Options
Why Does The 1937(s)Quarter Sell So Cheap? Oreville Teaches Class: A Must Read!
wondercoin
Posts: 16,803 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here is a "done deal" on ebay. Less than $800 for a PCGS-MS66 Wash Quarter with the lowest mintage for the entire series besides 32d,s. And, blast white for good measure. Here is what the seller said in his ebay ad:
37(s) Wash Quarter - This Seller Is Right Isn't He?
So, why does the 37(s) Wash quarter with the lowest mintage in the entire series post 1932 (about 1.65 Million), sell for far less than other dates such as 35(d) (mintage about 5.75 million) and 36(s) (mintage about 3.8 million) - and of course 34(d) (mintage about 3.5 million) in the near top pop grade of MS66? Are all these other MS66 silver quarters overpriced, or is the 37(s) MS66 greatly underpriced right now?
Wondercoin
37(s) Wash Quarter - This Seller Is Right Isn't He?
So, why does the 37(s) Wash quarter with the lowest mintage in the entire series post 1932 (about 1.65 Million), sell for far less than other dates such as 35(d) (mintage about 5.75 million) and 36(s) (mintage about 3.8 million) - and of course 34(d) (mintage about 3.5 million) in the near top pop grade of MS66? Are all these other MS66 silver quarters overpriced, or is the 37(s) MS66 greatly underpriced right now?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
0
Comments
how bad. Ebay is a funny place to sell coins. Its feast or famine. The coin sold for under $800 simply
because the seller started the auction with a very low start price, no reserve, maybe didn't care what
it sold for, (maybe the coin was a 65 upgrade) and nobody fought over it. With a pop of 124 in a soft
Washington market the coin actually sold for more then I thought it would. That coin on ebay could
have sold for $600 just as easily as $1200. I think the coin did well in the current market.
Wondercoin
Now I will agree with that and take it a step further. Perceived value is what we are talking about.
Perceived value will always trump true value. The 34D, 35D and even the 36S has a higher perceived
value then the 37S amongst collectors. I believe it will always be that way. The same reason the
32-D&S quarters and the 09-SVDB cent and the 16D dime sell for such lofty prices even though all
those coins are available when ever you want one.
Look at the prices brought in by high grade Washingtons from certain years from the 80s and 90s...makes absolutely no sense at all to me particularly when someone can come out with a hoard of any one of these latter years and totally demolish present population and greatly diminish these coins' worth overnite whereas the older lower mintage ones are finite in nature.
<< <i>Prices within the 1932-1964 Washington series as a whole just do not make sense as alluded to by Craig. I really do not think that the series has even begun to take off as it should but inevitably it will.....someday. Very good question wondercoin. One that I have asked myself many times. The series just has not yet garnered the respect it is due.....yet.
Look at the prices brought in by high grade Washingtons from certain years from the 80s and 90s...makes absolutely no sense at all to me particularly when someone can come out with a hoard of any one of these latter years and totally demolish present population and greatly diminish these coins' worth overnite whereas the older lower mintage ones are finite in nature.
It's unlikely that there are any such hoards. It's not impossible, and some small accumulations
are almost to be expected but the difficulty of finding these when they were current is a major
limiting factor. If you checked one roll a day from different banks you could have found some
gems in almost any location. If you also bought an entire bag each time you found a gem then,
yes, you could amass a hoard of a few hundred pieces. I don't believe there was anyone doing
this. The banks were very reluctant to cooperate with such things and a lot of work was required.
No one believed that modern junk would ever have any value. Those few of us who were inter-
ested in the coins knew that looking for gems in mint sets was like shooting fish in a barrel, so
we looked in the mint sets.
In 1982 I looked for the finest quarters I could find in circulation. Finally in late summer a clerk
gave me a couple of pretty nice brand new quarters so I asked where they did their banking. As
luck would have it the bank was across the street and was where I did most of my own banking.
It was the regional bank (First National of E Chi, IN) at that time and probably supplied more banks
than any other in Lake County, Indiana. Despite being a customer they didn't want to have any-
thing to do with it. They had never heard of such a thing and didn't want to start at that late date.
I went home and poured over all my records to find five little mistakes which totaled about 27 cents
in my favor so went back the next day and requested they repair the errors and accept my money
to cover them. Instead they introduced me to the vault manager who told me he had never before
had a request for new coin.
This bag was spectacular. There were a couple runs in it which could be described as "typical", but
the bulk of the bag had some very nice runs from some pretty good dies. There was a "gem" run
like the ones I got at the store (which led me here) but the earliest strike was around 5,000 in this
run. The dies for these weren't perfectly adjusted so there was some weakness on all these spec-
imens. The finest one in the bag stood out pretty dramatically and was among the cleanest. This
coin a nice '80-P from a mint set (90th %ile). I'd grade it MS-65 and have yet to see a nicer one. The
other coins from the run are really nice MS-64's. This bag was almost certainly among the finest made
for this year and among the thousands of '82-P's I've seen (most from change) there aren't many coins
that can even stack up against the more average coins from this bag. In case you're wondering, I had
no inclination to tie up $1,000 in one date of clad quarter. The best couple hundred were set aside
and the rest were unceremoniously dumped into circulation. So, there's your hoard; a couple hundred
mostly MS-63 and MS-64 '82-P's.
Amassing hoards from mint sets is also improbable because of the huge amount of time, money, and
work that would be required. There is one entity on the east coast which has been attempting to do
just this but even with their resources they are not going to be able to get enough material coming in
do make a huge difference in the long run. It would be remarkable if they could get even 3% of the
gems for any given date. There has been some limited activity in all these areas over the years, but
the chances of anyone having lucked into a large number of any gem are remote at best.
This isn't to say that the pops will look much like they are now with more lower grades only coming in
till the end of time. There are more of the higher grades out there in the very small handfull of collect-
ions that have been made and in the few remaining raw coins which exist. There are also the long
term bulls who have set these coins aside and the mom and pop collectors who have large numbers
of "raw" coins. What it does say is that the high end of these population curves have been mostly
"fleshed out". While absolute numbers will continue to increase, the relative population will mostly
hold fairly steady except on the very low value pieces. Also remember that some populations are a
little distorted by the fact that the coin is worth a substantial amount in high grade so anything even
close can get submitted.
Boom: Over the past nearly (20) years, I have come across huge hoards of Silver Wash quarter rolls after huge hoards - in some cases bag counts of various dates throughout the 1950's and, of course, early 1960's. During the same time period, I have come across less than a handful of original bags of clad quarters for the entire 1965-98 series! Bottom line (IMHO) - virtually no one hoarded clad quarters - virtually no one cared, as most dealers still don't care even today about them nearly 40 YEARS LATER. Add to that Las Vegas, Atlantic City and a ton of smaller venues for slots in the 1980's and 1990's destroying millions and millions of coins per year in addition to normal use by the larger population of this country. In 1946, the US Mint produced more than 535,000,000 Wash Quarters at Philadelphia alone. In 1992, the US Mint produced less than 385,000,000 Clad Quarters for the same country (1971 - less than 110,000,000 produced in Philly). Yet, the clad quarter is generally regarded as the quarter with the outrageous mintages. Consider this country's vast demands for the quarters in 1992 vs. 1946. So, why is the (nearly unheard of grade of) MS67 1992 quarter considered "junk" and the 1946 quarter MS67 with a much higher pop in MS67 considered one of the "toughies" in the short set of silver quarters? Please check back with me in 20 years and let's revisit this subject.
Wondercoin
<< <i>virtually no one hoarded clad quarters >>
I have absolutely no reason to dispute this point as there certainly was no reason to do so...no indication, portent or harbinger of things to come and HAS in fact come, today. Had we only had a Crystal Ball !
I do not want to spoil it for you but here is a hint;
Take a look at the values of the 1937-S BU quarter in the 1960's and 1970's vis a vis the 1936-S BU quarter (for example). Better yet, produce a hierarchy of prices of BU quarters dated in the 1930's from the rarest to the most common in 5 year intervals starting with 1960 through 1980. Red book valuations are acceptable although Coin World trends are better yet.
Another hint; perception/knowledge of the the actual rarity of saved 1937-S quarter in the 21st century is very different than in the 1960's and 1970's.
Zach
Check my ebay BIN or Make Offers!!
The history of the 1937-S and its relative importance in the hierarchy of the of the key and semi-key washington quarters is quite different than what has been expressed so far in these threads.
I will try to post the complete history by later tonight.
If I forget or fall asleep, just send me a pm to wake me up!
Best!
I need an extension!
I need an extension!"
Robert: When I posed this question on this specific date quarter, I never expected it to take you this long to prepare your answer! Come on - we are all waiting!
Wondercoin
Here is the history of the valuation of 1932-1940 Uncirculated quarters since 1950. Note that there was no 1950 Red Book! Instead, I used the 4th edition 1951-52 Red Book.
Starting in 1980, I used MS-65 values.
Please note that I have used the "Red Book" by R.S. Yeoman to provide a consistent comparison.
To abbreviate this historical information, I have included the Red Book at 5 year intervals since 1950.
1951-2 Red Book, 4th Edition / Unc. Note: the 3rd edition Red Book was the 1949 Red Book!!!!
1932-= 1.75
1932-D 32.50
1932-S 17.50
1934-= 2.75
1934-D 2.50
1935-= 2.50
1935-D 2.00
1935-S 3.25
1936-= 1.75
1936-D 9.00
1936-S 2.75
1937-= 1.50
1937-D 1.50
1937-S 3.50
1938-= 1.50
1938-S 2.50
1939-= 1.50
1939-D 1.50
1939-S 2.25
1940-= 1.50
1940-D 2.25
1940-S 1.00
1955 Red Book, 8th Edition / Unc.
1932-= 2.50
1932-D 37.50
1932-S 20.50
1934-= 4.00
1934-D 4.00
1935-= 2.50
1935-D 4.00
1935-S 5.00
1936-= 2.50
1936-D 17.50
1936-S 6.00
1937-= 2.75
1937-D 2.00
1937-S 5.00
1938-= 2.75
1938-S 3.50
1939-= 2.50
1939-D 1.75
1939-S 3.00
1940-= 3.00
1940-D 3.50
1940-S 1.25
1960 Red Book, 13th Edition / Unc.
1932-= 5.50
1932-D 75.00
1932-S 35.00
1934-= 6.50
1934-D 12.00
1935-= 5.00
1935-D 11.00
1935-S 12.50
1936-= 3.75
1936-D 65.00
1936-S 12.50
1937-= 4.00
1937-D 4.50
1937-S 12.50
1938-= 17.50
1938-S 7.00
1939-= 4.50
1939-D 4.50
1939-S 8.50
1940-= 5.50
1940-D 9.00
1940-S 2.50
1965 Red Book, 18th Edition / Unc.
1932-= 8.50
1932-D 165.00
1932-S 80.00
1934-= 11.50
1934-D 52.50
1935-= 9.00
1935-D 37.50
1935-S 36.50
1936-= 8.00
1936-D 180.00
1936-S 30.00
1937-= 8.00
1937-D 11.75
1937-S 60.00
1938-= 48.50
1938-S 22.50
1939-= 8.50
1939-D 8.50
1939-S 25.00
1940-= 11.00
1940-D 32.50
1940-S 7.00
1970 Red Book, 23rd Edition / Unc.
1932-= 14.00
1932-D 225.00
1932-S 115.00
1934-= 12.00
1934-D 65.00
1935-= 9.00
1935-D 55.00
1935-S 37.50
1936-= 7.50
1936-D 250.00
1936-S 35.00
1937-= 7.50
1937-D 12.00
1937-S 55.00
1938-= 47.50
1938-S 30.00
1939-= 7.00
1939-D 9.00
1939-S 32.50
1940-= 8.50
1940-D 42.50
1940-S 7.00
1975 Red Book, 28th Edition / Unc.
1932-= 27.50
1932-D 350.00
1932-S 170.00
1934-= 12.00
1934-D 75.00
1935-= 9.50
1935-D 70.00
1935-S 35.00
1936-= 10.00
1936-D 260.00
1936-S 36.00
1937-= 12.00
1937-D 26.00
1937-S 70.00
1938-= 42.00
1938-S 37.50
1939-= 8.00
1939-D 10.00
1939-S 37.50
1940-= 8.75
1940-D 50.00
1940-S 18.00
1980 Red Book, 33rd Edition / MS-65.
1932-= 45.00
1932-D 1650.00
1932-S 550.00
1934-= 25.00
1934-D 225.00
1935-= 20.00
1935-D 200.00
1935-S 125.00
1936-= 22.00
1936-D 525.00
1936-S 175.00
1937-= 25.00
1937-D 80.00
1937-S 250.00
1938-= 100.00
1938-S 125.00
1939-= 16.00
1939-D 60.00
1939-S 125.00
1940-= 16.00
1940-D 115.00
1940-S 27.50
1985 Red Book, 38th Edition / MS-65.
1932-= 150.00
1932-D 3000.00
1932-S 1400.00
1934-= 70.00
1934-D 450.00
1935-= 60.00
1935-D 450.00
1935-S 250.00
1936-= 55.00
1936-D 800.00
1936-S 225.00
1937-= 45.00
1937-D 130.00
1937-S 300.00
1938-= 165.00
1938-S 160.00
1939-= 30.00
1939-D 100.00
1939-S 160.00
1940-= 27.00
1940-D 165.00
1940-S 40.00
1990 Red Book, 43rd Edition / MS-65.
1932-= 450.00
1932-D 4000.00
1932-S 2500.00
1934-= 175.00
1934-D 950.00
1935-= 200.00
1935-D 850.00
1935-S 600.00
1936-= 200.00
1936-D 2000.00
1936-S 450.00
1937-= 200.00
1937-D 350.00
1937-S 750.00
1938-= 400.00
1938-S 425.00
1939-= 125.00
1939-D 250.00
1939-S 350.00
1940-= 50.00
1940-D 400.00
1940-S 100.00
1995 Red Book, 48th Edition / MS-65.
1932-= 200.00
1932-D 4500.00
1932-S 3500.00
1934-= 100.00
1934-D 850.00
1935-= 75.00
1935-D 300.00
1935-S 200.00
1936-= 65.00
1936-D 850.00
1936-S 110.00
1937-= 85.00
1937-D 100.00
1937-S 165.00
1938-= 120.00
1938-S 120.00
1939-= 55.00
1939-D 75.00
1939-S 120.00
1940-= 37.00
1940-D 90.00
1940-S 45.00
2000 Red Book, 53rd Edition / MS-65.
1932-= 200.00
1932-D 4500.00
1932-S 2750.00
1934-= 100.00
1934-D 900.00
1935-= 65.00
1935-D 375.00
1935-S 175.00
1936-= 45.00
1936-D 700.00
1936-S 120.00
1937-= 70.00
1937-D 80.00
1937-S 165.00
1938-= 110.00
1938-S 100.00
1939-= 45.00
1939-D 65.00
1939-S 110.00
1940-= 35.00
1940-D 100.00
1940-S 40.00
2005 Red Book, 58th Edition / MS-65.
1932-= 400.00
1932-D 24000.00
1932-S 6500.00
1934-= 125.00
1934-D 1500.00
1935-= 120.00
1935-D 900.00
1935-S 300.00
1936-= 90.00
1936-D 1500.00
1936-S 400.00
1937-= 100.00
1937-D 150.00
1937-S 300.00
1938-= 250.00
1938-S 225.00
1939-= 60.00
1939-D 100.00
1939-S 300.00
1940-= 75.00
1940-D 300.00
1940-S 70.00
Just for comparison sake, I have included PCGS price guide for MS-65 graded 1932-1940 quarters
PCGS Price guide as of September 10, 2005
1932-= 475.00
1932-D 27500.00
1932-S 7500.00
1934-= 95.00
1934-D 1550.00
1935-= 125.00
1935-D 1000.00
1935-S 350.00
1936-= 95.00
1936-D 1750.00
1936-S 425.00
1937-= 95.00
1937-D 165.00
1937-S 350.00
1938-= 220.00
1938-S 215.00
1939-= 70.00
1939-D 115.00
1939-S 285.00
1940-= 75.00
1940-D 300.00
1940-S 60.00
2005 Red Book info will be posted soon.....
Here is my analysis of the history of the valuation of 1932-1940 Uncirculated quarters since 1950 (MS-65 since 1980).
Please note that I have used the "Red Book" by R.S. Yeoman to provide a consistent comparison and for the last column, the PCGS prices.
To abbreviate this historical analysis, I have included the Red Book at 5 year intervals since 1950. For some reason, I could not locate my 1950 Red Book (3rd edition at the moment LOL =FOUND MY 3RD EDITION AND FORGOT THAT IT WAS A 1949 RED BOOK AND THERE WAS NO 1950 RED BOOK! ===)
Thanks to cladking and wondercoin for their assistance.
Numerical rating score for each date/mm from high to low from 1950 to 2005 (note that the highest rating is 1 with the lowest being 9):
Example 1932-D was #1 in price in most years since 1950 as reflected in its usual #1 score.
Note that more than one date and m/m can receive the same score for ties in pricing in a given year.
1932-= 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,8,9,6,6,6
1932-D 1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
1932-S 2,2,3,3,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,2,2
1934-= 6,6,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9
1934-D 7,6,6,5,4,4,5,4,4,3,3,3,4
1935-= 7,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,3,9,9,9,9
1935-D 9,6,7,7,5,5,6,4,5,4,5,5,5
1935-S 4,5,5,8,8,9,8,6,7,5,7,8,8
1936-= 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9
1936-D 5,3,2,1,1,2,2,3,3,3,4,3,3
1936-S 6,4,5,9,9,9,7,7,8,8,9,6,7
1937-= 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9.9,9,9
1937-D 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9
1937-S 3,5,5,4,5,5,4,5,6,6,8,8,8
1938-= 9,9,4,6,6,7,9,8,9,7,9,9,9
1938-S 7,7,9,9,9,8,8,9,9,7,9,9,9
1939-= 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9
1939-D 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9
1939-S 8,8,9,9,9,8,8,9,9,7,9,8,9
1940-= 9,8,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9
1940-D 8,7,8,9,7,6,9,8,9,9,9,8,9
1940-S 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9
INDEX:
1 = highest price within the year reported (column)
9 = lowest price within the year reported (column)
1st column is 1950, 2nd column is 1955, and so forth.
Note: column of all x's = missing information from 2005 Red Book which was not available at time of this posting.
Just for comparison sake, the last column is the 1 to 9 price score based on the PCGS price guide for MS-65 graded 1932-1940 quarters
PCGS Price guide as of September 10, 2005.
There is an awful lot of information that can be gleaned from this information, some of which will be highlighted in part III of my book report.
Pop reports of BU quarters in MS-64/65/66/67 per PCGS January 2005:
1932-= 659/327/95/1
1932-D 370/56/1/0
1932-S 744/75/4/0
1934-= 762/542/286/52 also 1 in MS-68
1934-D 415/215/58/3
1935-= 446/647/410/57 also 1 in MS-68
1935-D 474/304/120/9
1935-S 469/315/150/13
1936-= 401/679/325/37
1936-D 441/215/97/8
1936-S 566/558/163/16
1937-= 280/331/215/42
1937-D 434/508/146/19
1937-S 573/421/110/11
1938-= 273/344/183/20
1938-S 468/546/255/26
1939-= 254/540/470/156 also 2 in MS-68
1939-D 340/610/330/33
1939-S 309/392/201/14
1940-= 95/273/310/57 also 1 in MS-68
1940-D 389/469/201/19
1940-S 189/579/384/27 also 1 in MS-68
Remainder being edited.....
Interesting observations and comments:
(1) How many collectors know that in 1965 and 1970 the 1932-D quarter was NOT the most expensive mint state quarter in the series?
(2) How many collectors know that in 1965 and 1970 as well as inbetween the 1936-D quarter was the KING of mint state quarters?
(3) How many collectors know that in 1950, the 1934-D & 1935-D mint state quarters were considered MORE COMMON than the 1934-P?
(4) How many collectors know that in 1950 the 1937-S mint state quarter was the 3rd most expensive date in the series?
(5) How many collectors know that after 40 years of being in the top 5, the 1937-S has now dropped to #8 in the past 10 years?
(6) How many collectors know how the 1936-D quarter has had the most erratic price history of all early date quarters in mint state?
(7) How many collectors know that the 1932-P was considered to be an unimportant and also-ran date/mm until the last 10 years or so.
(8) How many collectors know WHY the 1937-S was the 3rd lowest mintage quarter?
(9) How many collectors know & understand why the survival rate of the P&S mint marked quarters were higher than the D mint in the 30's?
(10)How many colloctors know that the 1932-P/D/S were originally meant to be one year commemoratives honoring George Washington?
(11)How many collectors have really followed the yearly pop report changes of these quarters from PCGS/NGC since 1988?
(12)How many collectors know how many BU quarter rolls survive of the Washington quarter date/mm of the 1930's?
(13)How many collectors know why the Washington quarters of 1932-1940 is part of set #1 and 1941-1964 is part of set #2?
(14)How many collectors know why there were no Washington quarters issued in 1933?
(15)How many collectors know why the 1932-P quarter has become more prized to collectors during the past 10 years?
(16)How many collectors ............much more to follow.........
There's a lot to digest here.
Thanks for the info.Great post.
Al
Wondercoin
Perhaps I should summarize my pricing model as follows:
(1)Extreme Reward pricing============MS-65 price x pop of MS-66 and better (similar to Aggressive)
(2)Regular Reward pricing=============MS-65 price x pop of MS-65 and better (similar to Growth)
(3)Risk Adverse pricing===============MS-65 price x pop of MS-65 and MS-64 (similar to Conservative)
(4)Balanced Risk/Reward pricing=========MS-65 price x pop of MS-65 and MS-64 and MS-66 & better (similar to balanced)
(5)My formula????? I take a mean, sometimes median average of the the four pricing models above.
Other collectors may prefer other approaches. Example, a collector with extreme risk aversion may prefer to multiply in this MS-65 coin, the MS-63, MS-64 and MS-65 population to the MS-65 price to come up with the valuation of all possible "underdog" coins graded as much as 2 grades below the MS-65 grade. I will sometimes use this pricing method when I am suspicious that a price of a certain coin is too good to be true based on the other pricing models.
I have quite frankly found the model of MS-65 pricing which is MS-65 price x population is too simplistic by itself but will also discuss that most obvious form of determining "value."
Now I do not speak of "investing" in coins but when confronted with a decision on what coin to buy next and you have a few dates/mm to choose from of similar quality, pedigree, and price; certainly the collector/buyer has to make a choice as he lives in a world of limits. He cannot afford them all at the same time! What to buy first?
Most collector friends and dealers simply counsel "buy the best coin you can afford." But what if the collector can afford any one of the three and all three are priced nearly the same and all look equally great to the collector? In this case, the collector would hope to buy the "underpriced" and/or "sleeper" coin rather than the other way around.
These pricing models help the collector make some kind of rational mathematical calculation with the understanding that the population reports may be skewed, quantity of raw coins lurking in the background, etc. may affect the legitimacy of these mathematical calculations. But the collector needs to start somewhere and then do "due diligence" to make the best possible purchase at that precise time.
MS-65 Extreme (Some call it Upgrade) Reward Price (Valuation) of all coins slabbed in HIGHER GRADE than MS-65 by PCGS population count based on latest price. Simply multiply the total number of coins graded higher than MS-65 by the dollar value of the MS-65 price. Obviously the lower the total valuation is for each coin, the more attractive the upside valuation is for either upgrade or perceived "potential" in the MS-65 graded coin. As you can see from the below chart, the 1937 followed by the 1940-S (2nd) and 1937-D (3rd) are the lowest priced coins from the standpoint of extreme reward. True, I have not factored in the difference in the valuation of the higher grade coin as compared to the MS-65 grade. It is also understood that the more expensive coins will fare more poorly since they are more apt to be slabbed, cracked out and regraded than the less expensive coins. Furthermore, it is less likely that there are any significant quantities of rolls and single raw coin hoards remaining of the well known/expensive coins vis a vis the less expensive coins which is not factored into this analysis and is difficult to quantitify in the pricing/valuation element. Also note that the 1937-S did not make it into the top 8 rated coins.
MS-65 Extreme Reward Price/Valuation based on PCGS Price guide as of September 10, 2005
1932-= 475.00x96===$ 45,600
1932-D 27500.00x1==$ 27,500 #4
1932-S 7500.00x4===$ 30,000 #6
1934-= 95.00x339===$ 32,205 #7
1934-D 1550.00x61==$ 94,550
1935-= 125.00x468==$ 58,500
1935-D 1000.00x129=$129,000
1935-S 350.00x163==$ 57,050
1936-= 95.00x362===$ 34,390 #8
1936-D 1750.00x105=$183,750 (Last place -least reward)
1936-S 425.00x179==$ 76,075
1937-= 95.00x257===$ 24,415 #1 (Winner)
1937-D 165.00x165==$ 27,225 #3
1937-S 350.00x121==$ 42,350
1938-= 220.00x203==$ 44,660
1938-S 215.00x281==$ 60,415
1939-= 70.00x628===$ 43,960
1939-D 115.00x363==$ 41,745
1939-S 285.00x215==$ 61,275
1940-= 75.00x368===$ 27,600 #5
1940-D 300.00x220==$ 66,000
1940-S 60.00x412===$ 24,720 #2 (2nd place)
========================
MS-65 Regular Reward Price/Valuation of all coins slabbed MS-65 as well as in HIGHER GRADES by PCGS population count based on latest price. Simply multiply the total number of coins graded MS-65 and higher by the dollar value of the MS-65 price. Obviously the lower the total valuation is for each coin, the more attractive the valuation is for the coin in the MS-65 grade since there is less valuation when combing MS-65 with finer graded coins. As you can see from the below chart, the the 1940 took top honors followed by the 1937 (2nd) and the 1940-S (3rd) are the lowest priced coins from the standpoint of regular reward. True, I have not factored in the difference in the valuation of the higher grade coin as compared to the MS-65 grade. It is also understood that the more expensive coins will fare more poorly since they are more apt to be slabbed, cracked out and regraded than the less expensive coins. Furthermore, it is less likely that there are any significant quantities of rolls and single raw coin hoards remaining of the well known/expensive coins vis a vis the less expensive coins which is not factored into this analysis and is difficult to quantitify in the pricing/valuation element. Also note that once again, the 1937-S did not make it into the top 8 rated coins.
MS-65 Regular Reward Price/Valuation based on PCGS Price guide as of September 10, 2005
1932-= 475.00x423===$ 200,925
1932-D 27500.00x57==$1,567,500 last - least reward
1932-S 7500.00x79===$ 592,500
1934-= 95.00x881====$ 83,695 #5
1934-D 1550.00x276==$ 427,800
1935-= 125.00x1115==$ 139,375
1935-D 1000.00x433==$ 433,000
1935-S 350.00x721===$ 252,350
1936-= 95.00x1041===$ 98,895 #6
1936-D 1750.00x320==$ 560,000
1936-S 425.00x737===$ 313,225
1937-= 95.00x588====$ 55,860 #2 (2nd place)
1937-D 165.00x673===$ 111,045 #7
1937-S 350.00x542===$ 189,700
1938-= 220.00x547===$ 120,340
1938-S 215.00x827===$ 111,895 #8
1939-= 70.00x1168===$ 82.760 #4
1939-D 115.00x973===$ 111,895 #8
1939-S 285.00x607===$ 172,995
1940-= 75.00x641====$ 48,075 #1 (Winner)
1940-D 300.00x689===$ 206,700
1940-S 60.00x991====$ 59,460 #3 (3rd place)
=====================
MS-65 Risk Adverse Pricing/Valuation of all coins slabbed MS-65 as well as in LOWER GRADE of MS-64 by PCGS population count based on latest price. Simply multiply the total number of coins graded MS-65 and MS-64 by the dollar value of the MS-65 price. Obviously, the lower the total valuation is for each coin, the more attractive the valuation is for the coin in the MS-65 grade since there is less valuation when combining MS-65 and MS-64 graded coins. As you can see from the below chart, the the 1940 took top honors followed by the 1940-S (2nd) and the 1939 (3rd) are the best priced coins from the standpoint of risk aversion. . True, I have not factored in the difference in the valuation of the MS-64 graded coins as compared to the MS-65 grade. It is also understood that the more expensive coins will fare more poorly since they are more apt to be slabbed, cracked out and regraded than the less expensive coins. Furthermore, it is less likely that there are any significant quantities of rolls and single raw coin hoards remaining of the well known/expensive coins vis a vis the less expensive coins which is not factored into this analysis and is difficult to quantitify in the pricing/valuation element. Also note that once again, the 1937-S did not make it into the top 8 rated coins.
MS-65 Risk Adverse Pricing/Valuation based on PCGS Price guide as of September 10, 2005
1932-= 475.00x986=====$ 468,350
1932-D 27500.00x426===$11,715,000 Last - Most risky
1932-S 7500.00x819====$ 6,142,500
1934-= 95.00x1304=====$ 123,880 #7
1934-D 1550.00x630====$ 976,500
1935-= 125.00x1093====$ 136,625
1935-D 1000.00x778====$ 778,000
1935-S 350.00x784=====$ 274,400
1936-= 95.00x1080=====$ 102,600 #5
1936-D 1750.00x656====$ 1,148,000
1936-S 425.00x1124====$ 477,700
1937-= 95.00x611======$ 58,045 #4
1937-D 165.00x942=====$ 155,430
1937-S 350.00x994=====$ 347,900
1938-= 220.00x617=====$ 135,740 #8
1938-S 215.00x1014====$ 218,010
1939-= 70.00x794======$ 55,580 #3 (3rd place)
1939-D 115.00x950=====$ 109,250 #6
1939-S 285.00x701=====$ 199,785
1940-= 75.00x368======$ 27,600 #1 (Winner - Least Risky)
1940-D 300.00x858=====$ 257,400
1940-S 60.00x768======$ 46,080 #2 (2nd place)
==========================
MS-65 Balanced Risk/Reward Pricing/Valuation of all coins slabbed MS-65 as well MS-64, MS-66 and all grades better based on latest price.
Simply multiply the total number of coins graded MS-64 to MS-70 by the dollar value of the MS-65 price. Obviously, the lower the total valuation is for each coin, the more attractive the valuation is for the coin in the MS-65 grade since there is less valuation when combining all MS-64 and better slabbed coins. As you can see from the below chart, the 1940 took top honors followed by the 1940-S (2nd) and the 1937 (3rd) from the standpoint of balanced risk/reward valuation. True, I have not factored in the difference in the valuation of the MS-64 graded coins as compared to the MS-65 grade. It is also understood that the more expensive coins will fare more poorly since they are more apt to be slabbed, cracked out and regraded than the less expensive coins. Furthermore, it is less likely that there are any significant quantities of rolls and single raw coin hoards remaining of the well known/expensive coins vis a vis the less expensive coins which is not factored into this analysis and is difficult to quantitify in the pricing/valuation element. Also note that once again, the 1937-S did not make it into the top 8 rated coins.
MS-65 Balanced Risk/Reward pricing (which is based on MS-65 price x pop of MS-64, MS-65 and all grades better) based on PCGS price guide as of September 10, 2005
1932-= 475.00x1409====$ 669,275
1932-D 27500.00x483===$13,282,500 Last
1932-S 7500.00x898====$ 6,735,000
1934-= 95.00x2185=====$ 207,575 #6
1934-D 1550.00x906====$ 1,404,300
1935-= 125.00x2208====$ 276,000
1935-D 1000.00x1211===$ 1,211,000
1935-S 350.00x1505====$ 526,750
1936-= 95.00x2121=====$ 201,495 #5
1936-D 1750.00x976====$ 1,708,000
1936-S 425.00x1861====$ 790,925
1937-= 95.00x1199=====$ 113,905 #3 (3rd place)
1937-D 165.00x1615====$ 266,475
1937-S 350.00x1536====$ 537,600
1938-= 220.00x1164====$ 256,080 #8
1938-S 215.00x1841====$ 395,815
1939-= 70.00x1962=====$ 137,340 #4
1939-D 115.00x1923====$ 221,145 #7
1939-S 285.00x1308====$ 372,780
1940-= 75.00x1009=====$ 75,675 #1 (Winner)
1940-D 300.00x1547====$ 464,100
1940-S 60.00x1759=====$ 105,540 #2 (2nd place)
===========================================
I have used such pricing model to help me make purchasing decisions with great success over the years.
One of my pricing formula approaches is to combining the different models by assigning them a rating of 1 to 9. Such formula was always based on avoiding extremes in either direction by limiting the loser coins to no worse than a rating of 9 (worst possible rating) and that the winner, no better than a number 1 rating. This tends to minimize the extremes in either direction of overvaluation or undervaluation.
The first pricing formula is to determine the best “bang for the buck” by combining the ratings I assigned previously for the first three price valuations I have listed above (and excludes the Balanced Risk/Reward Pricing formula element):
Once again, they are:
(1) Extreme Reward Price/Valuation
(2) Regular Reward Price/Valuation
(3) Risk Adverse Pricing/Valuation
Final Ratings of #1 to #10 (best to worst in each of the above pricing element)
1932-= 9+9+9=27 #10
1932-D 4+9+9=22 #6
1932-S 6+9+9=24 #8
1934-= 7+5+7=19 #4
1934-D 9+9+9=27 #10
1935-= 9+9+9=27 #10
1935-D 9+9+9=27 #10
1935-S 9+9+9=27 #10
1936-= 8+6+5=27 #10
1936-D 9+9+9=27 #10
1936-S 9+9+9=27 #10
1937-= 1+2+4=7 #1 (Winner)
1937-D 3+7+9=19 #5
1937-S 9+9+9=27 #10
1938-= 9+9+8=26 #9
1938-S 9+8+9=26 #9
1939-= 9+4+3=16 #3 (3rd place)
1939-D 9+8+6=23 #7
1939-S 9+9+9=27 #10
1940-= 9+1+1=11 #2 (2nd place)
1940-D 9+9+9=27 #10
1940-S 2+3+2=7 #1 (Winner)
Let's re-list these coins in the priority of “best” valuation:
1937-= 1+2+4=7 #1 (Winner)
1940-S 2+3+2=7 #1 (Winner)
1940-= 9+1+1=11 #2 (2nd place)
1939-= 9+4+3=16 #3 (3rd place)
1934-= 7+5+7=19 #4
1937-D 3+7+9=19 #5
1932-D 4+9+9=22 #6
1939-D 9+8+6=23 #7
1932-S 6+9+9=24 #8
1938-= 9+9+8=26 #9
1938-S 9+8+9=26 #9
1932-= 9+9+9=27 #10
1934-D 9+9+9=27 #10
1935-= 9+9+9=27 #10
1935-D 9+9+9=27 #10
1935-S 9+9+9=27 #10
1936-= 8+6+5=27 #10
1936-D 9+9+9=27 #10
1936-S 9+9+9=27 #10
1937-S 9+9+9=27 #10
1939-S 9+9+9=27 #10
1940-D 9+9+9=27 #10
Keep in mind that it would be inappropriate to compare the 1932-D quarter which ranked 6th to the 1937 and 1940-S which tied for 1st. On the other hand, this pricing formula is certainly of value in comparing like coins with like coins. For example, comparing the keys to the keys such as comparing the 1932-D (ranked 6th) to the 1932-S (ranked 8th) and 1936-D (ranked 10th) should be of interest to the collector of quarters looking to buy any or all of the three of them over time. Certainly, among the keys, the 1932-D is the best overall choice in MS-65 to buy at these levels. Is it better than the 1937 or 1940-S quarters? Based on the above analysis, who really knows but it is indeed important to note that these 1937 and 1940-S quarters seem to measure up quite well in all areas compared to even their own non-key dates of the 1930's as well as even the keys!
Based on the above, these two dates are best buys with only the 1940 quarters even in the running!!!
Lets look at some more approaches I took to summarizing my pricing formulas:
The rest of my pricing formula(s) will be posted shortly. For some reason, my computer files in my old computer were corrupted and I am retrieving my formula and retyping them from my original papers.
Now what happens if you divide the total price you come up with by the population in MS-65?
Perhaps I should summarize my pricing model as follows:
(1)Extreme Reward pricing============MS-65 price x pop of MS-66 and better (similar to Aggressive)
(2)Regular Reward pricing=============MS-65 price x pop of MS-65 and better (similar to Growth)
(3)Risk Adverse pricing===============MS-65 price x pop of MS-65 and MS-64 (similar to Conservative)
(4)Balanced Risk/Reward pricing=========MS-65 price x pop of MS-65 and MS-64 and MS-66 & better (similar to balanced)
(5)My formula????? I take a numerical average of the the four pricing models above.
Other collectors may prefer other approaches. Example, a collector with extreme risk aversion may prefer to multiply in this MS-65 coin, the MS-63, MS-64 and MS-65 population to the MS-65 price to come up with the valuation of all possible "underdog" coins graded as much as 2 grades below the MS-65 grade. I will sometimes use this pricing method when I am suspicious that a price of a certain coin is too good to be true based on the other pricing models.
I have quite frankly found the model of MS-65 pricing which is MS-65 price x population is too simplistic by itself but will also discuss that most obvious form of determining "value."
Now I do not speak of "investing" in coins but when confronted with a decision on what coin to buy next and you have a few dates/mm to choose from of similar quality, pedigree, and price; certainly the collector/buyer has to make a choice as he lives in a world of limits. He cannot afford them all at the same time! What to buy first?
Most collector friends and dealers simply counsel "buy the best coin you can afford." But what if the collector can afford any one of the three and all three are priced nearly the same and all look equally great to the collector? In this case, the collector would hope to buy the "underpriced" and/or "sleeper" coin rather than the other way around.
These pricing models help the collector make some kind of rational mathematical calculation with the understanding that the population reports may be skewed, quantity of raw coins lurking in the background, etc. may affect the legitimacy of these mathematical calculations. But the collector needs to start somewhere and then do "due diligence" to make the best possible purchase at that precise time.
models. This is what I wanted to achieve by dividing the total by the MS-65 pop.
models. This is what I wanted to achieve by dividing the total by the MS-65 pop. >>>>
Add the word "possible" right before MS-65 and your statement will be more exacting. Also, merely dividing the total by the MS-65 pop may ignore "dangers" of a possible overhang of large pops in MS-64 as well as MS-66 which may affect the viability of the MS-65 coin purchase.
Naturally, collectors will also just simply look at the pop reports and prices and make a mental picture of which prices appear most reasonable by the "eyeball" approach.
This model would also work well with coins of nearly any time period including clad coin purchases of the 1960's, through the very early 1980's. It works best to compare clad coins of 1965 to 1984 among each other and not necessarily against coins of another time period.
I do NOT recommend using this modeling of purchasing clad coins of the period 1985 through 2005. Why? The amount of raw coins is still potentially huge in relation to the pops that have been slabbed. It takes at least 20 years to get a more stable and truly representative pop report for each date/mm.
You said:
<<<<<<<Orville how does your program work if you use retrospective data. In other words if you take prices and pops from 1997 and compare
to actual results how accurate is your system? Btw I find your analysis very interesting. What happens when another hoard comes along
(like yours) and the pops really become skewed because someone just made 200 ms65 and 150 ms66 1939-p qtrs ?
The 1932-s by your formula is very risky however based on common sense I disagree. The reason I disagree is the total number of coins
minted is not being factored in. Therefore of the 430,000 or so 32-s qtrs how many ms65's can be left uncertified? 100 maybe 200 (worse
case). Now looking at the 1940-p which is lower risk but the total mintage is 50x as much. I would assume that supply and demand for the
32-s will always beat the 1940-p.
Orville please correct me if I am wrong I am all ears.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! It is oreville NOT orville!
Now, I will answer each question as we go along:
(1)<<<<<Orville how does your program work if you use retrospective data. In other words if you take prices and pops from 1997 and compare to actual results how accurate is your system? >>>>
Good question: The retrospective data such as the 1997 prices and pops, while interesting to observe is actually not part of my pricing model at all. It is merely additional and interesting information to study and be aware of trends from the beginning of time when the Washington quarter series was young, just as the clad quarters of the late 1980's to date is currently young. The point of showing the historical information is to demonstrate that what WAS once the lowly rated coin at one time might not always be lowly and vice-versa.
(2)<<<<<What happens when another hoard comes along (like yours) and the pops really become skewed because someone just made 200 ms65 and 150 ms66 1939-p qtrs ?>>>>>
True; I thought I had put that possibility somewhere in my report and when I used this sentence:...................It is also understood that the more expensive coins will fare more poorly since they are more apt to be cracked out and regraded than the less expensive coins........................I do need to be much more specific that more common dates are more likely to have raw coin hoards that might dramatically alter the pop report. I will double check my commentary and add to it. I need to emphasize that I do not use the risk averse pricing model by itself: It is part of the four elements needed to generate the overall rating of a coin. I simply have not finished the posting and transferring from my old computer of the remaining 1 element (balance risk/reward pricing/valuation) and the mean/median averaging of all 4 elements as explained below:
<<<<< (1)Extreme Reward pricing============MS-65 price x pop of MS-66 and better (similar to Aggressive)
(2)Regular Reward pricing=============MS-65 price x pop of MS-65 and better (similar to Growth)
(3)Risk Adverse pricing===============MS-65 price x pop of MS-65 and MS-64 (similar to Conservative)
(4)Balanced Risk/Reward pricing=========MS-65 price x pop of MS-65 and MS-64 and MS-66 & better (similar to balanced)
(5)My formula????? I take a numerical average of the the four pricing models above.>>>>>>>>
(3)<<<<<The 1932-s by your formula is very risky however based on common sense I disagree. The reason I disagree is the total number of coins minted is not being factored in. Therefore of the 430,000 or so 32-s qtrs how many ms65's can be left uncertified? 100 maybe 200 (worse case). Now looking at the 1940-p which is lower risk but the total mintage is 50x as much. I would assume that supply and demand for the 32-s will always beat the 1940-p.>>>>>
My answer to your number #2 question should answer this question as well. But the purpose of the Risk Adverse pricing is not so much to compare
the 1932-S to the the 1940-P but to 1932-D and 1936-D in which case is less risky than the 1932-D and more risky than the 1936-D. All this model in itself (without the necessary blending of the four pricing elements) is to display the possible risks which is unlikely to occur but that the remote possibily is there. Keep in mind that this pricing element does not include the statistical probability of such risk becoming reality as you have indicated. There are definite limitations in each element in itself which is why you will like the element #4 and my formula (#5) which I have not yet posted.
Good questions!
Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.
WArm regards,
Just Having Fun
A bunch of data to digest here, thanks.
Maybe I can figure out some of the pricing from it. I paid approximately the same($700 +/-) for both my 37-S and 36-S, both in MS66. On the otherhand, I paid much more for my 36-D in MS64 than my 34-D MS64 and 35-D MS64 combined. Yet, in MS66, prices are much narrower. In MS65, they are all over the chart??
Sure makes it interesting and expensive.
I will post the other summary formulas as soon as I can finish up the re-typing!
to come up with a historic as well as modern
process for evaluating risk/reward on wash quarters.
This work is certainly worthy of a numismatic award for
excellence. Well done!
Camelot
Thanks
Pete
Great job!! I am very impressed by your risk models. The one question I would ask is their perhaps a small bias due to the number of crackouts for the keys and inflation in the population numbers that should not exist for coins like the 40-P? My thought being that less expensive coins get cracked out far less often than coins where the single grade is worth hundreds or thousands of dollars.
It may not even be a factor, but I thought I would ask.
You asked:
<< <i>The one question I would ask is their perhaps a small bias due to the number of crackouts for the keys and inflation in the population numbers that should not exist for coins like the 40-P? My thought being that less expensive coins get cracked out far less often than coins where the single grade is worth hundreds or thousands of dollars. >>
There is a definite bias. I even stated as such in nearly every paragraph I could with the following statement:
It is also understood that the more expensive coins will fare more poorly since they are more apt to be slabbed, cracked out and regraded than the less expensive coins. Furthermore, it is less likely that there are any significant quantities of rolls and single raw coin hoards remaining of the well known/expensive coins vis a vis the less expensive coins which is not factored into this analysis and is difficult to quantitify in the pricing/valuation element.
The most useful aspect of this pricing is to compare like coins to like coins. Example is to try to use this pricing model to compare less expensive coins to the same category of less expensive coins such as 1940-P to 1939-P quarters OR comparing keys to other keys such as the 1932-D versus the 1936-D or the 1932-S. Trying to compare the the real value of the 1940 versus the 1932-D quarter is definitely quite difficult since my model was only able to partially screen out some of the biases but not all.
Hope this helps.
were you trying to keep the sale price honest, wanting to get a good deal, or helping advertise this auction?
the reason I ask is I frequently look at auctions with higher bid numbers and skip the low or no bid auctions
12 of the 27 bids on this coin are yours
As far as the first question. Why is a coin with less mintage worth less? It's not the mintage it's how many survive.
Look at the 31-S nickel. I believe it is the LOWEST mintage 1.2M of the series and is not near the top in price. I used to hoard the 31-S until I realized how stupid that was.
You ought to do this for the Mercury Dime. There are a lot of coins in there that are sleepers to most collectors. Anyone that has put the whole set together knows which are the hard ones to find. The 16-D would probably be the easiest to find and hardest to pay for, while the 27-D and S are not as expensive, but much harder to find. And so on.
Jon
I am pleased to report that I am working on doing the same analysis on the mercury dime series.