Options
Why are modern coins "crap"?
kimon1230
Posts: 747 ✭✭
I keep reading folks here posting about "modern crap" and I fail to understand why?
Is it a coolness thing? Is it because modern coins are (somewhat) easier to come by? Is it the quality?
I'm new to the coin world so please explain this to me.
Personally, I find modern coins to be more attractive than old ones.
Is it a coolness thing? Is it because modern coins are (somewhat) easier to come by? Is it the quality?
I'm new to the coin world so please explain this to me.
Personally, I find modern coins to be more attractive than old ones.
0
Comments
<< <i>Personally, I find modern coins to be more attractive than old ones. >>
Good for you, collect what you find attractive. I've always kind of wondered this as well and I think it is all of the above that you mentioned, also throw in the fact that monderns no longer have any precious metal content, the transition from lady liberty to dead presidents etc. But all of that doesn't really matter, collect what you like and enjoy!
and become classical. Perhaps, after they are all
given new designs and say, another 20 years passes.
Everything in it's own good time.
Camelot
<< <i>Modern coins thru MS/PR 69 are "modern crap", MS/PR 70"s are "holy crap"-------------------------BigE >>
Thank you for explaining that. I always wondered.
Obscurum per obscurius
extreme high quality and beauty will always be worth a
handsome premium. These clad coins are really tough in high
grades. This same argument was heard in the 1800s. Then, If
you werent collecting ancient Greek and Roman Coins, you were
collecting modern Cr*p.
Camelot
The “crap” part comes in when certain promoters try to convince collectors that a very minor, one point difference in grade, that invariably must be assigned by a third party grading service, causes the market value to increase by huge amounts. That is the crux of the arguments about “crap.” Those who have a vested financial interest in selling modern coins at very high prices defend that position vociferously. Part of their defense is to attack the credibility of those who disagree with them.
doesnt goose up Classical Coin Values?
Camelot
<< <i>I dare say--except for rare exceptions of damaged pieces--all moderns in any given series would be considered equals. >>
You know, Jeremy, I'm surprised that such an ignorant statement would come from somebody as sharp as you. Now, since you think all moderns are "equal", do you have any DCAM SMS coins you'd like to sell me at the same price as a brilliant example?
Russ, NCNE
.33 - .99 lbs. Coprolite (Fossilized Dinosaur Dung) (FO-107)
SKU #:FO-107
Description: Item #DC-10: Approximately 3" Rare fossilized dinosaur dung that is up to 65,000,000 years old; Outer shell is a colorful blend of Brown, Tan, Orange, and Rust tones - the sliced side is polished, and is mottled Tan and Gray with flecks of Rust; .33 - .99 lbs.
Price: $10.00
Quantity:
Add to cart:
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
I agree with what others have said - if you like moderns, collect them! There are many to choose from, some with wonderful designs. If you are not out to draw blood in the Registry Game you can assemble a nice UNC set for yourself almost any way you approach them; and if you are the competitive sort there are many opportunities to 'make' modern rarities for yourself.
>>>My Collection
<< <i>Like a one point increase in plastic,
doesnt goose up Classical Coin Values? >>
It can, and grading is certainly no science. However, I don't think it's a completely fair argument given:
1- You end up with low end for the grade coins
2- The odds that another coin of the high grade for a classic will turn up is far less likely.
Let me expand:
1- I certainly don't agree with the idea of blanketly buying the grades on plastic for any coin. With classics, though, typically you can see what caused a coin to jump one grade to the next, and decided if it just made the grade, or just missed the next one. The price spread for moderns is based on differences that need magnification, if they can be seen at all. I've also never heard anyone discuss a low-end 69 or a high-end 69. The only complaint I hear is that the coin isn't graded properly at all.
2- Far more classics have been graded, and the odds that pop-tops will go up is far less likely than with moderns, where a significant percentage remains raw.
I should also mention that I agree with Bill Jones that moderns alone are no problem--I think many are attractive. The crap part comes from the plastic game.
For the most part, since coin collecting became a hobby for the masses, particularly since 1955, coins were put away in numbers for collectors by dealers. This is a significant departure from how it was through the 18th century. (Mint marks were even ignored then by most collectors.) A lot of clad years, however, were not socked away, producing what are and will be some condition rarities among those dates. Nonetheless, colonials through the early 20th century issues are in a completely different league from typical modern coins. Survival rates in mint state are high among those moderns, generally well above the total mintages of many classics. Silver dollars are an exception. They were minted scandalously and many went untouched for the better part of a century. They represent a larger discussion.
So what is modern crap? Of the modern coins, some will refer to the lousy designs of the circulating representatives, the dead presidents. A lot of us detest the very idea and find the designs unappealing anyway. True modern crap though, IMO, is the deluge of products from the US Mint expressly for the collector market and nothing else. Those are medals masquerading as coins and deserve to be disparaged as such. I don't think people calling them modern crap are suggesting folks shouldn't collect them if they like them, but it is not numismatics. These are limited editions pretending to be coins, even if technically they are legal tender. (Nobody would responsibly take a $50 gold piece and use it as $50.) They do not have the credibility of real coins.
Lastly, though I have stated that nobody is saying folks should collect them if they like them, a big part of the modern crap denunciation is a warning that collecting them will not likely provide the market performance that traditional classic coins have demonstrated. There are coins dated over the past 50 years that will indeed join the class of classics in the future, but they are in among tons that have no such chance and it takes a lot of study and reasoning to differentiate them.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
There is absoultly nothing wrong with collecting recently minted coins. It's a hobby, do what gives YOU pleasure.
I collect the Liberty Seated Quarters, myself. One of the "Classics".
In a way, I'm grateful there's so many people like you that only go after the modern coins.
If even a modest number of the modern collectors switch to the classic series, and the Seated Quarters in particular, I'm probably through collecting. The Seated Coins are still affordable and there are still good buys to be made, but that would all end with only a slight increase in the collector base. The prices on some of these would go into orbit.
You see, kimon1230, there weren't great numbers of these older coins minted to begin with. Over time a lot were melted plus a lot lost, so unlike modern coins with hundreds of millions or even billions made, and with untold numbers in mint condition still existing, there wouldn't be enough coins in the classic series, to absorb any real increase in the existing collector base.
With some of these rare dates, you could hold all the coins that are known in your hands at once.
Stick with your moderns, and enjoy your coin collecting hobby.
I'll stick with the Seated Coins.
Remember what many others have said; all coins were "modern" once.
Ray
<< <i>It seems to me that collectible modern coins are for the most part condition rarities. There is some value in the design, and of course any coin has some implicit amount of historical value, but when hundreds of dollars (or more) are paid for coins that even in the rarest instances have mintages in the thousands, it is because of their condition (as determined by TPGs) and population (again, as determined by TPGs.) >>
Same can be said about Morgan Dollars. Other than a handful of key dates, their value is based on condition.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Like a one point increase in plastic,
doesnt goose up Classical Coin Values? >>
It can, and when it does the is a chance that the price for that one additional point is out of line for the classic coin too.
You can overpay for anything, but most dealers would be last to tell you that.
<< <i>Same can be said about Morgan Dollars. Other than a handful of key dates, their value is based on condition. >>
There are more than a few collectors out there who think of Morgan dollars as "crap" because so many dates are available in Mint State. Some of those same collectors view Walking Liberty half dollars and the old silver commemorative coins in the same light.
Back in the 1980s and '90s, a common sneer comment about certain dealers and small coin shows was, "Morgans, Walkers and commems.
<< <i>
<< <i>I dare say--except for rare exceptions of damaged pieces--all moderns in any given series would be considered equals. >>
You know, Jeremy, I'm surprised that such an ignorant statement would come from somebody as sharp as you. Now, since you think all moderns are "equal", do you have any DCAM SMS coins you'd like to sell me at the same price as a brilliant example?
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ, I don't consider those in the same boat. And I'll be honest, the term modern crap conjures up a 2005 DCAM Silver Eagle, where thousands are, in my eyes, identical. For coins where a small percentage are very significantly different from others, I have no problem with them being worth significant premiums. I appreciate the DCAM SMS and earlier proofs that you have--in fact, they actually impress me. But I've also seen countless others that pale in comparison. If you go and tell me a 2005 PR69DCAM or PR70DCAM is really impressive, I'll beg to differ--to me, they all look alike.
I think from a numismatic standpoint when you want HIGH GRADE, there is a lot of crap coming from the mint.
Coins are not the problem, quality assurance is.
Same with statehood quarters. I like them, but it's hard finding anything over MS65 in mint rolls and bags.
People who are seasoned know that classics hold their value outside of the plastic, but all coins are still judged on their own individual merit.
Joe
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Why are they referred to as Modern Crap? Simple. Because they are crap! Compare any 1940's Lincoln with its 2006 counterpart. To enable high speed production the relief on the modern cents has been flattened to the point that to the trained eye, the coins are really different.
Now compare an an 40's, or 50's Quarter with it 2006 counterpart. See the low relief spaghetti hair? Thats crap!
Do the same with the Kennedy series. 1964, as modern as it is, is a much better looking coin than a 2006 will ever be!
The same holds true with the Jefferson's, and Roosevelts and lets not even get started with the small dollars!
Now, on the bright, finding this crap in high grades can be a real challenge and when you do find them, the coins can really be appreciated. But, today's designs will never hold a candle to what was produced 40 to 50 years ago. Hence, Modern Crap.
And before you can get your flame throwers fired up, I do collect modern crap because I can't really afford that other crap!
The name is LEE!
I wouldn't otherwise care about any of this, but what I find profoundly annoying is that with all the benefits of modern technology, the mint has chosen to regress to these flat designs. Actually, regress isn't the right word, because they never used this kind of relief in the past. I can understand why this may be necessary for circulating coinage, but why can't they really make commemoratives something special? They're low mintage high premium items, so why are they not manufactured at least to the standards of older coinage. Heck, I just bought a 1400 year old coin that has more relief than anything the mint has made in the past 30 years. If I'm wrong and all this is really the natural progression and refinement of the minter's art, I fear that some day in the near future we may be able to enjoy designs like this beautiful new Slovenian coin, on our very own coinage:
Please note, the above rant does not pertain to '84 Olympic dollars, Gold Buffalos, or (possibly) the new reverse proof SAE
I came up with 4 pages lol.
Personally I like the designs on the older coins, they have a bit more class.
<< <i>I just don't see any character or nuance to the designs. They seem to me like future relics of a sad age where everything is commercialized and homogenized to maximum ease of production and bland palatability to the widest possible audience, perfect little trinkets. They're the Pringles of the coin world. >>
Ooh, that's good!
Russ, NCNE
The thing is these coins are mass produced by the millions and seem quite ordinary.Even the mint sets are packed with these beauties.So there should be plenty of ms68..Aren't they there .?!?!.Look again ...NO...the imperfections are there.Tiny but visible...
The coins look good at casual glance but as a collector knows you want "Q"uality with a capital "Q"..
So as time goes by those moderns as you call "crap"..are the best you are looking for.........
I keep reading folks here posting about "modern crap"
as per the above WRONG no one ever on here said moderns are crap NO WAY
what was said is that modern coins with face or a few dollars raw and also available in large quanities
that are placed in high ga-ga grade holders where the holders plastic holders make up all of the demand hence price these plastic priced coins in holders these are the ones that are not so good for the collector just for the sumbitter and then marketer and are for sale even before they get the coins back from the plastic slabbing services
I'm with Baseball on this. Moderns are too perfect, and therefore their value is in the holder, not the coin itself. If the grading companies didn't exist, I dare say--except for rare exceptions of damaged pieces--all moderns in any given series would be considered equals.
Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts.
I have never sent in any coins for grading, and the only coins I've bought in holders are Chinese Pandas, because I wanted some level of guarantee, and 3 silver eagles that I bought at below silver spot price
I prefer, Pringles notwithstanding, modern coins because I find them to be "prettier" (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) and a hell of a lot more affordable. I can start collecting a series (e.g. Silver Eagle proofs) without having to be a millionaire.
Now, I'd love to own an Alexander the Great gold coin, but I guess that's another topic altogether.
IF there weren't TPGs..... and IF you cracked 'em out.... And... "I can't tell the difference" so there must be no difference...
If...if...if..., me...me...me..., my...my...my.
Frankly I also like "Pringles" (the potato chips) and "Classic Lays" (potato chips). Same goes for coins. However, I do like my Pringles to be "PQ" for the grade and raw (eating Pringles inside of plastic slabs gives me indigestion). Later on I might slab some of my Pringles and sell them. When I do slab the Pringles and get them back it will be interesting to see how good of a potato chip grader I am after studying raw chips for years.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
are that they displaced the "real coins" in circulation and they believe that all the coins
are necessarily common because they were all made in large numbers. If you think
about it these are pretty good reasons to look down one's nose at the junk. The
clads when they came out were made in massive numbers and the quality was atro-
cious. People did set the coins aside initially and they'd come into the coin shops in
significant numbers but there was simply no demand. As the years went by the mint
had a great deal of success selling many new coins to the public and these would end
up at the coin shops as well. There were mountains of proof sets and mint sets and
demand was weak. It seemed to those who didn't look closely that everthing was made
in staggering numbers and the supplies would last into the next millineum. And they
didn't look closely because they didn't really like moderns since they represented the
end of silver and because there was almost no demand. If you asked for rolls of clad
they'd say that they just took that junk to the bank, but when they started saving it for
you there was none. People would come in with mixed silver and clad to sell in 1980
and they'd invariably sell the silver and be told to just spend the clad. Not that there
were many BU rolls, but the dealer wouldn't even really look.
The perception that all these coins are common is still a common perception. It stands
to reason that a coin made in the hundreds of millions must necessarily be common as
sand on the beach. When this perception is coupled with the knowledge that people are
paying sometimes large amounts of money for these coins then they have a very nega-
tive reaction. There is a tendency to think that any money spent on anything but what
you collect is harmful to your market segment even though this is an entirely false idea.
It's not that people who see moderns as crap are right or wrong and most of them really
do have the buyer's interest at heart. But it's still a perspective which is not borne out
in reality. It may have come to them honestly but it's always been true that what people
want to collect makes a good collectible. It's always been true that "time flies" and the
conditions which existed in 1965 or 1995 no longer hold true today.
I'd give you the world, just because...
Speak to me of loved ones, favorite places and things, loves lost and gained, tears shed for joy and sorrow, of when I see the sparkle in your eye ...
and the blackness when the dream dies, of lovers, fools, adventurers and kings while I sip my wine and contemplate the Chi.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Modern coins are frequently compared to "pocket change" and usually looks like pocket change. >>
This is a real consideration since in the past the coins at least shared the similarity of being
made in the same metal when designs were changed. When silver was removed there was
no longer this continuity and the designs weren't changed for years. Anyone who doesn't
know how tough something like an XF '69 dime is, is going to just see pocket change.
That being said, if others want to collect moderns, have at it. I'm not going to put someone down whose interests are different than mine.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Collect what you like but be informed and make an effort to learn before you spend big bucks on coins that may not be worthy of the price... AND YES that advise goes beyond the modern debate
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Modern coins are frequently compared to "pocket change" and usually looks like pocket change. >>
Michael hit the nail on the head when he discussed common super-grades (on SAE's and the like).
When you get to the root of the issue, it appears modern collectors focus primarily on grade rarity and classic collectors on absolute rarity.
It's just a different approach.
The classic collector will wonder why the modern collector will be so proud of his 1983 Washington quarter in MS67. He just got a 1983 quarter in change last month, so who cares if it's in a high grade? The coin is as common as dirt and was minted in the millions upon millions.
The modern collector wonders why the classic collector is so happy with his 1793 chain cent. Not only is the coin not MS, it's VF details at best and corroded. Who cares if very few survive-- the damned thing is ugly!
Obscurum per obscurius
<< <i>
<< <i>Modern coins are frequently compared to "pocket change" and usually looks like pocket change. >>
Michael hit the nail on the head when he discussed common super-grades (on SAE's and the like).
When you get to the root of the issue, it appears modern collectors focus primarily on grade rarity and classic collectors on absolute rarity.
It's just a different approach.
The classic collector will wonder why the modern collector will be so proud of his 1983 Washington quarter in MS67. He just got a 1983 quarter in change last month, so who cares if it's in a high grade? The coin is as common as dirt and was minted in the millions upon millions.
The modern collector wonders why the classic collector is so happy with his 1793 chain cent. Not only is the coin not MS, it's VF details at best and corroded. Who cares if very few survive-- the damned thing is ugly! >>
Generally what you're saying is probably true but I don't think most modern collectors
have a problem with a chain cent in VF. Almost all collectors appreciate rarity in any form.
I think it's more price which drives moderns. They're much cheaper. A collector not only gets
more bang for his buck but a buck will actually buy something. You can't collect early cents
or colonials on an entry level budget. You can get some pretty neat moderns for a dollar.
You can keep up with the states quarters for $2.50 per year.
It's coins that are easy to find that are Crap
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Fred, Las Vegas, NV