If we take coin census' as fact, then some surprising revelations may occur!!!

STONE · July 23, 2008 2:31AM

Being a collector of early silver Bust coinage, I get to look at and study many different die marriages for those multiple denomination types.
In doing so, and doing some of my best thinking in the shower

, I realized that some dates of coins have only a finite number of coins remaining from their original mintage...

...if we take census' as the truth.

Look at a few of these examples from the Bust Quarter series; a series which I have recently returned to.

1796 DBQ: 2 die varieties, B-1 (R5) and B-2 (R3). Add the rarities up and you have a total of no more than 575 coins, and no less than 232 of these coins left.
The original mintage was 6,146 coins, which means between 9.36% and 3.77% of that total mintage survive today.

The stopping point when doing this is when you come to R1 rarities. R1's consist of an essentially limitless number of coins above 1,250, therefore
dates w/ die varieties that consist of R1's can't give as conclusive, finite, answers.

Now, this is not a post to bash census reports, because census surveys/reports provide valuable information and seem to be fairly accurately representative of the surviving examples.

Let's look at a couple more examples and then I'll have to hear what you all have to say, and maybe you can provide us with other examples.

1804 DBQ: 2 die varieties, B-1 (R4) and B-2 (R6). Add the rarities up and you have a total of no more than 230 coins, and no less than 89 of these coins remaining.
With a mintage extremely similar to the 1796 quarters of 6,738, we can notice that between 3.41% and 1.32% of the initial mintage survive today.
(3x less survive than 1796's, and yet they are close to 3x cheapers in like grades!!!)

1807 DBQ: 2 die varieties, B-1 (R3) and B-2 (R3). Between 402 and 1000 survive from an initial mintage of 220,643.
Meaning that 0.18% and 0.45% of the initial mintage (220,643) survive today. (Very interesting results posted thus far!!!)

1820 CBQ: 5 die varietis, B-1 (R4), B-2 (R2), B-3 (R3), B-4 (R2), and B-5 (R5). Based on these census results, between 3275 and 1320 example survive.
Meaning that 2.57% and 1.04% of the initial mintage (127,444) survive today.

There might be a flaw with the actual number of coins minted for a given year, as records for coin production back then was likely not state-of-the-art.

Cladiator · July 23, 2008 3:24AM

Census reports are a valuable tool for Federal coinage no doubt. I look at the bust half dime census on a regular basis. That being said you have to take any census with a grain of salt as they rely solely on reported examples.

You have to take into account three factors with the census;

1. Coins that are out there and unattributed which were not reported to the census takers.
2. Coins that are out there attributed but in collections where the owner did not know to report them to the census takers.
3. Coins that are out there attributed but in collections where the owner purposely did not report them to the census takers.

Quarternut · July 23, 2008 4:09AM

Stone,

Since you have chosen to use Bust Quarters as you example I feel obliged to try to answer some of you statements.

First of all, the statistics you are working off of are out-dated. They have been updated in my new book, but will always be in flux and need to be updated from time to time in the future.

The rarity ratings are far from a census of the coins extant. The rarity rating is more closely connected to the availability in acquiring an example, although one would think this would equate to a set number of pieces known it unfortunately can not. This is mostly due to coins that are impounded in museums, older collections and where collectors hold multiple examples.

In your first example, there are certainly a higher percentage of the 1796 quarters in existence than there should be as compared to other coins in the same era. There are several factors that caused this, but as the subject is lengthy and is covered in my book I won't repeat it now. Suffice it to say that for the 1796 quarters there are a significantly higher amount of survivors than say the 1804 quarters, perhaps as much as 10% or higher of the original mintage of 6,146 pieces. I have documented well over 175 examples sold at auction in the last 10 years, just from the 4 or 5 major catalogers. During the same time period there were many more coins sold that I haven't tracked.

Your point about the price difference found with the 1796 & 1804 dates is well noted, but the price difference is due to more factors than just availability of examples. The 1796 date holds more fascination for collectors for one, but the bigger factor is due to type and date collectors. The 1796 date is a one-year only type and as such it has added pressures from type collectors that influence the prices.

I have addressed the issues surrounding the 1807's and the reported mintages as compared to the coins available today in the book as well.

For the 1820's, it is my contention that only 3 of the 5 die marriages were actually produced in 1820, the other 2 were struck in 1821.

Again, I can't wait until you have a new book!

QN

rhedden · July 23, 2008 4:26AM

This is an interesting thread to read, just the sort of thing I like about this forum. I have often thought about this kind of math (moreso on the early half dimes than quarters). I feel that the estimates on the R5, R6, R7, and R8 coins are probably somewhat realistic, due to the feasibility of tracking small numbers of very rare coins. It would not surprise me to learn that there are roughly 300-500 1796 quarters in existence, but I'd be surprised if the number is 1,000. I know this coin is in great demand, but with the prices these command, there has to be more to it. The estimates on the 1804 are not unrealistic, either.

It is when you get to dates like the 1807 and 1820, where there are R3 or lower die marriages, that I think the numbers start to become distorted. These coins are common enough (as a date) that nobody really counts up the low grade examples. Auction archives are useless for these things because auction houses won't sell an AG-3 1820 quarter of a common die marriage (and there are a lot of those out there). I think the estimates of surviving coins would therefore be very much on the low side. I bet there are at least 5,000 to perhaps 20,000 1820 quarters (of all die marriages) in existence. With 50 states in the US, that would only work out to 100-200 surviving examples per state (on average), which seems reasonable. Heck, there are 11 examples for sale just on Ebay right at this moment; and probably a few hundred in coin dealers' inventories nationwide.

Again, I can't wait until you have a new book!

I can't wait until I have the new book too! (Got my check, right?) By the way, I am going to alter your condition census on a few rare varieties in a couple of months when I bring an old 1930s collection out of hiding.

Quarternut · July 23, 2008 4:30AM

can't wait until I have the new book too! (Got my check, right?) By the way, I am going to alter your condition census on a few rare varieties in a couple of months when I bring an old 1930s collection out of hiding.

Yep! as soon as I have them I will be shipping them right out.

Please PM me with some details on the 1930's collection!

RWB · July 23, 2008 4:34AM

The kind of self-reporting census referred to does not result in statistically valid data.

MrHalfDime · July 23, 2008 6:17AM

"The kind of self-reporting census referred to does not result in statistically valid data."

This is very true, and needs to be fully understood by anyone attempting to use (or misuse) the data in any such census.

As the Bust half dime census keeper for the JRCS, I recently compiled the 2008 Bust half dime census and published it in the latest John Reich Journal. I prefaced my report with the following comments. You can easily substitute any other denomination or collector organization and it will be equally valid:

"There are many caveats which should be fully understood before collectors attempt to apply the results of this or any similar census survey to their collecting pursuits. These limitations, or biases, can be summarized as follows:

Limited Sampling: This census was open only to JRCS members, and primarily only half dime specialists chose to participate. This represents a very tiny percentage of the total number of collectors, and of the total number of existing half dimes. For example, a total of 13,058,700 Capped Bust half dimes were produced by the Mint during the period of 1829 to 1837. If we assume a very conservative survival rate of just 1%, then 130,587 Capped Bust half dimes would be extant. Yet the approximately 1727 half dimes reported in this census are just 0.013% of those. If we use a larger, perhaps more realistic survival rate of 4%, then the half dimes reported in this census represent a mere 0.0033% of the total surviving specimens! Also, the coins reported in this census do not represent a random sampling of what is available to collectors in the market place, but represent only those dates, varieties and grades that collectors chose to purchase for their collections.

One collector, one coin: Most collectors do not purchase coins in direct proportion to the number available in the marketplace. Collectors typically seek just one example of each date and die marriage, and seldom purchase additional examples. On the other hand, if a collector determines that a specific issue is scarce or has good investment potential, he may purchase additional examples as duplicates or for trade. Such practices can skew the census, often making scarce issues appear to be more common.

Upgrading: Many collectors purchase the more difficult die marriages in whatever grade is available at the time, and then seek to upgrade the coin at a later date when available. Once upgraded, collectors often retain the lower grade specimen as a duplicate or for trade. For the more common die marriages, however, collectors may forgo any purchase until the desired grade example comes along. Again, this would tend to skew the census in favor of the scarcer marriages.

Hoarding: Some collectors develop a particular interest in a specific date, whether for study, investment, or other purpose, and report disproportionate quantities of those dates. These hoards tend to make certain dates appear much more readily available than experience has shown."

Such limited census surveys can be useful and valuable, whether conducted by the EAC for half cents and large cents, the JRCS for Bust coinage, or the LSCC for Liberty Seated denominations, but the data resulting from such limited surveys should not be construed as absolute fact or the final word.

STONE · July 23, 2008 6:36AM

Steve, one of the reasons why I thought of this, and posted this, came from thinking about the recently completed Half-Dime census.

I know that several valid flaws occur naturally from the data: restricted sample size, misfigured mintages, and unattributed coins, etc.

One of the other points in bringing this up is to ask the following:
If the data collected is basically only used for die marriage collectors and not the general type collector, then why restrict the rarities of such coins?
Thus, why should a naturally R4 coin be represented as an R5; of course, again, understanding the restrictions placed on the sample sizes.

Ok, I know this is not cut-and-dry, as rarities can flucuate from R5 to R4 with newer census', but I guess what I'm getting at is that rarities are flexible.

WHATEVER, I'm confusing myself. I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Cladiator · July 23, 2008 6:39AM

<< <i>but I guess what I'm getting at is that rarities are flexible. >>

Well of course they are! It's an R6 when selling and an R5 when buying.

STONE · July 23, 2008 6:41AM

<< <i>

<< <i>but I guess what I'm getting at is that rarities are flexible. >>

Well of course they are! It's an R6 when selling and an R5 when buying.

>>

Better yet, make it a misattibuted R1/R2 when buying

Quarternut · July 23, 2008 6:48AM

>>

Well of course they are! It's an R6 when selling and an R5 when buying.

>>

Clad, I know you were kidding, but many sellers use older rarity ratings when selling coins. I have seen dealers use rarity ratings for Bust Halves from the 1970 2nd edition, where there were many more R-5 and R-6 die marriages listed. Shame on them for using these older and out of date numbers just to sell coins for more money and conversely shame on collectors who believe them and buy these hyped coins with out first taking the time to study more current infomation on the series they collect.

QN

Cladiator · July 23, 2008 7:01AM

<< <i>Well of course they are! It's an R6 when selling and an R5 when buying.

Clad, I know you were kidding, but many sellers use older rarity ratings when selling coins. I have seen dealers use rarity ratings for Bust Halves from the 1970 2nd edition, where there were many more R-5 and R-6 die marriages listed. Shame on them for using these older and out of date numbers just to sell coins for more money and conversely shame on collectors who believe them and buy these hyped coins with out first taking the time to study more current infomation on the series they collect.

QN >>

Absolutely kidding. If I came across someone doing that I'd most certainly give them an earfull and let my collecting friends know about it. Ethics are one thing that seem lacking in this hobby on a semi-regular basis and I despise that.

MrHalfDime · July 23, 2008 7:40AM

Stone:

I'm not sure that I fully understand your question here. Heck, after reading it again, I'm not sure that you do, either.

Understand that, as someone eluded to earlier in this thread, the rarity ratings of R5 and greater involve small enough quantities that it is both reasonable and practical to conduct actual counts of examples reported, and thus report reasonably accurate rarity ratings. However, for the R4 and lower rarity ratings, it is impractical and almost impossible to make actual counts of examples, so for these rarity ratings (R1-R4), they are mostly estimates; realistic estimates, based upon the collective experience of many specialists, but estimates, nonetheless.

Having said the above, it is also important to understand that, at least for my own Bust half dime census surveys (I cannot speak for any other census surveys done by others) I do not simply list the examples reported to me in the census; I also include other examples seen by or otherwise known to me or to a few other trusted and knowledgable specialists. For example, it would be foolish to report a specific die marriage as an R7 simply because only five examples were reported in this census, if another dozen were know to me. I try to be as inclusive as I can without resorting to speculation or guesswork. This is why you will often see specific quantities reported in the JRCS half dime census, and then a rarity rating applied which is not consistent with the quantity reported; it reflects additional examples known to me.

Regarding your question about why we use the rarity ratings for die marriages as opposed to type coins, remember that the Sheldon rarity scale that we use was developed for use with individual die marriages of Large Cents. It describes very small numbers of coins. It was not developed to describe rarity of coins by date or certainly by type. Those numbers would be so large as to render all examples R1. Even when we try to apply the Sheldon rarity scale to the Liberty Seated half dimes, with significantly larger mintages than the Bust half dimes, most examples become R1.

To be sure, the census surveys are most often used by die marriage collectors, and are reported as a function of the die marriages, by grade. This is not to say that the information would not be useful to date or type collectors, but by date or by type, the rarity ratings would be significantly less. An 1835 LM-12 half dime is an R7+, but just any 1835 half dime, by date, is certainly an R1.

STONE · July 23, 2008 8:32AM

Thanks everyone for your input. I realize that the R-3's, R-2's, and R-1's are just common die marriages and that these results might not be totally factual since an R3 might really be an R1. The other rarer die marriages (R4's - R8's) take some patience when acquiring, otherwise they wouldn't be as rare or sought after in the collecting community of their designated denomination and die marriage.

Would there ever be a consideration to change the way census' are completed? (I'm not saying that the current method is flawed in any way; although it is limited a bit)

The reason I bring this up is that I just thought of a new method that might produce more accurate rarity results, but it would take longer to complete.

While keeping the denominations separate (Bust Dimes, Halves, etc.) focus on certain dates within a series (ex. 1820) and focus on all die varieties of each denomination for that date. Compile as much data as you can for this date (or using 3-6 dates at once) and die varieties and post the results. In my head, which is strictly a theoretical idea, I feel this method would allow for more collectors to itemize what they have rather than overwhelming possibly large collections of undiagnosed die marriages all at once.
Again, this previous statement is purely theoretical and would likely take 5 years to complete, but it may allow for more accurate results (granted that the results shared are accurate as well!!!)

NHSBaseball · July 23, 2008 8:38AM

I guess I'm stating the obvious, but there is also the fact that most coins in many series remain unattributed in the first place.

If we take coin census' as fact, then some surprising revelations may occur!!!

Comments

Leave a Comment