pocket.
"While I personally would also avoid such premiums..."
We're making progress .
"in many cases there are the many reasons for them which have been put forth by me and others. Most of these reasons are mostly just speculation derived from observed facts and extrapolation of known data."
That sounds like the speculative thoughts of an investor rather then the myopic focus of a collector trying to convince himself that the difference between a MS-67 and 68 are really monumental.
"Again though, these markets will do what the actual buyers and sellers want to do. Then those who observe the market or print the price guides will attempt to make sense of it."
In my opinion the real value is found in the grade just under the huge price jump. If you're talking a 67 versus a 68 you're getting essentially the same coin with a miniscule mark or two in a focal area. There may be some very slight difference in luster but if we're talking accurately grade coins these coins are essentially the same. This is true whether you're talking about a State Quarter, a Jefferson Nickel or an Early Bust Half.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
In my opinion the real value is found in the grade just under the huge price jump. If you're talking a 67 versus a 68 you're getting essentially the same coin with a miniscule mark or two in a focal area. There may be some very slight difference in luster but if we're talking accurately grade coins these coins are essentially the same. This is true whether you're talking about a State Quarter, a Jefferson Nickel or an Early Bust Half. >>
There are cases where the pop tops likely represent a better value but these will be the exception. (70-S nickel for example). There will also be cases where the price jump occurs two or three grades down from the top. In some cases the cheaper coins will be the better bet and in others the higher grades.
People are still going to collect the coins that they want though. And supply and demand will still determine the prices.
<< <i>pmh1nic: I was addressing the specific comment of that poster. But, to address your separate point - that 1886(o) Morgan sheets at $4650 in MS64 and $140,000 in MS65. Since this is truly not a modern/classic debate, feel free to use this 1886(o) Morgan example as the "poster boy" for a $135,350 price jump for a tiny point on a coin sheeting for under $5,000 in the undergrade >>
Wondercoin - the 28x price differential is probably not justified, but that coin is probably ultra rare in high grade (when I was actively collecting Morgans alot of the O mints were tough to find fully struck - not good quality control in New Orleans). But putting together a set of coins with a 100x price differential over the grade below would be even more absurd! Or would it - read on. What follows was posted on Stuart's thread: Today's Coin Market -- My Personal Investment Perspective.
<< How disingenuous to use as ones example perhaps the silliest purchase in the history of coins IMHO - NOT TO MENTION A CLASSIC COIN FROM 1963 (MOST STATE MODERNS START IN 1965 BUT THEY CONVENIENTLY USE 1963 AS A "MODERN" WHEN IT SUITS THEM) . It would be like finding the fellow who bought the most rediculous pattern coin purchase (like a $1,000 coin some guy paid $40,000 for) in the history of the world and using that example on a daily basis to argue that pattern coins sucked. THINK ABOUT IT HOW SILLY THE REFERENCE IS >>
Wonder coin, I disagree with your premise that Moderns start in 1965 - THat's true for Roosies & Wash Quarters where the metal content went from silver to clad. But modern Lincolns start with the change to the Lincoln Memorial reverse in 1959 - The coin albums reflect this, as does the Registry sets - so you can't throw that 1963 into the classics, tain't - it's modern. But that's NOT an isolated example: If you were a new collector/investor the following would be good advice for someone who wanted to start collecting coins:
1. Collect something that has high demand. 2. Try & get the best grade you can afford. 3. Buy only PCGS slabbed coins - they are the most reliaible the msot accurately graded & over time will hold their value
Now so you know, I do not disagree with any of the above, I think more can be added to each of those statement, but none of the above statements is "bad" advice, But let's see what would happened if our "Novice Numismatist (NN for short)" blindly followed this advice w/o further thought:
He decides to collect Lincoln Memorial cents, because Lincoln pennies are the most widely collected series with thousands of collectors (some very knowledgeable like Stewart Blay, some novices just like NN). As soon as that's completed, he'll start on the earlier dates. Also, he likes the looks of this "classic" coin. He sees that there are many Registry sets and it is a "doable" series. One month before the 2002 ANA he inherits a very sizeable sum of money - he buys a bunch of books about Lincoln cents, reads them, and off he goes to the ANA, money in hand. He sees hundreds of dealers and is dazed and confused. Unsure of himself in navagating the bourse floor, he attends a Heritage signature sale, registers and gets a bidder card, and starting with the first lot he watches so he can learn the ropes. One thing catches his attention - there is a lot of bidding activity - there are real under-bidders and our NN waits patiently for the Lincoln memorial cents and takes the plunge. Following the sage advice of many whom he has consulted, he goes after the top pop coins in the series he has selected (Proof Lincoln Memorial cents), and he limits himself to PCGS coins only as he has heard from many dealers that he should stay away from coins graded by other grading services. In the process he resolves to list his set on the registry as soon as it is complete. He buys some coins at the 2002 ANA & deligently continues his quest. Exactly one year later, at the Baltimore ANA, he completes his set of 46 proof Lincoln Memorial cents - it certainly would be a top registry set as NN was able to acquire top pop coins for all but 10 coins. Every coin was bought in auction and every coin had an under-bidder. Of the coins he has purchased the following are his stats: 1959-1986 Top Pop coins with none higher all but 2 coins (1959 & 1964) 1987-2003 Top Pop coins with none higher for all but 8 coins, (1987, 1988, 1990, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002 & 2003) only because he didn't see any come up in any of the Heritage Auctions (NN is a very loyal fellow) Cost for these 46 coins (every coin a real sale & can be verified on Heritage's auction Archives: ( I bet everyone knows where this is going by now - but this figure may surprise a lot of people) $141,429. An average of $3,075 for each coin (and yes our lucky NN got that POP 1 1963 Pr70DCam penny - spots and all) Here's his set:
Grading Purchase Top Pop/ Date Grade Service Cost Date # Available # Better
Total $141,429 (Average cost per coin $3,075) If you omit his 8 non-top pop coins from 1987 onward ( which only average about $55 each) his average cost for the other 38 coins is about $3,700 per coin.
The problem with NN's collection is that he doesn't own a single rare coin! Probably the lowest mintage is the the 1959 Cent with only 1.1 Million, & all left the mint in sealed plastic, as did every other one of these coins. (I haven't checked, but I would bet that not many of those dates have less than 3 million made for each date)
Lets take this little hypothetical one step further: Suppose NN was satisfied with the next lower grade - how much would he have spent?
$1,306!! and about 10 coins would be in the exact same grade as the top pop collection listed above -
Query: which course is the best road for NN to take in his collecting endeavors? (To make this even more interesting, if NN had not listened to the sage advice he was given and simply dilegently searched for mint sealed proof sets, he could have purchased every coin listed above AND every other coin that came with the Lincoln penny in each of those proof sets for about $750 TOTAL, (perhaps as high as $1000 as there are a bunch of special proof sets & I'm not sure whether the Lincoln cent is in the special sets) with every coin sealed in plastic. check out the CDN Greysheet if you don't believe it)
So the question is not: Should NN collect modern coins? The question to be considered is: HOW should our intrepid NN collect modern coins?
So no one confuses this with bashing modern coins or registry sets. I have collected top pop coins, I have had a #1 registry set (Proof IHCs) & I have thoroughly enjoyed collecting them. I would put together a nice set of Lincoln memorial proof pennies, but if you gave me $140,000 I would have a lot of change left over - & I'd start working on one of those pattern coiled hair stellas, or a high grade 1793 Large cent or some wonderful proof gold coins, an 1895 Morgan, a set of Matte Proof Lincolns, etc, etc, etc. But I would not waste over $140,000 buying common coins. I'm quite certain someone could put together this same scenerio for other top pop modern coins, & I bet you could spend a Million dollars & own the same thing that a YN would own if he carefully purchased one of each proof set from 1950 to date - the earlier ones would be tough, but I saw a nice 1953 set and 4 nice 1954 sets at LB for greysheet bid, so with the exception of the 1950-1952, I know this would be very doable, fun & maybe quite profitable. Would they all be top pop DCams - certainly not, but it would still be a very impressive set of coins, especially if our intrepid NN actually sat down , learned to grade coins and looked at a lot of mint sealed proof sets - he might have fun, his downside would be minimal, and he might make some money on his collection if he learned to be selective and grade coins -
The last piece of advice that I'd give to NN is: Buy rare coins, not rare plastic. If that last bit of advice was followed, NN would have almost $140,000 left over to start his next series - not a bad grub stake.
But that's JMHO
Collecting eye-appealing Proof and MS Indian Head Cents, 1858 Flying Eagle and IHC patterns and beautiful toned coins.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain Newmismatist
Newmismatist: Excellent post, though there are some flawed assumptions. The greatest of which is that memorial cents are in high demand. Five years ago there were virtually no collectors of these coins. Even today you'll find many dozens of people who collect the pre- 1959 cents before finding one who collects the later. True, I'm noy counting the many people who collect these from pocket change. While these are real collectors collecting real coins they have no effect on the market until they actually buy a coin.
Modern coins are a FAR larger field than merely proof cents. There are varieties (including three major proof cents), there are eight different series of regular issue coins (And 25 states quarters), There are numerous commems and special issues, they have been struck in 10 different metallic compositions including three clads, there are three separate series of bullion coins and a series which wasn't monetized. There are numerous moderns which were NEVER SOLD BY THE MINT. The only way to obtain these coins was in circulation. Many of the varieties have still to this day not been reported or have not actually been listed in any reference. If you want an example of one of these you will not find a pop top in a pcgs slab or anywhere else in some cases other than in circulation. Those who keep talking about how common moderns are would be well advised to actually look at a few of them. They are found in circulation and not only are they often pathetic there are some which are very difficult to find. A 1968-S cent for example was put in circulation- - try to find one.
High grade proof cents truly are rare coins. These are not my "cup of tea" but those who find them interesting AND can actually spot the difference in quality might well want to collect them. I person- ally think there are many other moderns with far greater potential, but NO ONE KNOWS. Who would have thought five years ago that it would ever be possible to spend $140,000 on a set of these?
If I were going to assemble this set, I'd poke through proof sets looking for the best coins. It would cost a substantial amount of time and effort and more than a little cash to find the best coins. When I was done the coins would in most cases be just slightly lower quality than the slabbed coins. There would be more than a little money left and I'd have had a blast looking. But what about people for whom this isn't a viable alternative? Some people with this kind of money find that it is time which is more precious to them. There are people who don't have access to large quantities of sets to look through. And there are people who prefer the experience of picking these coins off on E-bay much more than cherry picking sets. And there are those who simply insist on the very best.
It always boils down to what it always does-- to each his own, and prices are set by supply and demand. It doesn't matter one whit if one knowledgeable collector believes these coins are indistinguisable in high grade. It doesn't matter that most of the hobby is screaming in unison that all these coins are a sucker bet. The only thing that matters is what people are willing to pay or accept in payment for coins.
One would do well to think about the fact that the hobby considers these grossly overpriced. If so many believe this then who's buying the coins. If the hobby disparages collecting these coins now that many have gained substantial value, then who bothered to set them aside when they were just junk. And there- in lies the reason that many of these coins are high priced- - no one bothered to save any.
Cam40: It was more like tarnish so it was stripped right off. Just one sentence though which wasn't really insulting but did not convey the idea so much as send the wrong message.
Newmismatist, that was an excellent analogy. I understand you were simply using Lincoln Memorial Cents as an example and any series in high demand (Memorials? Gotta agree with cladking on that point.) could be substituted.
Seems that Baley and Lordmarcovan feel as I do that classics hold an inherent value that, because they are so contemporary, moderns seem to lack. But that's just my opinion and I must admit that opinion is changing.
When I log on to the board, I always try to come to the table with an open mind. A lot of exotic dishes that I'm not familiar with are always on the menu, and some are admittedly too rich for my taste. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the bottle of '37 Lafitte, but for now I'll stick to my can of Foster's.
Great thread and I'm amazed it has lasted this many posts without collapsing into a free for all mudslinging contest. Perhaps we ARE evolving to some degree in our tolerance for other opinions.
Mojo
"I am the wilderness that is lost in man." -Jim Morrison- Mr. Mojorizn
"Wonder coin, I disagree with your premise that Moderns start in 1965"
Newmistmatist: Great post! A couple things you should know:
1. I have stated my belief that "moderns" begin as early as 1932 since the day I got to these boards. Let's just say, I have not seen much of a following adopting my view - so if it is 1965 (or any other date), so be it. ISN'T IT FUNNY THAT WE SPEAK OF "MODERN BASHERS" AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT A "MODERN" COIN OR SERIES EVEN IS!!
2. Personally, I ran from the 1970's to date proof70 Lincolns YEARS AGO. OK - perhaps a bit too early as coins I happily sold for a few hundred dollars then did trade for thousands of dollars. Recently (like in a day or two ago), I got into a pretty good battle on the Registry Board (come visit) when I seriously questioned a 1999(s) and 2000(s) Lincoln in PR70DC appearing to sell for close to $20,000/pair OR 1000X the price of the undergrade PR69DC coins which in my book are roughly $10-$15/coins!!! In fact, I alerted "pmh1nic" of this point on a thread, but, he never picked up on it 1000x jump in price for a 1999 and 2000 proof coin - JUST LIKE BILL JONES AND HIS $28,000 CONTINENTAL DOLLAR STORY, OR IF SOMEONE WOULD BUY AN 1886(o) MORGAN DOLLAR IN MS65 FOR $140,000 THAT WAS TRULY AN MS64 COIN WORTH $5,000 - SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO COMMENT, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. And, hey - it is just my opinion and I could be proven 100% wrong. Perhaps these PR70 cents will go to $20,000/coin 2 years from now - who am I to say. I was the "fool" that sold my proof Lincolns from the 1970's and 1980's for a couple hundred a coin a couple years ago and then watched a couple rise to $5,000-$10,000/coin as I sat in a Heritage auction room in disbelief
Anyway, Numismatist, if you read my comment here and find that we are still debating any particular point, let me know and I'll be happy to address it.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
i so agree with newmismatist....that last paragraph was so on target...and i think the example gets so much stronger regarding the pops as more and more and more of these modern coins get slabbed why pay 140k for a set like that? might make some short term sense but i wouldnt want to get stuck with those moderns down the road.. bruce scher
Actually, I would start modern coins at around 1934 - we went off the gold standard, ceased production of all gold coins, recalled the 1933 Saints & consigned them to the melting pot, and a year later ended production of the Peace Silver dollars. But whether classic or modern, my point is really simple - if you're going to collect coins - become a COIN collector - not a collector of plastic INSERTS - coins are fun - modern coins are fun - there truly are condition rarities in modern coins BUT as a collector - keep rarity and value in prospective - TOP - POP coins are fantastic - I've owned many (the first 1860 Pr66Cam IHC, an 1871 Pr66RDCam - one of the nicest IHCs I ever owned, the Elaisberg 1909 Pr$20 - I currently own the only reported bronze IHC graded by PCGS as a DCam - and I wouldn't trade it for any of those PrDCam Lincolns - because I can pick 'em out of proof sets in dealers show cases at greysheet bid - At LB I purchased a 1960 Proof set w/a deep cameo quarter for $12 - I have no idea what its worth, but its a neat coin (as is the whole set) - I crossed an 1898 Pr66RD NGC coin to PCGS as a Pr66RDCam - it's the same coin, looks the same - but I bet I can sell it for more money now than before - same with the NGC 1895 Pr67RD which is now a PCGS Pr67RD - same coin - a great value in the NGC holder - I'd take a dozen if I could find 'em. My advice to anyone who collects coins: Buy nice coins, understand what you're doing, buy the COIN, not the holder that its in, have fun, Collect coins, not paper grading opinions, learn how to grade coins, LOOK at coins & have fun - you can collect classic raw coins or SQs, you won't go broke, buy in the end you'll have fun, a nice collection & if you keep what you're doin in prospective, you might even profit a little, both for the experience and monetarily.
Collecting eye-appealing Proof and MS Indian Head Cents, 1858 Flying Eagle and IHC patterns and beautiful toned coins.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain Newmismatist
There is definitely a dividing line in the 1930's. (The mint established the policy of not making low mintage coins in 1932, largely because of the fiasco with the '31-S cent)
But there is a much more dramatic dividing line in 1965. Not only were there all the changes imposed by the mint and by congress, there was also coin collectors' reaction of discontinuing their collections at this time.
If you put the line at 1932 or '35 you still need another line at '65.
I consider the '32 to 64 coins to be neoclassical. And the '99 and later to be ultramodern since collectors started collecting new coins again.
Cladking: Do you remember not too long ago when coins like the Wash Carvers and BTW's were considered by the top numismatists of that time to be nothing more than "crap" coins? NOW, GUYS WHO COLLECT THESE "CLASSIC" COMMEMS SUCH AS BTW's AND WC's BASH THE "MODERNS" BUT PAY 5 FIGURES FOR BTW AND WC COINS! The last (2) lower pop BTW coins in the Heritage sale sold for something like $11,000 and $13,000/coin when the underpop MS66 coins trade at around $200-$300/coin!!!!!! Talk about the "pot calling the kettle black".
But, it is true that these "crap" BTW and WC coins of just a couple decades ago are now widely accepted as "five figure" CLASSIC rarities. And, IMHO, some moderns will also enjoy that scenario down the line. One does not have to be a great soothsayer to see that
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Comments
this is 2003 for the classics also. Most of the classics are not only in the same expensive
holders but also in safety deposit boxes. And while this may bring you surprise, I went to
the store yesterday and not only wasn't my change in holders but the ignorant clerk just
slapped it down on the counter after getting her fingers all over them.
Dang it, too. The 1965 quarter would have gone MS-70 before she got rough with it.
interesting.
al h.
editted to add i missed the below. interesting that someone else might consider some of our deemed "originals" aren't really so!!
not to mention it used to be an acceptable practice to clean coins
I don't think you're so dense as to not know what people mean when they say "modern bashing".
"Your collection will be worthless in 20 years"
"My collection is better than yours because it's older"
"Why don't you just crack it out and spend it?"
"That MS67 you just made is of no interest to anyone because there are thousands of them in MS64"
Yes, it's things a modern basher might say.
>Nobody bashes classics because that's what the very word implies: a "classic" is something that never goes out of style,
Agreed. From now on I will call them Old Dirty Coins (trademark pending). That way they won't immediately be seen as better.
-KHayse
From the 8/15/03 Bluesheet I just pulled out of the trashcan:
1896(o) Morgan Dollar: MS61: $855; MS65: $88,000
1901(p) Morgan Dollar: MS61: $1500; MS65: $70,000
1884(s) Morgan Dollar: MS61: $3775; MS65: $98,500
1893(o) Morgan Dollar: MS61: $1330; MS65: $120,000
and my favorite:
1886(o) Morgan Dollar: MS61: $464; MS65: $140,000
Yeah - those modern coins in better grades of Mint State are sure stupid for rising in price so much
Wondercoin
bruce scher
CLADKING - BEFORE YOU RESPOND - THIS IS TRULY PROGRESS. BRUCE HAS NEVER INCLUDED KENNEDIES IN WITH THE FRANKLINS AS NEAT MODERN COINS!! THIS IS TRULY A TURNING POINT!! LET'S GIVE HIM ANOTHER 6 MONTHS
Wondercoin
bruce
Bruce: I know today must be difficult for you after seeing that monster MS68 Antietam fetch $26k in the sale.
Wondercoin
Very few of the old timers I've met have any modern rolls OR mint and proof sets.
Most of the people who have put this kind of material aside were on the fringes of
the hobby and have since retired or moved on. Proof sets have a little wider dispersal
but not mint sets and there are precious few BU rolls in anyone's hands.
It's OK to hold these coins in no esteem I guess (since I can't change that), but we should
try to keep our slams accurate. -And no one's hit either of them yet.
<< <i>When you really start to think about it, you can come up with a reason to bash almost anything. To an outsider, we have one of the most ridiculous hobbies you could imagine. We're a bunch of nerds that sit and play with our pocket change and we're so unbelievably anal about it that we'll even pay several thousand dollars more to get our pocket change with one less mark!! Same goes for classics too. We have got to be one of the most tedious hobbies on the face of the earth. We sit here with loupes looking for tiny flaws that most people wouldn't give a hoot about, we pay extraordinary amounts of money for one grading companies' opinion. What other hobby does that? You don't see people sending in their antique toys to the professional toy grading service to have graded do you? Well gee, there is a mark on your doll's face Sir so I'm sorry, I'm going to have to drop the grade one point and now your doll is worth $15,000 less. How's that for bashing the entire hobby? Like I said, you can bash anytime you want to when you put your mind to it..tongue in cheek.
...And don't you love it?
I'm beginning to believe that much of the "modern bashing" is a knee jerk responce of collectors/investors not cherrypicking or putting aside easily obtainable modern rarities while the opportunity was/is here. Instead of putting the blame where it belongs (upon themselves), they gnash their teeth and hurl their inner digust with their own stupidity upon the modern sector of collecting with hopes that this will make the feeling that comes with the knowledge of making a blunder a bit more palatable. What also amazes me is that instead of putting ultra grade current moderns aside now, with full knowledge that these coins will be the sought after coins of the future, they continue to bash and ridicule those more astute collectors that make money and/or add to their collection at great prices compared to what these "soon to be classics" will cost years from now. They don't bash classics because they weren't in the position to assemble them when they were readily available while being minted; thus had NO CONTROL. Now, when they HAVE CONTROL, they would rather bash moderns while they lament over things they had no control over. As I stated, typical "knee jerk" responce.
I think $1000 for a Morgan that sat in a pile for 100 years is worthy of bashing. I mean, there's only $5 worth of silver and there's no history if it sat in a pile. "Yes, little Jimmy, Grandpa's 1883 dollar sat in a pile and never moved. Ain't that somethin?"
And the Barbers?? I thought that was a Roman dude.......
Which way to the MO state quarter rolls???
the new crowd pooh pooh'ed the idea of "fundamental value" and said, welcome to Modern Times!
well, they found out, once the music stopped. Yes a lot of people made a lot of money trading these issues, while they were on the rise and the public couldn't get enough of them, but huge numbers of people got left holding the bag when it turned out that these stocks were very common and not valuable, after all.
Yes, Claus, I am gnashing my teeth for not putting aside high grade moderns when they were dirt cheap.
Yes, that would be great to sell them now, and If there were a way to short them, I would do it.
What i would not to is buy and hold them during a HOT market, because it may cycle back down.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
they are all petty. I was one of the most rabid modern bashers up until 1972 when
many of the reasons I had for bashing were being transformed or ended. Much of
my reason was that these coins displaced the neat coins that were in circulation and
replaced them with ugl debased little slugs. There was even doubt in my mind that the
American economy could possibly survive the lack of real money. I fully expected the
currency to collapse in short order causing me and everyone a great deal more suffer-
ing. Likely some of the bashing is just left over from the old days when there really was
nearly nothing to like about them. It was very difficult to know in 1972 that any nice
coins even existed. It was very difficult to look at these coins and imagine anyone would
ever see anything other than junk. It was difficult to believe these coins really weren't
being set aside by the bag and room full.
Many people have hardly thought about the coins except to identify the proper denomination
to tender at the supermarket for decades. Then suddenly they hear that some maniac is
paying four or five figures just because one looks "a little" nicer than another. It's little won-
der that they see this as a threat to their hobby and to the wealth of the maniacs involved.
Really it's the bashers who are more able to change probably than those who just continue
to ignore the whole thing. While in most cases expecting a change might be unrealistic, where
there's life there's hope.
While this thread was never intended as a classic or a modern bashing thread it does seem
to be capable of change.
<< <i>
Yes, Claus, I am gnashing my teeth for not putting aside high grade moderns when they were dirt cheap.
Yes, that would be great to sell them now, and If there were a way to short them, I would do it.
What i would not to is buy and hold them during a HOT market, because it may cycle back down. >>
There may be a way to short these. PM me if you're interested, but no promises.
I'll warn you that the guys doing this are getting killed and loving it.
well, in that case I guess i'll just stay on the sidelines and look at my lightly circulated 100-200 year old coins.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>I look at it like art. It's safe to buy dead artists work because they aren't still cranking them out. You know what's out there and they've stood the test of time re: value. I've also been a lifelong collector of antiques. No reason to buy a new table when you can find a nice antique one - same mindset with coins, I guess.
Few of us are good enough to pick out contemporary art that will appreciate in value over time. If your able to do so with coins, great. Your smarter than the rest of us. >>
Lakesammman - Couldn't agree more -
THere's nothing wrong with collecting modern coins - that's where we should learn about coins - (it used to be the mistakes were affordable learning experiences - but w/1963 LHCs at $39K, I guess that's not true anymore) - but once we learn to understand & appreciate coins, then we can get into the good stuff (which for some might even be Frankies & Roosies - after all both of these series are approaching their 60th anniversary). but when you really get hooked, then you buy the stuff that's not made anymore & the fun is in finding the great examples that you drool over - I saw a 5 piece gilt Stella pattern set at LB & I had to get a paper towel to wipe up the saliva - & that was before I held the finest know coiled hair stella! At Baltimore I got to hold 2 Ultra high Reliefs (Thanks to Ira Goldberg) - so its classics for me - but there's a place for both moderns & classics & watching a YN learn about coins is almost as good as holding that coiled hair stella.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
A very nice post Sam, as always.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>
THere's nothing wrong with collecting modern coins - that's where we should learn about coins - (it used to be the mistakes were affordable learning experiences - but w/1963 LHCs at $39K, I guess that's not true anymore) - but once we learn to understand & appreciate coins, then we can get into the good stuff (which for some might even be Frankies & Roosies - after all both of these series are approaching their 60th anniversary). but when you really get hooked, then you buy the stuff that's not made anymore & the fun is in finding the great examples that you drool over ... >>
I started with the classics and now collect most all the moderns.
It might be noted that Ikes, SBA's, and the eagle reverse quarters are all obsolete.
Believe it or not one can drool over moderns.
Baley,
You've hit on the only real key complaint I have with the average anti-modern post. Although many of the arguments and warnings regarding pricing of common coins have merit, they all tend to lump the truly collectible coins with the common conditionally rare coins. Many collectors have searched for a very long time for some of the modern issues. The easy examples to bring to mind are dcam 65-66 SMS coins, high grade 71-72 clad Ikes, 50-59 dcams, etc... I have my own list, but those are a few highlights. Each of those coins has value to me without a holder, as do some others. If memory serves, when I began collecting, a 55 doubled-die Lincoln in gem sold for $350. I wouldn't pretend to advise fellow collectors regarding their collection, but I have and do gamble that those coins will continue to be long-term winners. Now, back to the regular discussion.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Believe it or not one can drool over moderns >>
Cladking - no argument from me on that issue - I like Pr DCam LHCs & Frankies & Washington quarters, etc, etc (not Ikes & SBAs though - but for aesthetic reasons - they just aren't very attractive - although I did see a toned Pr Ike with great colors & a cameo look - it was a drooly) -& I have collected & still have collections of these coins - even the Ikes
- BUT if I'm gonna spend $39K it won't be on a coin of which 3 Million were made & most are still available in the original sealed mint holders - I don't care if PCGS calls it a "PR100DCam with angelic toning floating on its pristine surfaces never touched by human hands even when it slipped from its sonically sealed mint plastic to the confines a special gold plated PCGS slab"- it's not a rare coin - it's a common coin - & even as the finest one graded (and even if there was a written guarantee that PCGS has viewed everyone of the 3 Million made, & promised never to grade one higher), its still not rare.
BUT I'd spend $39K in a heartbeat for a few of those wonderful and very rare patterns that Rick Kay has for sale, or for an 1893-S Morgan (though I'm not sure how nice the Morgan would be at $39K) or any number of Proof $5 or $10 gold Libs where the mintages are less than 50 coins & maybe 5-10 have survived - because in addition to being coins that you can drool over, they are excessively rare coins. I would guess, but I haven't added them up, that there are less total gold proof coins minted prior to 1915 of ALL gold coins minted by the US Mint, than there are Proof 1963 Lincoln pennies currently available to purchase.
So, although I like and collect some of the modern coins, what I want to own are rare coins that exemplify the coiners art - I'd take every one of those coins in Jeff Garrett's 100 greatest coins & think that I'd died and gone to heaven. I collect all coins, from ancient greek gold staters to some of the most recent State quarters - but if I'm gonna spend real money - its goes for real rarities - not coins where the rarity is based solely some grader's opinion that it looks better that the other 3 million examples & he assigns an artificial number that gives only the "appearance" of rarity.
I don't think the debate is about modern coins vs. classic coins, both are equally collectible. I think the real debate is where are the RARITIES with real value - & bashing modern coins or classic coins only serves to hide the real issue.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
How disingenuous to use as ones example perhaps the silliest purchase in the history of coins IMHO - NOT TO MENTION A CLASSIC COIN FROM 1963 (MOST STATE MODERNS START IN 1965 BUT THEY CONVENIENTLY USE 1963 AS A "MODERN" WHEN IT SUITS THEM) . It would be like finding the fellow who bought the most rediculous pattern coin purchase (like a $1,000 coin some guy paid $40,000 for) in the history of the world and using that example on a daily basis to argue that pattern coins sucked. THINK ABOUT IT HOW SILLY THE REFERENCE IS
Wondercoin
A 1963 Lincoln has a much higher reflief and a larger bust than a 2003 Lincoln, not to mention a different composition.
Bringing up the 1963 Lincoln to bolster's one's position is like telling school kids a joke with a bad curse word in the joke. Sure you can get a "cheap laugh" - but, a witty joke "earns" those laughs
Wondercoin
Hmm. Very interesting indeed? I guess every 1955 Lincoln cent looks the same.
What was your point behind posting the prices of MS-61 versus MS-65 coins? Are you comparing those four point differences in grade that represent substantial differences in preservation and the premiums you sighted to the miniscule differences and similiar premiums between MS-67 or 67 and 68 coins?
Cladking
You want to make this a modern versus classic issue. It's not. The issue is the myopic focus on one aspect of the coin as a whole and saying that that one very narrow characteristic, which boils down to a few ".." or the minute differences in luster or strike that exist between accurate grade MS-67 and 68 or 68 and 69 coins, should account for 99% of a coins value. The rejection of that premise has nothing to do with modern versus classic except that these types of one point premiums are more often paid for modern coins rather than classic coins.
I collect both modern and classic coins BUT I never assign 99% of a coins value based on a one point difference in grade. I try to balance all of the coins characteristics (absolute rarity, historical significance, preservation, etc.) in determining my assessment of a coins value. Using that type of balance in assessing value prohibits the things that account for one point differences in the higher MS grades to account for a huge percentage of the coins value over the value of coins in the next lower grade.
Ditto Newmismatist.
pmh1nic: I was addressing the specific comment of that poster. But, to address your separate point - that 1886(o) Morgan sheets at $4650 in MS64 and $140,000 in MS65. Since this is truly not a modern/classic debate, feel free to use this 1886(o) Morgan example as the "poster boy" for a $135,350 price jump for a tiny point on a coin sheeting for under $5,000 in the undergrade
Wondercoin
<< <i>
I collect both modern and classic coins BUT I never assign 99% of a coins value based on a one point difference in grade. I try to balance all of the coins characteristics (absolute rarity, historical significance, preservation, etc.) in determining my assessment of a coins value. Using that type of balance in assessing value prohibits the things that account for one point differences in the higher MS grades to account for a huge percentage of the coins value over the value of coins in the next lower grade.
. >>
I have very little control over this market. While I personally would also avoid such
premiums in many cases there are the many reasons for them which have been put
forth by me and others. Most of these reasons are mostly just speculation derived
from observed facts and extrapolation of known data. Again though, these markets
will do what the actual buyers and sellers want to do. Then those who observe the
market or print the price guides will attempt to make sense of it. These truly are
thinly traded markets and it seems every time we learn something of the principals
in the transactions they turn out to simply be collectors.
We can see the more heavily traded markets and these are increasing broadly in depth.
These to lead us to similar conclusions.
That people are willing to pay such premiums says many things about many things.
Not the least of which is the inescapable conclusion that some of these coins are rare.
Check out the
Cent Thread
on the registry forum. Perhaps this can provide some insights.
edited for tone.
<< <i>I used the baseball card analogy on another thread; here, I will use baseball the sport. Maybe there is a tendency to bash whatever is newer and contemporary just because it is so. No one bashes Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, or even that nasty Ty Cobb! They have been immotalized. But Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Pete Rose, arguably the modern equivalents, take a lot of heat. I wonder if in the 20's and 30's, Ruth and Gehrig were maligned while Harry and George Wright (of the 1870's Cincinnati Red Stockings) were praised and considered the measure of the ballplayer. >>
There was at least one move to remove Ty Cobb from baseball completely. There
were rumblings during his entire career.
"that 1886(o) Morgan sheets at $4650 in MS64 and $140,000 in MS65."
Whoever paid that premium needs to have their head examined (IMHO
I say that realize that the guy buying the MS65 for $140,000 may view the additional $135,000+ as deposible pocket change
Cladking
"I have very little control over this market."
True. The only thing we have under our control (ususually
"While I personally would also avoid such premiums..."
We're making progress
"in many cases there are the many reasons for them which have been put forth by me and others. Most of these reasons are mostly just speculation derived from observed facts and extrapolation of known data."
That sounds like the speculative thoughts of an investor rather then the myopic focus of a collector trying to convince himself that the difference between a MS-67 and 68 are really monumental.
"Again though, these markets will do what the actual buyers and sellers want to do. Then those who observe the market or print the price guides will attempt to make sense of it."
In my opinion the real value is found in the grade just under the huge price jump. If you're talking a 67 versus a 68 you're getting essentially the same coin with a miniscule mark or two in a focal area. There may be some very slight difference in luster but if we're talking accurately grade coins these coins are essentially the same. This is true whether you're talking about a State Quarter, a Jefferson Nickel or an Early Bust Half.
<< <i>."
In my opinion the real value is found in the grade just under the huge price jump. If you're talking a 67 versus a 68 you're getting essentially the same coin with a miniscule mark or two in a focal area. There may be some very slight difference in luster but if we're talking accurately grade coins these coins are essentially the same. This is true whether you're talking about a State Quarter, a Jefferson Nickel or an Early Bust Half. >>
There are cases where
the pop tops likely represent a better value but these will be the exception. (70-S nickel
for example). There will also be cases where the price jump occurs two or three grades down
from the top. In some cases the cheaper coins will be the better bet and in others the higher
grades.
People are still going to collect the coins that they want though. And supply and demand will
still determine the prices.
<< <i>pmh1nic: I was addressing the specific comment of that poster. But, to address your separate point - that 1886(o) Morgan sheets at $4650 in MS64 and $140,000 in MS65. Since this is truly not a modern/classic debate, feel free to use this 1886(o) Morgan example as the "poster boy" for a $135,350 price jump for a tiny point on a coin sheeting for under $5,000 in the undergrade >>
Wondercoin - the 28x price differential is probably not justified, but that coin is probably ultra rare in high grade (when I was actively collecting Morgans alot of the O mints were tough to find fully struck - not good quality control in New Orleans). But putting together a set of coins with a 100x price differential over the grade below would be even more absurd! Or would it - read on.
What follows was posted on Stuart's thread: Today's Coin Market -- My Personal Investment Perspective.
<< How disingenuous to use as ones example perhaps the silliest purchase in the history of coins IMHO - NOT TO MENTION A CLASSIC COIN FROM 1963 (MOST STATE MODERNS START IN 1965 BUT THEY CONVENIENTLY USE 1963 AS A "MODERN" WHEN IT SUITS THEM) . It would be like finding the fellow who bought the most rediculous pattern coin purchase (like a $1,000 coin some guy paid $40,000 for) in the history of the world and using that example on a daily basis to argue that pattern coins sucked. THINK ABOUT IT HOW SILLY THE REFERENCE IS >>
Wonder coin, I disagree with your premise that Moderns start in 1965 - THat's true for Roosies & Wash Quarters where the metal content went from silver to clad. But modern Lincolns start with the change to the Lincoln Memorial reverse in 1959 - The coin albums reflect this, as does the Registry sets - so you can't throw that 1963 into the classics, tain't - it's modern. But that's NOT an isolated example: If you were a new collector/investor the following would be good advice for someone who wanted to start collecting coins:
1. Collect something that has high demand.
2. Try & get the best grade you can afford.
3. Buy only PCGS slabbed coins - they are the most reliaible the msot accurately graded & over time will hold their value
Now so you know, I do not disagree with any of the above, I think more can be added to each of those statement, but none of the above statements is "bad" advice, But let's see what would happened if our "Novice Numismatist (NN for short)" blindly followed this advice w/o further thought:
He decides to collect Lincoln Memorial cents, because Lincoln pennies are the most widely collected series with thousands of collectors (some very knowledgeable like Stewart Blay, some novices just like NN). As soon as that's completed, he'll start on the earlier dates. Also, he likes the looks of this "classic" coin. He sees that there are many Registry sets and it is a "doable" series. One month before the 2002 ANA he inherits a very sizeable sum of money - he buys a bunch of books about Lincoln cents, reads them, and off he goes to the ANA, money in hand. He sees hundreds of dealers and is dazed and confused. Unsure of himself in navagating the bourse floor, he attends a Heritage signature sale, registers and gets a bidder card, and starting with the first lot he watches so he can learn the ropes. One thing catches his attention - there is a lot of bidding activity - there are real under-bidders and our NN waits patiently for the Lincoln memorial cents and takes the plunge. Following the sage advice of many whom he has consulted, he goes after the top pop coins in the series he has selected (Proof Lincoln Memorial cents), and he limits himself to PCGS coins only as he has heard from many dealers that he should stay away from coins graded by other grading services. In the process he resolves to list his set on the registry as soon as it is complete. He buys some coins at the 2002 ANA & deligently continues his quest. Exactly one year later, at the Baltimore ANA, he completes his set of 46 proof Lincoln Memorial cents - it certainly would be a top registry set as NN was able to acquire top pop coins for all but 10 coins. Every coin was bought in auction and every coin had an under-bidder. Of the coins he has purchased the following are his stats:
1959-1986 Top Pop coins with none higher all but 2 coins (1959 & 1964)
1987-2003 Top Pop coins with none higher for all but 8 coins, (1987, 1988, 1990, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002 & 2003) only because he didn't see any come up in any of the Heritage Auctions (NN is a very loyal fellow)
Cost for these 46 coins (every coin a real sale & can be verified on Heritage's auction Archives: ( I bet everyone knows where this is going by now - but this figure may surprise a lot of people) $141,429. An average of $3,075 for each coin (and yes our lucky NN got that POP 1 1963 Pr70DCam penny - spots and all) Here's his set:
Grading Purchase Top Pop/
Date Grade Service Cost Date # Available # Better
1959 Pr68DCam PCGS $920 4/30/03 Pr69DCam/ 3 3
1960 LD Pr69DCam PCGS $3,910 7/30/02 Pr69DCam/ 9 0
1960 SD Pr68DCam PCGS $2,530 7/30/02 Pr68DCam/ 10 0
1961 Pr69DCam PCGS $1,782 9/17/02 Pr69DCam/ 8 0
1962 Pr69DCam PCGS $1,207 1/11/03 Pr69DCam/ 29 0
1963 Pr70DCam PCGS $39,100 1/11/03 Pr70DCam/ 1 0
1964 Pr69DCam PCGS $201 1/13/03 Pr70DCam/ 1 1
1968-S Pr69DCam PCGS $3,795 11/23/02 Pr69DCam/ 22 0
1969-S Pr69DCam PCGS $1,150 5/3/03 Pr69DCam/ 35 0
1970-SLD Pr69DCam PCGS $3,220 11/23/02 Pr69DCam/ 33 0
1970-SSD Pr68DCam PCGS $4,600 1/11/03 Pr68DCam/ 11 0
1971-S Pr69DCam PCGS $14,950 7/29/03 Pr69DCam/ 4 0
1972-S Pr69DCam PCGS $1,006 9/20/03 Pr69DCam/ 50 0
1973-S Pr70DCam PCGS $6,325 1/11/03 Pr70DCam/ 4 0
1974-S Pr69DCam PCGS $1,265 1/11/03 Pr69DCam/ 145 0
1975-S Pr69DCam PCGS $1,150 7/29/02 Pr69DCam/ 84 0
1976-S Pr69DCam PCGS $1,207 7/29/02 Pr69DCam/ 65 0
1977-S Pr70DCam PCGS $3,565 1/11/03 Pr70DCam/ 11 0
1978-S Pr70DCam PCGS $3,680 1/11/03 Pr70DCam/ 10 0
1979-STy1Pr70DCam PCGS $10,925 3/23/03 Pr70DCam/ 9 0
1979-STy2Pr70DCam PCGS $2,760 1/11/03 Pr70DCam/ 23 0
1980-S Pr70DCam PCGS $3,680 1/11/03 Pr70DCam/ 16 0
1981-S Ty1Pr70DCam PCGS $8,050 1/11/03 Pr70DCam/ 8 0
1981-S Ty2Pr69DCam PCGS $718 3/3/03 Pr69DCam/ 65 0
1982-S Pr70DCam PCGS $3,220 1/11/03 Pr70DCam/ 12 0
1983-S Pr70DCam PCGS $1,725 11/23/02 Pr70DCam/ 25 0
1984-S Pr70DCam PCGS $1,380 9/17/02 Pr70DCam/ 32 0
1985-S Pr70DCam PCGS $575 7/29/03 Pr70DCam/ 34 0
1986-S Pr70DCam PCGS $1,955 7/29/03 Pr70DCam/ 26 0
1987-S P69DCam PCGS $87 1/13/03 Pr70DCam/ 5 5
1988-S P69DCam PCGS $37 11/25/02 Pr70DCam/ 19 19
1989-S Pr70DCam PCGS $1,380 9/17/02 Pr70DCam/ 33 0
1990-S P69DCam PCGS $80 7/29/03 Pr70DCam/ 7 7
1991-S Pr70DCam PCGS $603 7/29/03 Pr70DCam/ 28 0
1992-S Pr70DCam PCGS $1,380 3/23/03 Pr70DCam/ 28 0
1993-S Pr70DCam PCGS $632 3/1/03 Pr70DCam/ 49 0
1994-S Pr70DCam PCGS $1,955 11/23/02 Pr70DCam/ 23 0
1995-S Pr70DCam PCGS $2,530 11/23/02 Pr70DCam/ 12 0
1996-S Pr70DCam PCGS $1,610 7/29/03 Pr70DCam/ 32 0
1997-S Pr70DCam PCGS $356 8/6/03 Pr70DCam/ 14 0
1998-S Pr69DCam PCGS $36 7/29/03 Pr70DCam/ 1 1
1999-S Pr69DCam PCGS $36 7/29/03 Pr70DCam/ 1 1
2000-S Pr69DCam PCGS $31 7/29/03 Pr70DCam/ 1 1
2001-S Pr69DCam PCGS $57 2/23/02 Pr69DCam/ 894 0
2002-S Pr69DCam PCGS $42 10/15/02 Pr70DCam/ 6 6
2003-S Pr69DCam PCGS $26 7/22/03 Pr70DCam/ 10 10
Total $141,429
Total $141,429 (Average cost per coin $3,075)
If you omit his 8 non-top pop coins from 1987 onward ( which only average about $55 each) his average cost for the other 38 coins is about $3,700 per coin.
The problem with NN's collection is that he doesn't own a single rare coin! Probably the lowest mintage is the the 1959 Cent with only 1.1 Million, & all left the mint in sealed plastic, as did every other one of these coins. (I haven't checked, but I would bet that not many of those dates have less than 3 million made for each date)
Lets take this little hypothetical one step further: Suppose NN was satisfied with the next lower grade - how much would he have spent?
$1,306!! and about 10 coins would be in the exact same grade as the top pop collection listed above -
Query: which course is the best road for NN to take in his collecting endeavors? (To make this even more interesting, if NN had not listened to the sage advice he was given and simply dilegently searched for mint sealed proof sets, he could have purchased every coin listed above AND every other coin that came with the Lincoln penny in each of those proof sets for about $750 TOTAL, (perhaps as high as $1000 as there are a bunch of special proof sets & I'm not sure whether the Lincoln cent is in the special sets) with every coin sealed in plastic. check out the CDN Greysheet if you don't believe it)
So the question is not: Should NN collect modern coins? The question to be considered is: HOW should our intrepid NN collect modern coins?
So no one confuses this with bashing modern coins or registry sets. I have collected top pop coins, I have had a #1 registry set (Proof IHCs) & I have thoroughly enjoyed collecting them. I would put together a nice set of Lincoln memorial proof pennies, but if you gave me $140,000 I would have a lot of change left over - & I'd start working on one of those pattern coiled hair stellas, or a high grade 1793 Large cent or some wonderful proof gold coins, an 1895 Morgan, a set of Matte Proof Lincolns, etc, etc, etc. But I would not waste over $140,000 buying common coins. I'm quite certain someone could put together this same scenerio for other top pop modern coins, & I bet you could spend a Million dollars & own the same thing that a YN would own if he carefully purchased one of each proof set from 1950 to date - the earlier ones would be tough, but I saw a nice 1953 set and 4 nice 1954 sets at LB for greysheet bid, so with the exception of the 1950-1952, I know this would be very doable, fun & maybe quite profitable. Would they all be top pop DCams - certainly not, but it would still be a very impressive set of coins, especially if our intrepid NN actually sat down , learned to grade coins and looked at a lot of mint sealed proof sets - he might have fun, his downside would be minimal, and he might make some money on his collection if he learned to be selective and grade coins -
The last piece of advice that I'd give to NN is: Buy rare coins, not rare plastic. If that last bit of advice was followed, NN would have almost $140,000 left over to start his next series - not a bad grub stake.
But that's JMHO
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
so well said that I can only add, at this late hour:
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
You can't wear them down much more.
and forming alliances. lol
Re your `edited for tone`line:
I hope it was natural toning.
Unedited for natural tone
of which is that memorial cents are in high demand. Five years ago there were virtually no
collectors of these coins. Even today you'll find many dozens of people who collect the pre-
1959 cents before finding one who collects the later. True, I'm noy counting the many people
who collect these from pocket change. While these are real collectors collecting real coins they
have no effect on the market until they actually buy a coin.
Modern coins are a FAR larger field than merely proof cents. There are varieties (including three
major proof cents), there are eight different series of regular issue coins (And 25 states quarters),
There are numerous commems and special issues, they have been struck in 10 different metallic
compositions including three clads, there are three separate series of bullion coins and a series
which wasn't monetized. There are numerous moderns which were NEVER SOLD BY THE MINT. The
only way to obtain these coins was in circulation. Many of the varieties have still to this day not
been reported or have not actually been listed in any reference. If you want an example of one
of these you will not find a pop top in a pcgs slab or anywhere else in some cases other than in
circulation. Those who keep talking about how common moderns are would be well advised to
actually look at a few of them. They are found in circulation and not only are they often pathetic
there are some which are very difficult to find. A 1968-S cent for example was put in circulation- -
try to find one.
High grade proof cents truly are rare coins. These are not my "cup of tea" but those who find them
interesting AND can actually spot the difference in quality might well want to collect them. I person-
ally think there are many other moderns with far greater potential, but NO ONE KNOWS. Who would
have thought five years ago that it would ever be possible to spend $140,000 on a set of these?
If I were going to assemble this set, I'd poke through proof sets looking for the best coins. It would
cost a substantial amount of time and effort and more than a little cash to find the best coins. When
I was done the coins would in most cases be just slightly lower quality than the slabbed coins. There
would be more than a little money left and I'd have had a blast looking. But what about people for
whom this isn't a viable alternative? Some people with this kind of money find that it is time which is
more precious to them. There are people who don't have access to large quantities of sets to look
through. And there are people who prefer the experience of picking these coins off on E-bay much
more than cherry picking sets. And there are those who simply insist on the very best.
It always boils down to what it always does-- to each his own, and prices are set by supply and demand.
It doesn't matter one whit if one knowledgeable collector believes these coins are indistinguisable in
high grade. It doesn't matter that most of the hobby is screaming in unison that all these coins are a
sucker bet. The only thing that matters is what people are willing to pay or accept in payment for coins.
One would do well to think about the fact that the hobby considers these grossly overpriced. If so many
believe this then who's buying the coins. If the hobby disparages collecting these coins now that many
have gained substantial value, then who bothered to set them aside when they were just junk. And there-
in lies the reason that many of these coins are high priced- - no one bothered to save any.
Cam40: It was more like tarnish so it was stripped right off. Just one sentence though
which wasn't really insulting but did not convey the idea so much as send the wrong message.
Seems that Baley and Lordmarcovan feel as I do that classics hold an inherent value that, because they are so contemporary, moderns seem to lack. But that's just my opinion and I must admit that opinion is changing.
When I log on to the board, I always try to come to the table with an open mind. A lot of exotic dishes that I'm not familiar with are always on the menu, and some are admittedly too rich for my taste. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the bottle of '37 Lafitte, but for now I'll stick to my can of Foster's.
Great thread and I'm amazed it has lasted this many posts without collapsing into a free for all mudslinging contest. Perhaps we ARE evolving to some degree in our tolerance for other opinions.
Mojo
-Jim Morrison-
Mr. Mojorizn
my blog:www.numistories.com
Newmistmatist: Great post! A couple things you should know:
1. I have stated my belief that "moderns" begin as early as 1932 since the day I got to these boards. Let's just say, I have not seen much of a following adopting my view - so if it is 1965 (or any other date), so be it. ISN'T IT FUNNY THAT WE SPEAK OF "MODERN BASHERS" AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT A "MODERN" COIN OR SERIES EVEN IS!!
2. Personally, I ran from the 1970's to date proof70 Lincolns YEARS AGO. OK - perhaps a bit too early as coins I happily sold for a few hundred dollars then did trade for thousands of dollars. Recently (like in a day or two ago), I got into a pretty good battle on the Registry Board (come visit) when I seriously questioned a 1999(s) and 2000(s) Lincoln in PR70DC appearing to sell for close to $20,000/pair OR 1000X the price of the undergrade PR69DC coins which in my book are roughly $10-$15/coins!!! In fact, I alerted "pmh1nic" of this point on a thread, but, he never picked up on it 1000x jump in price for a 1999 and 2000 proof coin - JUST LIKE BILL JONES AND HIS $28,000 CONTINENTAL DOLLAR STORY, OR IF SOMEONE WOULD BUY AN 1886(o) MORGAN DOLLAR IN MS65 FOR $140,000 THAT WAS TRULY AN MS64 COIN WORTH $5,000 - SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO COMMENT, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. And, hey - it is just my opinion and I could be proven 100% wrong. Perhaps these PR70 cents will go to $20,000/coin 2 years from now - who am I to say. I was the "fool" that sold my proof Lincolns from the 1970's and 1980's for a couple hundred a coin a couple years ago and then watched a couple rise to $5,000-$10,000/coin as I sat in a Heritage auction room in disbelief
Anyway, Numismatist, if you read my comment here and find that we are still debating any particular point, let me know and I'll be happy to address it.
Wondercoin
bruce scher
Actually, I would start modern coins at around 1934 - we went off the gold standard, ceased production of all gold coins, recalled the 1933 Saints & consigned them to the melting pot, and a year later ended production of the Peace Silver dollars. But whether classic or modern, my point is really simple - if you're going to collect coins - become a COIN collector - not a collector of plastic INSERTS - coins are fun - modern coins are fun - there truly are condition rarities in modern coins BUT as a collector - keep rarity and value in prospective - TOP - POP coins are fantastic - I've owned many (the first 1860 Pr66Cam IHC, an 1871 Pr66RDCam - one of the nicest IHCs I ever owned, the Elaisberg 1909 Pr$20 - I currently own the only reported bronze IHC graded by PCGS as a DCam - and I wouldn't trade it for any of those PrDCam Lincolns - because I can pick 'em out of proof sets in dealers show cases at greysheet bid - At LB I purchased a 1960 Proof set w/a deep cameo quarter for $12 - I have no idea what its worth, but its a neat coin (as is the whole set) - I crossed an 1898 Pr66RD NGC coin to PCGS as a Pr66RDCam - it's the same coin, looks the same - but I bet I can sell it for more money now than before - same with the NGC 1895 Pr67RD which is now a PCGS Pr67RD - same coin - a great value in the NGC holder - I'd take a dozen if I could find 'em.
My advice to anyone who collects coins: Buy nice coins, understand what you're doing, buy the COIN, not the holder that its in, have fun, Collect coins, not paper grading opinions, learn how to grade coins, LOOK at coins & have fun - you can collect classic raw coins or SQs, you won't go broke, buy in the end you'll have fun, a nice collection & if you keep what you're doin in prospective, you might even profit a little, both for the experience and monetarily.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
The 1932(p) quarter should not be a "classic" and the 1934(d) quarter a "modern". That is why 1932 is a better year IMHO. But, I see your point.
Wondercoin
low mintage coins in 1932, largely because of the fiasco with the '31-S cent)
But there is a much more dramatic dividing line in 1965. Not only were there all the changes
imposed by the mint and by congress, there was also coin collectors' reaction of discontinuing
their collections at this time.
If you put the line at 1932 or '35 you still need another line at '65.
I consider the '32 to 64 coins to be neoclassical. And the '99 and later to be ultramodern since
collectors started collecting new coins again.
But, it is true that these "crap" BTW and WC coins of just a couple decades ago are now widely accepted as "five figure" CLASSIC rarities. And, IMHO, some moderns will also enjoy that scenario down the line. One does not have to be a great soothsayer to see that
Wondercoin