David Bowers definition to Modern coins

Touchdown · December 13, 2005 1:21PM

I emailed David Bowers last week. I asked what dates he defined Modern coins. He said there is no officia dates as to which coins are modern. He mentioned a few series like the Lincoln Cents 1934 and after that might be broken down if one wanted too. But, He beleived 1965 and after would be the appropriate break down in his opinion because silver coins were no longer struck for circulation.

I really respect his wealth of knowledge and experience. So, from now on I beleive I can comfortably referr to coins minted in 1965 and after as Modern coins.

Before, I make up my mind I would like to get some comments to see if anyone agrees or disagrees.

nankraut · December 13, 2005 1:28PM

Makes sense to me.

Coxe · December 13, 2005 1:30PM

Makes me feel a little less old with the 1965 cutoff. Push it back another decade and I too would be modern.

cladking · December 13, 2005 1:33PM

There were a lot of changes at that time. Not only was silver removed but mintmarks were
removed, proof and mint sets were eliminated, and two date freezes were in effect. Perhaps
most importantly of all people quit saving new coin and at the same time the roll and bag mar-
ket was collapsing. There was even a bill in Congress which would have outlawed coin collecting.

There were many ties to 1964 and a cogent argument could be made that 1964 is the first modern.

BECOKA · December 13, 2005 2:34PM

I agree with the date range.

coppercoins · December 13, 2005 4:09PM

I don't mean to sound like an arse here, but why does it matter whether or not a coin is "modern"? I'm probably just ignorant here, but does attaching "modern" to a coin make it less or more valuable? Help me out here.

JustGotRipped · December 13, 2005 4:14PM

I don't mean to sound like an arse here, but why does it matter whether or not a coin is "modern"? I'm probably just ignorant here, but does attaching "modern" to a coin make it less or more valuable? Help me out here.

From where I sit, it's just another label. It's used, in my opinion, pejorative to imply that these coins are not as good or as important or as desirable. perhaps that is true, but it's a shot at people who happen to collect these bits. JMHO

morgannut2 · December 13, 2005 4:19PM

It's sort of like the difference between "antique" (>100 years old) and "classic" (<50 years old, AKA collectable). It's just a quick way to say what age-range interests you. But, while a 1964 is a good date for coins, in other fields like art, architecture, etc the date actually has a fixed meaning in style/school that you can see stylistically. Ain't so for coins.

BlindedByEgo · December 13, 2005 4:25PM

<< I don't mean to sound like an arse here, but why does it matter whether or not a coin is "modern"? I'm probably just ignorant here, but does attaching "modern" to a coin make it less or more valuable? Help me out here. >>

As far as I'm concerned, Hell froze over in '65 - for me, that's the start of the modern era. My Dad thought that Jefferson nickels and Roosies were modern crap

I truly do believe that 1965 ushered in a dark period for coinage - one that lasted until the Treasury, along with the Mint, was no longer paranoicly doing everything in their power to prevent or head off the hoarding of small change. The mid-60's and even through the 70's were a much different time than now. The complete debasement of our coinage through the removal of all precious metals from circulation in 1970 IMHO impacted the broad appeal of coin collecting for many years, at least that is my experience and recollection.

Heppily, the US Mint is no longer the sworn enemy of the coin collector.

coppercoins · December 13, 2005 4:29PM

Well, that's the way I see it. The terms modern, post-modern, and antique have some bearing in other fields, but I think with coins it's just a label some people like to attach to items they don't care about. Problem is, while there may be a metal change difference after 1964 quarters, dimes, and half dollars, I see no difference at all (save the mintmark omission) between 1964 and 1965 nickels and cents. Point is, while a certain term may apply to some coins of a given year, it wouldn't apply to others.

If you're going to stick a term on some coins and leave others alone, I think the term has to apply to a series individually, not just a year. So here goes:

Modern:

cents - 1959 to date
nickels - 1946 to date
dimes - 1965 to date
quarters - 1965 to date
half dollars - 1964 to date
dollars - 1971 to date

Not modern:

Anything made before the dates mentioned above, individually per denomination.

Now, that makes just about as much sense as picking a date out of the sky to define the difference between what's modern and what's not.

Artistically speaking - any coin with a dead president on it is "modern," because that's the movement we are going through - honoring dead people by placing them on coins. It wasn't always that way, you know...

So artistically speaking, here's the list re-done:

cents: 1909 Lincolns to date
nickels: 1938 Jeffersons to date
dimes: 1946 to date
quarters: 1932 to date
half dollars: 1948 to date
dollars: 1971 to date

all other coins are "not modern".

An exercise in futility because the term has no merit in coins.

BlindedByEgo · December 13, 2005 4:39PM

<< 
An exercise in futility because the term has no merit in coins. >>

See, I agree with you up to that very last sentence. The term has merit because it IS. The term is popularly used, but at the same time carries subtly different meanings to different people. Though it IS used now, I would imagine that its use will diminish over time... or its implication will change (as I pointed out with the example of my father).

I don't much like the speech that is used by gangsta rappers, but I'm outnumbered. To that group, their "terms" have merit. I'm afriad that in the case of "Modern" coins, we are outnembered. All I can personally do is refuse to participate in its use. 'Sup?

TUMUSS · December 13, 2005 4:43PM

Being born in 1965....I AGREE completely!

1jester · December 13, 2005 6:04PM

I would say that the modern era was ushered in when Boulton's steam powered presses started stamping the first coins in England in 1797. Thus began the truly modern era of mass-produced coins.

PS: I chose that date in lieu of an earlier, but perhaps more appropriate cut-off in the late 16th century when machinery started being used to produce coins; before that it was hammer time.

Bear · December 13, 2005 7:19PM

I guess that folks like things that impact their lives , defined.

That definition also applies to coin collecting. People seem to

want to know if they are collecting classic, neo modern or modern coins.

I dont know why, it just is.

nwcs · December 13, 2005 9:38PM

Charles is right. And the definitions are all arbitrary... kind of like grading.

cladking · December 14, 2005 12:57AM

<< Well, that's the way I see it. The terms modern, post-modern, and antique have some bearing in other fields, but I think with coins it's just a label some people like to attach to items they don't care about. Problem is, while there may be a metal change difference after 1964 quarters, dimes, and half dollars, I see no difference at all (save the mintmark omission) between 1964 and 1965 nickels and cents. Point is, while a certain term may apply to some coins of a given year, it wouldn't apply to others.

If you're going to stick a term on some coins and leave others alone, I think the term has to apply to a series individually, not just a year. So here goes:

Modern:

cents - 1959 to date
nickels - 1946 to date
dimes - 1965 to date
quarters - 1965 to date
half dollars - 1964 to date
dollars - 1971 to date

Not modern:

Anything made before the dates mentioned above, individually per denomination.

Now, that makes just about as much sense as picking a date out of the sky to define the difference between what's modern and what's not.

Artistically speaking - any coin with a dead president on it is "modern," because that's the movement we are going through - honoring dead people by placing them on coins. It wasn't always that way, you know...

So artistically speaking, here's the list re-done:

cents: 1909 Lincolns to date
nickels: 1938 Jeffersons to date
dimes: 1946 to date
quarters: 1932 to date
half dollars: 1948 to date
dollars: 1971 to date

all other coins are "not modern".

An exercise in futility because the term has no merit in coins. >>

While many may mean modern as an insult a few are turning everything but modern into one. This
is not about defining a term to denigrate earlier or later coins in any case; it is about a short-hand
term for communication. It is simply inaccurate to say that the only change in 1965 on the cents and
nickels was the removal of mint marks. Collectors at the time saw huge changes in these coins which
were nearly equal to the other denominations. The date freeze applied to these coins just as much
as it did the silver. We expected to see 1964 cents and nickels for generations in 1965. When '65
coins went into production, these were expected to be produced for at least several years, and were,
well into 1966. There were no mint and proof sets for '65 cents and nickels. If you wanted nice exam-
ples you had to scour change or wait until the SMS's were finally announced. The Bible bill which was
to outlaw collecting (especially modern collecting) would have applied equally to the smallest coins. The
small coins had to be made at breakneck speeds to combat the coin shortage just as the larger denom-
inations did. This meant quality ratcheted way down for them as well. But the biggest change was that
collectors quit collecting all current coins including the cents and nickels. It is this change more than any
other which truly defines the term. This was a massive change because always in the past coins had
been set aside for future collectors. Rolls and bags of coins had been saved since the '30's and before
that there were always ample numbers for current collectors. Even in olden times many coins didn't cir-
culate because they were used as deposit or as backing for currency and would survive for as much as
centuries after issue before being found by a collector.

The late 20th century changed much of this. Coins were debased and collectors almost universally lost
interest in the coins. In country after country one sees where coins suddenly become no longer available
because their high mintages and debased condition caused collectors to ignore them. New Zealand in '47,
Japan and Canada in '68, India in 1950 and the list goes on and on.

The term conveys a great deal of meaning when used to describe such coins. One is simply talking about
coins that are debased crap that were never saved. One is arousing the passions of those who love and
those who hate the coins.

jom · December 14, 2005 1:38AM

Why does it matter if a coin is labeled "modern" or not? It's a Lincoln Cent or Buffalo Nickel or Bust Half. Why do we need to label it "modern". Who the hell cares?

jom

IrishMike · December 14, 2005 1:52AM

Maybe we should expunge the word modern from the lexicon of numismatic terminology and refer to them as contemporary coins.

This way we could argue about contemporaneous to what or whom.

Russ · December 14, 2005 2:02AM

Sorry, but Bowers is wrong. Here's the correct breakdown:

1948 - 1970: Early Moderns.
1971 to date: Junk.

Russ, NCNE

mgoodm3 · December 14, 2005 2:06AM

We need a definition of "modern" so we know who to bash for collecting them.

TheRaven · December 14, 2005 2:34AM

My thinking of modern is as follows:

Cent: Lincoln Memorial Cents so 1959

Nickel: All Jefferson Nickels bar the silver ones

Dime, Quarter & Half is easy, 65-current

Dollars: Ike and forward.....

LanLord · December 14, 2005 2:35AM

<< My thinking of modern is as follows: Cent: Lincoln Memorial Cents so 1959 Nickel: All Jefferson Nickels bar the silver ones Dime, Quarter & Half is easy, 65-current Dollars: Ike and forward..... >>

Odd, why would you consider a 1938 nickel modern, but a 1943 isn't?

ModernDollarNut · December 14, 2005 2:36AM

<< There were a lot of changes at that time. Not only was silver removed but mintmarks were
removed, proof and mint sets were eliminated, and two date freezes were in effect. Perhaps
most importantly of all people quit saving new coin and at the same time the roll and bag mar-
ket was collapsing. There was even a bill in Congress which would have outlawed coin collecting.

There were many ties to 1964 and a cogent argument could be made that 1964 is the first modern. >>

CladKing, brilliant. And PCGS agrees with you.... Rob

Russ · December 14, 2005 2:39AM

<< There were many ties to 1964 and a cogent argument could be made that 1964 is the first modern. >>

CladKing, brilliant. And PCGS agrees with you.... Rob >>

I wish they agreed with him; I could save $4 per coin. They start moderns at 1965.

Russ, NCNE

coynclecter · December 14, 2005 2:55AM

I would consider modern to be anything that could be found in circulation.

Modern:

cents - 1959 to date
nickels - 1946 to date
dimes - 1965 to date
quarters - 1965 to date
half dollars - 1964 to date
dollars - 1971 to date

seems good to me.

DHeath · December 14, 2005 2:55AM

Thinking about what Mr. Albanese recommends, I think moderns can be defined as coins which can be collected without "investing", and the market for them is of and for collectors, not investors. Most dealers haven't/don't participate, promoters cannot control supply, and those that sell/invest in other things recommend against them. In short, they're perfect for me, and one of the few remaining areas of numismatics not controlled by the industry.

BTW - darkside collectors get this post.

TheRaven · December 14, 2005 4:22AM

<< 

<< My thinking of modern is as follows: Cent: Lincoln Memorial Cents so 1959 Nickel: All Jefferson Nickels bar the silver ones Dime, Quarter & Half is easy, 65-current Dollars: Ike and forward..... >>

Odd, why would you consider a 1938 nickel modern, but a 1943 isn't? >>

Because you can still get, as I have multiple times, 1938 nickels in change.....

I guess the 40% silver halves should not really be modern either, they are a gray area like the silver war nickels.....

Jcarney · December 14, 2005 4:39AM

<< But, while a 1964 is a good date for coins, in other fields like art, architecture, etc the date actually has a fixed meaning in style/school that you can see stylistically. Ain't so for coins. >>

Of course it is. 1964 is the date when half dollars became boring.

David Bowers definition to Modern coins

Comments

Leave a Comment