Manufactured rarity vs. unintended rarity
RYK
Posts: 35,800 ✭✭✭✭✭
As an offshoot to a previous Longacre Thread™ , I wanted to further explore the notion that some coins are made to be rare, while others become rare by chance. I tend to focus on the latter, but let me define my terms, and we can see where this takes us (if anywhere 
). Mind you, I just made up these terms (at least I think I did), and there may be better terms to describe the concepts that others may offer.
Manufactured rarity is a form of rarity that is intended when the manufacturer of an item (a coin, in this context) intentionally produces a smaller number of the item than one would anticipate would be required to satisfy the demand of the item. An excellent example would be the 20th Century Reverse Proof AGE. The Mint decided to make 10,000 coins and thereby created a rarity.
Unintended rarity describes the situation in which the coin is produced to supply the demand for it at the time, but demand for the coin increased over time such that there is a significant supply-demand imbalance. An example of this is the 1870-CC $20, a coin which was manufactured to appease the circulation demand for the denomination in the western states at that time.
Lest you think that this is another modern bashing concept, I would argue that coins like the 1885 Trade dollar, the 1913 Liberty nickel, and virtually all 19th century patterns are manufactured rarities, while coins like the Jackie Robinson and Capitol Visitor $5's are modern examples of unintended rarity (though I admittedly know quite a bit less about these and may be wrong in my classification here). Gem 1982 quarters are another example of unintended rarities, unintended conditional rarities. Birthmark Kennedy halves and speared bisons are unintended rarities, too. I believe that Wisconsin extra-leaf quarters are intended (ie. manufactured), but this is controversial.
Many coins are somewhere in between the two. When barely enough examples were made in the first place, but they were made for collectors and collecting demand has increased over time, the situation is in the gray area between. 19th century proof gold is a good example of this.
I am attracted to rare coins and, believe it or not, when I consider the rarity of a coin, I tend to classify it as either manufactured rarity or unintended rarity.
). Mind you, I just made up these terms (at least I think I did), and there may be better terms to describe the concepts that others may offer.Manufactured rarity is a form of rarity that is intended when the manufacturer of an item (a coin, in this context) intentionally produces a smaller number of the item than one would anticipate would be required to satisfy the demand of the item. An excellent example would be the 20th Century Reverse Proof AGE. The Mint decided to make 10,000 coins and thereby created a rarity.
Unintended rarity describes the situation in which the coin is produced to supply the demand for it at the time, but demand for the coin increased over time such that there is a significant supply-demand imbalance. An example of this is the 1870-CC $20, a coin which was manufactured to appease the circulation demand for the denomination in the western states at that time.
Lest you think that this is another modern bashing concept, I would argue that coins like the 1885 Trade dollar, the 1913 Liberty nickel, and virtually all 19th century patterns are manufactured rarities, while coins like the Jackie Robinson and Capitol Visitor $5's are modern examples of unintended rarity (though I admittedly know quite a bit less about these and may be wrong in my classification here). Gem 1982 quarters are another example of unintended rarities, unintended conditional rarities. Birthmark Kennedy halves and speared bisons are unintended rarities, too. I believe that Wisconsin extra-leaf quarters are intended (ie. manufactured), but this is controversial.
Many coins are somewhere in between the two. When barely enough examples were made in the first place, but they were made for collectors and collecting demand has increased over time, the situation is in the gray area between. 19th century proof gold is a good example of this.
I am attracted to rare coins and, believe it or not, when I consider the rarity of a coin, I tend to classify it as either manufactured rarity or unintended rarity.
0
Comments
Happens in many hobbies just not coins.
Steve
edited to add: or is it 'not just coins'?
<< <i>You are correct.
Happens in many hobbies just not coins.
Steve
edited to add: or is it 'not just coins'? >>
Absolutely. I first noticed it in baseball cards in the 1980's, with the large number of special limited edition sets. BTW, these were the ones that did not hold their value over time.
More seriously, I agree with you. If coin collecting is about the "story" then I feel the story of a coin is that much more interesting when it was unappreciated in it's time and mintages were limited by lack of demand or many simply did not survive over time.
One of my favorite unintended rarities so far is the pioneer gold Baldwin California Horseman. At the time, many were made but were made without enough gold. When people discovered they were being cheated, many of the coins were melted in disgust. This scandal is also one of the reasons for the opening of the US SF Assay Office. The result is that the pieces have become one of the great collector pieces of the period and with a story much more interesting than if they were issued as limited edition collector pieces in their day. The coins have also become rare in an absolute sense, not just by condition, which also makes them more interesting to me. The gorgeous design helps too of course.
I have always been intrigued by really, really old coins which have accidentally survived in high grade, as opposed to coins made as presentation pieces or otherwise intended to be preserved - i.e. unintended vs manufactured condition rarity.
<< <i>Rare and desirable is rare and desirable ... don't matter to me how it got there! >>
for me, rare and desirable typically are associated with "unintended rarity"
"I am sorry you are unhappy with the care you recieved, is their anything I can do for you right now, how about some high speed lead therapy?" - A qoute from my wife's nursing forum
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." – Thomas Jefferson
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
I share the same perspective as most of the posters here; a preference for
coins that were made to be used and their rarity is a result of unintended con-
sequences. This isn't to say that there is anything inherently wrong with an
1804 dollar or a 1970 proof set. These coins are just as collectible as rare date
gold or anything else. Their price already takes into account what collectors
believe they are worth.
<< <i>To me, rare is rare, although I like the idea of a coin surviving for hundreds of years versus one that is produced in limited quantities to create rarity. >>
Rare is rare. And like most collectors if all else is equal then I'll prefer the older
coin as well. However, all else is rarely equal or even similar. If you desire a
complete set of clad dimes then you can't build it with any 19th century coins.
<< <i>It's ironic that coins can become desirable simply because nobody wanted them. (Case in point: 2006-W unc plats.) >>
Yep, the Baldwin California Horseman is one. Other moderns include the MS LOC and MS Jackie Robinson that had high max mintages but ended up with much lower final mintages. Issues that have a high max mintage but end up with dramatically lower final mintages/survivors contribute to a more interesting story for me.
Didn't the 2006-W unc plats sell out? If so, I consider that slightly less interesting if a big reason for the sellout was speculators. Unless many are later melted of course. Now that doesn't mean they aren't beautiful and worthy coins, just the final mintage/survivor story isn't as interesting.
<< <i>It's ironic that coins can become desirable simply because nobody wanted them. (Case in point: 2006-W unc plats.) >>
The same can be said about the $5 Jackie Robinson and Capitol Visistor Center.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Are these coins a manufactured rarity or an unintended rarity?............................. or is it an example of a coin to which one could argue both labels apply?
A 1950 proof half is clearly is a coin that was manufactured for sale to collectors instead of for use in general commerce. The slightly over 50,000 mintage figure for 1950 proof halves is paltry compared to today, however in 1950 it was more than twice the production of the 1942 proof halves. I suspect that the mint managers who were responsible for producing 1950 proof halves did not have the same thought process that today's mint managers responsible for low mintage modern collector coins have (making a huge profit for the Treasury Dept). Again though the coins were produced for sale to collectors and the sale price was double face value.
I have a much easier time concluding that 1950 Cameo and DCAMUCAM proof halves are clearly unintended rarities. They exist in limited numbers simply because of the production technology and methods at the time resulted in few DCAMUCAM and Cameo strikes per die. More of a concern to the mint employees producing 1950 proof halves was to simply produce the coins to fill orders without concern for high levels of quality control and product quality (have you ever seen a 1950 proof half that looks nothing like a brilliant proof; it has fields and devices that have no mirrors at all). The modest amount of Cameo and DCAMUCAM 1950 proof halves that exist were clearly unintended by their makers and these coins are very hard to find.
Are there any coins you can think of to which both labels apply?
Of course Condition Rarity is a different beast but then you can't really go by a 50k mintage.
<< <i>
Are there any coins you can think of to which both labels apply? >>
Yes.
This applies to many of the regular issue moderns. The mint had a minimum standard
for quality which they usually achieved but with some dates it was extremely unusual
to make coins of good quality or such coins simply weren't saved.
It applies to other moderns and classics as well.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Well, just Love coins, period.