1883 to 1983. Great coins or hype?
cladking
Posts: 28,742 ✭✭✭✭✭
In 1883 the mint introduced the new liberty nickel to replace the never popular
shield nickel. Early in the year it was dicovered that the coin could be gold plated
and occasionally accepted as a five dollar gold piece since it was about the proper
size and its only statement of value was a large Roman numeral five on the reverse.
The mint added the words cents under the "V" early in the year to counteract this
practice. Approximately 75% of all nickels minted in the year had the word "cents"
on the reverse. While we normally don't think of people in the 1880's as big on setting
aside very many coins, they did. This is made obvious by the fact that today the scarcer
version of this date is very common. In fact is't common in nearly all grades so it was
saved quite early and many that got into circulation were also saved. The much more
common "with cents" variety was virtually ignored and allowed to wear out in circulation.
Today this much more heavily minted coin has a far greater value in all grades simply
because it wasn't saved.
Neither of these coins stand out a great deal as being ignored when compared to a coin
with very similar purchasing power minted a hundred years later. While there were some
thirty times as many 1983-P quarters minted, there was no mad rush to gold plate these
and pass them off as something they were not. There was no general consensus that these
might someday be highly collectible. There were not large numbers of people trying to make
sets of these coins from circulation. There are likely no more than a few tens of thousands
of these that were saved out by a handfull of people who cared about modern coins at that
time.
So why isn't the 1983 even worth as much in unc as the 1883 which was heavily saved?
How is it possible that a US coin that is not even extremely popular contains coins which are
very comparable to moderns but is valued many many times the highly touted modern?
title.
shield nickel. Early in the year it was dicovered that the coin could be gold plated
and occasionally accepted as a five dollar gold piece since it was about the proper
size and its only statement of value was a large Roman numeral five on the reverse.
The mint added the words cents under the "V" early in the year to counteract this
practice. Approximately 75% of all nickels minted in the year had the word "cents"
on the reverse. While we normally don't think of people in the 1880's as big on setting
aside very many coins, they did. This is made obvious by the fact that today the scarcer
version of this date is very common. In fact is't common in nearly all grades so it was
saved quite early and many that got into circulation were also saved. The much more
common "with cents" variety was virtually ignored and allowed to wear out in circulation.
Today this much more heavily minted coin has a far greater value in all grades simply
because it wasn't saved.
Neither of these coins stand out a great deal as being ignored when compared to a coin
with very similar purchasing power minted a hundred years later. While there were some
thirty times as many 1983-P quarters minted, there was no mad rush to gold plate these
and pass them off as something they were not. There was no general consensus that these
might someday be highly collectible. There were not large numbers of people trying to make
sets of these coins from circulation. There are likely no more than a few tens of thousands
of these that were saved out by a handfull of people who cared about modern coins at that
time.
So why isn't the 1983 even worth as much in unc as the 1883 which was heavily saved?
How is it possible that a US coin that is not even extremely popular contains coins which are
very comparable to moderns but is valued many many times the highly touted modern?
title.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.
0
Comments
The shield nickels of 1883 are also quite common. I understand that they were struck after the "No Cents" Liberty nickels were discontinued and before the "With Cents" Liberty nickels entered production a few months later. Can anyone confirm this? It seems logical, especially considering that there are several different 1883/2 Shield nickel varieties.
True, but...there is nothing simple about real life economics!
Oil, diamonds, interest rates and many other commodities are influenced by forces stronger than supply/demand.
Yes, even coin prices can be influenced by factors stronger than supply demand. I always scratch my head when I see common "key" dates going for big dollars. These are coins which are readily available in any auction or ebay on any given day. Why do the prices stay high? Perception is part of it and people who hoard certain dates thinking they are rare. The prophecy becomes reality, sort of. Often times the prices of these "rarities" don't move up or down much for years. Because there comes a saturation point where the hoard run out of capital or guts or both. For example there is one coin where both NGC and PCGS has graded only 38 coins. I have purchased every single one which has come to market anywhere for the past 3 years. The price did not budge for the first 2 years and now I see $1-1.5k increases in the AU range. Did my mini hoard of 9 coins finally put some pressure on those who "need" this coin and can't find any? If I were to sell them all at once would prices drop right away? Probably not as the perception of the coin still being rare would still be there.
BTW, there are many truly rare and affordable dates out there that speculators can corner to drive up the prices. Dealers have done that with Indian quarter eagles over the past 2-3 years. There is not a huge demand for these coins but delaers have hoarded coins and marketed them to raise prices.
a little elusive if you want to find a nice attractive example. This date does not
appear in regular mint sets. The bulk of the available supply comes from about
10,000 souvenir sets, 3,500 sets packaged by a Southern Illinois firm, a couple
thousand sets made by an East coast company and the handful of rolls which
were set aside. There were at least a couple of bags found so far and it's poss-
ible there will be more.
One can easily find either of the '83 nickels but you won't find the quarter at most
smaller and mid-size coin shows. Many of the quarters one does see being sold
as uncs are actually sliders that were pulled out of circulation when these got some
attention in the mid-'80's. And yes, they are quite difficult in high grade.
<< <i>Supply and demand. Clad coins just aren't popular. >>
Exactly the point.
<< <i>
The shield nickels of 1883 are also quite common. I understand that they were struck after the "No Cents" Liberty nickels were discontinued and before the "With Cents" Liberty nickels entered production a few months later. Can anyone confirm this? It seems logical, especially considering that there are several different 1883/2 Shield nickel varieties. >>
According to RW Julian the Secretary of the Treasury at the time, Folger, determined that the
patterns prepared to date did not meet the letter of the law and they had to be redone. Nickels
were needed so the shield design was struck until Jan 30, '83. The w/cents went into production
around March 22.
It was mint director Snowden apparently who spearheaded the drive to replace the shield nickel.
He wanted a more modern design.
How can a common coin which is in a series not usually considered very popular
be higher priced than a scarcer coin in a series which is supposedly "highly touted"?
Doesn't it seem likely that the demand for collectible clad is far smaller than even
one of the less popular classics?
CladKing: This phenonemon happens quite often in many classic coin series. There are numerous examples of higher mintage date & mintmark combinations which sell for more than their lower mintage counterparts.
Once we bring price into the equation, we must evaluate supply and demand. Demand is collector demand -- how many people want to collect it. The important measurement criteria for supply would be the remaining surviving examples of the coins, and their resulting state of preservation.
Some of these coins were made rare through low survival rate due to melting (Silver Dollars), poor average preservation state (Early Coppers), and the economic fact that most people in the 18th & 19th century could not afford to save higher denomination coins because they were worth too much money.
Many of the high denominational coins did not circulate that frequently, like the Morgan Silver Dollar and the $20 Gold Pieces (esp Saints because $20 was huge amount of money during the depression), so they were kept in banks and later uncovered as hoard coins. Even early coppers have their hoard coins. The Randall Hoard of Large Cents provided a nice supply of well-presereved early coppers that were found in a keg years after they were minted & released for circulation.
It seems to me that you are trying to draw parallels between "classic coins" and some coins that you believe are going to become "modern classics", which in 50 to 75 years or more may in fact be considered vintage classics.
There are many (inluding me -- I'll confess) who do not consider most of our current business strike coinage to have attractive designs, and who prefer the more intricate design styles on older coins that were possible because of the softer and more malleable metals that were used (Gold & Silver) back then.
I also consider the color and high metallic mint luster of the precious metals from which these gold & silver coins were minted to be more attractive than current business strike cupro-nickel clad coins.
Since I specialize in Silver Dollars & $20 Gold pieces, I wanted to put my 100 & 2000 cents worth into the discussion thread.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
<< <i>
It seems to me that you are trying to draw parallels between "classic coins" and some coins that you believe are going to become "modern classics", which in 50 to 75 years or more may in fact be considered vintage classics.
>>
Yes and no, but this isn't quite my question anyway. I believe that the parallels between the
1883 nickel and the 1983 quarter are very pronounced even down to the metallic composition
and their purchasing power at time of issue. Artistically neither was well liked at time of issue.
Today the nickel is in a series which is not considered extremely popular with collectors and there
is no doubt that the coin was heavily saved- - try to find an AG without cents. There really doesn't
seem to be much question that the '83-P is much scarcer in unc. It would seem that the implication
of the nickel selling for more money is that there are far fewer collectors of unc moderns than there
are for even a less popular classic series. So why do many continually refer to the moderns as
highly touted? If it were true that dealers and graders were trying to steer people to the modern
coins then one would have to conclude they've failed to date.
Sure the demand for these coins is rapidly increasing on a percentage basis but this is because
there were so very few collectors in the past. Gaining a hundred collectors in the "V' nickel series
would have no effect, but a hundred new modern collectors would affect the markets.
Disclaimers:
Certainly there are lots of circ '83-P quarters in circulation, but for the main part the people collect-
ing these are not paying premiums for many coins, and those buying moderns at premiums are not
collecting these from circulation. Yes there is overlap and it does go both ways. I saw a real nice
AU 1983-P go for more than $20 ! I in no way mean to demean V nickels or those who collect them.
These are great coins and many people enjoy collecting them in all grades.
Understand that clad quarters have not been "hyped' or "marketed" whatsoever. About a year ago, I had some brief discussions on the issue of writing a book on Mint State Clad quarters. When it came right down to it, it became clear my efforts would be better spent "in the field" simply pursuing finest known examples of these "sleeper" coins. I do understand a book is underway now, but, I do not know if it will focus on true condition rarity of the series, which I thought about doing. In many cases I have found the pop report does not clearly demonstrate the likely true rairty of many of the coins in the MS clad quarter series.
One of the greatest collections of high grade clad MS quarters (1965-1998) can still be assembled even today I believe for a fraction of the cost of a single (pop 9) 1926(s) Buffalo nickel in MS65!! Whether this makes the high clad quarters or the Buffalo nickel a "good deal" or "bad deal" - well, there, only time will tell
Wondercoin
I also don't understand the relevance of the comparison? I am sincerely trying to understand it, but have hit a mental roadblock.
<< <i>The two are not even close to being apples and oranges >>
I believe Cladking is making a statement or asking the question of the Ying and Yang or Thesis and Antithesis of the two examples he chose.
Why is a classic coin saved in large quantity in high grade from an unpopular series worth more than a modern coin not saved in high grade from a very popular series??
Make sense , now??
wasn't too much different really in 1983 except there were more coin collectors.
Rather than look at this from a collectors perspective, look at it from the outside. The coins have very
similar characteristics; lack of design popularity, similar purchasing power, lack of collector interest,
large mintages for the time, workhorse coin of their era, lack of investor interest, metallic composition
(only a few percent nickel and copper core separates them), and even their size is similar. The biggest
difference (other than age) is that the larger denominations for the older coin were coins and larger de-
nominations for the newer coin are notes.
Since prices are set solely by supply and demand and we have an indication of both the supply and the
demand for the older coin it would seem to follow that knowing the supply of the newer coin should give
one insights about the demand.
On this basis it would appear that there is virtually no demand for any uncirculated 1983 quarters.
This is a sorry excuse for a highly touted "commodity".
1. The liberty nickel has several things going for it.
a. A classic Greco-Roman design element that is popular with collectors (At least the collectors I know, including myself)
b. The 1913 nickel certainly drives that popularity.
c. The rackateer gold plating story offers mystique to the series and the 1883 date specifically.
d. There are similar phenomenon, including the 1916 dime, which was also saved profusely and is availabe in high grade, but still remains popular.
e. The first date or the opening date of the series is usually the most popular.
2. The clad quarter.
a. Yes, its rare, but there is that perception of a clad coin in lower grade as being common.
Yes, its a perception, and perception drives collecting habits alot.
I hope that helps.
If you want to collect MS-68 clad quarters, and are willing to pay $5000-$10,000 for one, then you either love the aesthetics of the series as a collector and/or you are making the purchase because you feel that it will be a good investment that will appreciate in value in the future.
I freely admit that I am one of those who do not consider most of our current business strike coinage to have attractive designs -- I just do not appreciate the design aesthetics of them.
I prefer the more intricate design styles on older coins that were possible because of the softer and more malleable metals that were used (Gold & Silver) back then.
I also consider the color, high metallic mint luster and heavy weight of the precious metals from which these gold & silver coins were minted to be more attractive and alluring (to me) than current business strike cupro-nickel clad coins.
The bottom line is that I collect what I like. It would be nice if at some point in the future the price of these coins which I enjoy collecting will be worth more than what I paid for them. However, I do not collect coins as a source of investment income. My core investment portfolio is in equity instruments (mutual funds, stocks, bonds & cash), not in coins.
Coins are part of the 10% "play money" that I use for either things that I enjoy collecting, or very high risk investments that I can afford to lose money on if they crater (I've had great success with these on average).
If you like to collect current U.S. coin series, that's great. If you want to drop $5000 to $10,000 on an MS-68 Washinton Quarter great. -- I wish I had one to sell you because I'd take the $5000 to $10,000 and would apply it towards purchasing a 1907 High Relief St. Gaudens $20 Gold in MS-63+ !!!
I can assure you of one thing. You will not be able to use discussions or agruments based upon logic to change either a classic collector's view on our current clad coinage, and shouldn't want to try. Just like I am not trying to change a clad collector's view on what they are collecting. I feel that it's "different strokes for different folks", and "live and let live"...
And that's my last post on this subject for a while, because for me this subject is getting quite stale....
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
is probably muddying the waters. First of I believe the existence of a MS-68 83-P quarter is hy-
pothetical. Even if it does exist there will be more collectors interested in it than investors.
While we all have favorite coins and the malleability and value of silver and gold certainly make
them attractive, the fact remains that the nickel was struck in copper nickel.
I hope that you are not trying to use the incorrect logic-by-association that since not all of the classic coins were struck out of precious metal, and some were struck out of cupro-nickel alloys, that somehow makes the current cupro-nickel clad coins more like classic nickels or nickel 3 cent pieces.
I mentioned in my post that I personally prefer gold & silver vs. cupro-nickel clad. I do happen to like the designs on some of the cupro-nickel based classic coinage like the Nickel 3 cent piece and the Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels. So, for me it's a combination of all of those attributes that attracts me to collect specific coins (Coin Design, Striking Characteristics, Luster, Metal, Availability & preservation state).
My personal collecting preference is for Large Gold & Silver Coins like the Silver Dollar and the $20 Gold Pieces. I have always loved the look and substatial weight of gold, and always will. It's just a personal preference.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
roadrunner
<< <i>
I hope that you are trying to use the incorrect logic-by-association that since not all of the classic coins were struck out of precious metal, and some were struck out of cupro-nickel alloys, that somehow makes the current cupro-nickel clad coins more like classic nickels or nickel 3 cent pieces.
. >>
No. Not at all. Coins are what they are. The nickel is a 120 year old copper nickel coin that
people in the United States used for decades. The '83-P quarter is a 20 year old copper nickel
coin that has been used for decades so far. No amount of logic or anything else will change
these facts. Whether you or anyone draws further distinctions is strictly a personal choice and
largely a matter of mere opinion.
My point is exactly as stated and no more: The demand for a relatively unpopular classic coin
far exceeds the demand for a very popular modern series. It is for each of us to determine if
this even has any relevance. I personnally believe it is extremely relevant at least to future
values if not to collecting desires.
1) Do you collect coins primarily as a pleasant hobby and past-time for the enjoyment of it?
2) Or, do do you invest in coins because you think that they will appreciate in value?
3) Or Both?
4) Do you collect clad coins (and perhaps also classics?) because you think that they are beautiful miniature works of the metallic art, for the satisfaction and challenge of finding a scarce coin (i.e. the Hunt), or because you feel that they will make good investments with future appreciation potential?
5) Or, all of the above?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
The 83 with cents costs about $700 in MS65 and about $1,500 in MS66. Not sure what the 83P costs. However, collectors are probably trying to figure out how many 93Ps can be graded in 65 or 66 and comparing that to the number of 83 with cents lib nickels. Can several thousand 65 83Ps be graded? How many 66s a hundred or so? The 83 with cents would probably be about 1/10th of that. If so, are the prices in line? If not, it indicates that there is somewhat more collector demand right now for lib nickels than for clad quarters.
No one knows what the demand picture will be in the future. However, if you think the clad quarter demand will rise relative to lib nickel demand then perhaps these clad quarters should be bought, especially by investors. If you think otherwise, better to pay more for Lib 5c and buy those. I don't know the answer, and I don't know the price of clad quarters, but they seem like there is some real potential for them.
Greg
<< <i>CladKing: I am curious to understand your motivation(s) for coin collecting...
1) Do you collect coins primarily as a pleasant hobby and past-time for the enjoyment of it?
2) Or, do do you invest in coins because you think that they will appreciate in value?
3) Or Both?
4) Do you collect clad coins (and perhaps also classics?) because you think that they are beautiful miniature works of the metallic art, for the satisfaction and challenge of finding a scarce coin (i.e. the Hunt), or because you feel that they will make good investments with future appreciation potential?
5) Or, all of the above? >>
You'd be hardpressed to find a reason I don't collect coins. I collect many dozens of things from clad
quarters to telephone tokens. The primary reason for each is that they are a hoot to collect. There are
also many different specific and general reasons that I collect what I do.
I collect the clads in many different ways but all these collections are strictly because I enjoy them.
It didn't start this way though. Initially I was simply buying them bacause no one else was and I
figured that eventually somebody would want them and only I'd have them. As the years went by
I found these coins increasingly intriguing and started collecting them too. Of course, it was soon
discovered there were a few others doing essentially the same, but these people are extremely few
and far between. Most of the great old clad collections probably won't hit the market for another
forty years.
Today I'm primarily a collector/promoter but still keep an eye out for dupes when they are available.