Correlation between attitude toward clad coinage and age of collector?

CoinJunkie · December 2, 2008 5:45AM

I was born in 1959, so I remember the changeover to clad coinage and the subsequent
disappearance of silver coins from circulation. I'm assuming that my complete lack of
interest in clad coinage (and even post-1964 cents and nickels) was influenced by my
age and that experience. The new money just seemed lesser, and technically, I
guess it was.

Would be interested to hear from others here to see if most clad collectors were born
after 1964.

Cladiator · December 2, 2008 5:48AM

Born in 1975 and have absolutely zero interest in clad coinage.

blu62vette · December 2, 2008 5:49AM

I was born in 1975 and have little interest in clad. Not becuase of material but design, the coins lack interest for me. Also the design has never changed in my lifetime which I think makes them less interesting. One minor factor might be some people collect their birthyear sets, 2 of the coins from mine dont even have my year on it due to the bicentennials.

DoubleEagle59 · December 2, 2008 5:51AM

I'm right with you in more ways than one.

I too, was born in 1959.

Also, I hate clad coinage. I have no interest in any coins minted after 1964 (US) and 1967 (Canadian). No disrespects intended for those that do).

I've purchased the odd Ike Dollar, but have never purchased a Canadian coin after 1967.

And this is the main reason why I NEVER check my change for dates - I just don't know the varieties or the odd rare date for coins from 1968 to 2008.

Therefore in a general sense, I believe there is a strong correlation between the age of a collector and like/dislike of clad coinage.

rgCoinGuy · December 2, 2008 6:01AM

I was born post Silver ('69) and do have Dansco's with all the clad business strikes to date ( I may need to find the 2008's still), and have a good collection of Clad Type in PCGS holders for my type set. I am pretty much working my way backwards,. My 1950 to present type set is only missing a couple coins, so other than keeping up with current business strike issues, I will be buying more and more older (and to me more interesting) coins as I go forward.

One thought on this, if enough people don't collect clad in high grades, eventually (even if it's 100 years down the road) the one's I am collecting and conserving, will be worth more!

SanctionII · December 2, 2008 6:05AM

Most clad US coinage is not very attractive or appealing.

However, there are exceptions. When you hold in your hand a clad coin that is one of the exceptions, you can not help but go WOW. I have a few of these WOW coins and consider the eye appeal of same to be equal to the eye appeal of some of the WOW pre 1965 US issues.

As Cladking has stated, the lack of any significant interest in these coins and the poor quality of most of them has resulted in many clad coins being very, very rare. Those collectors who hunt down and acquire [for modest prices] the best of these rare coins are positioned to make a sizable return when they sell the coins. It may take many years for the demand for these coins to increase [maybe after the designs are finally retired] to the point where buy prices increase substantially, but as long as the hobby exists, demand will eventually increase.

Clads have been ignored from the beginning and that has resulted in opportunity for collectors.

Johnp · December 2, 2008 6:07AM

I think that silver coins and gold coins just has more eye appeal than clay coins, I could not imagine 40 years from now that a clay 1967 quarter would excite anybody but I might be wrong

mcheath · December 2, 2008 6:35AM

I was born in 82 and don't collect much clad coinage. I don't think its the clad so much as the same old designs. Why collect clad coins when the silver coins of the same design have so much more eye appeal. I have thought about collecting some Sacagaweas though. I like the design and have seem some with orange peel golden toned surfaces.

BillyKingsley · December 2, 2008 6:56AM

I was born in 1984 and the majority of my collection is clad. Most of it has been pulled from circulation (abot 98%) and I collect by date/mint mark.

I love the silver coins, but I just can't afford to buy a lot of them. And it's pretty hard to find them in circulation in this day and age.

PCcoins · December 2, 2008 7:04AM

I was Born in '85, and I don't collect any clad-coinage. It just doesn't appeal to me. I like the luster and toning with silver coinage to much

cladking · December 2, 2008 7:14AM

People say they aren't influenced by others or what others
collect but history proves again and again that this isn't nec-
essarily true. How do you account for many hobbyists sud-
denly developing a taste for art bars in 1972 or for white
Morgans in 1989? People do act in unison quite often in all
facets of life and this tends to be more true in things that
aren't necessities like art, fashions, or collectibles.

In all aspects of life we are indoctrinated to the status quo.
People simply accept most things as givens without ques-
tioning whether they are the best product, perspective, or
means.

Clad coinage was viewed as just common junk by most col-
lectors until only the last several years and many will never
change this perspective. But this is a worldwide phenome-
non and you'll see the same thing with aluminum, tin, and
other base metal coinage from almost everywhere; for the
main part it wasn't saved and now there are collectors who
don't remember nor care why it was ignored. They just want
the coins.

There has always been a reason of one sort or another not
to save new coins. For the last couple generations that rea-
son has been that the coins were worthless junk.

OnlyGoldIsMoney · December 2, 2008 7:28AM

I was born in 1955 and I can recall the first clad quarter I examined in November 1965. My dislike was instant and lasting. Silver coins started disappearing shortly thereafter. Even in 1966 l could have pulled together nice date sets of Mercury Dimes and Walking Liberty Halves from circulation. Checking change for dates I needed was fun. Unfortunately my weekly allowance of $1.00 precluded hoarding. I just cannot get interested in post 1964 coins today.

anablep · December 2, 2008 7:28AM

I was born in 1973 & have little to no interest in clad coinage.

clarkbar04 · December 2, 2008 7:33AM

I like the high relief clad washington quarters, after they went flat in the 90s they lost their soul.

Oh and another 75 born.

Mark · December 2, 2008 7:41AM

I was born in 49 and I love my clad dimes and three post 1989 proof sets. (I also love my Mercury dimes, my old commemoratives, my patterns, and ...) So I clearly will fall out of the young collector=clad coin category.

However I disagree with those that think clad coins will be the road to riches. It will be so only if enough collectors decide to collect them. I simply do not see that occuring. Until and unless there is a substantial upswing in the number of clad collectors, I believe prices of clad coins will remain low. And given that I am on the (slowly...very slowly) buying end of the scale, that's fine with me.

JupitarCoins · December 2, 2008 7:48AM

I too was born in 59 what a great year. I also totally agree with what you have to say about clad coinage. Sure wish I had saved all my coins when i was a child, still plenty of silver circulating in them days. Just think if we all saved our coins we would be rich I say.

edix2001 · December 2, 2008 7:50AM

I was born at the very beginning of 1960. (Happy coming 50th, all you '59ers!)
I've always considered clad coinage ugly compared to the previous silver issues.

cladking · December 2, 2008 7:59AM

<< I was born in 49 and I love my clad dimes and three post 1989 proof sets. (I also love my Mercury dimes, my old commemoratives, my patterns, and ...) So I clearly will fall out of the young collector=clad coin category.

However I disagree with those that think clad coins will be the road to riches. It will be so only if enough collectors decide to collect them. I simply do not see that occuring. Until and unless there is a substantial upswing in the number of clad collectors, I believe prices of clad coins will remain low. And given that I am on the (slowly...very slowly) buying end of the scale, that's fine with me. >>

It's hard to disagree with anythng this reasonable though a few
things should be pointed out for perspective.

It may be true that clads will never achieve a "mass market" as
most US coins have but the demand does continue to grow year
in and year out. This has already resulted in some rather high
prices for those which are scarcer such as varieties, high grades
and those which weren't saved in sufficient numbers.

I believe that in the long run that it is nearly inevitable that clads
will see a true mass market because success does feed on success.
Times change and things we take for granted today change before
we even know something is afoot. Each of us wakes up each day
and sees things that are suddenly much different than what we
picture them. Whether it's the first grey hair on the "old lady" or
an inability to find an old quarter without a lot of wear it doesn't
matter because time just keeps marching along.

Whether it will be decades yet before clads are missed or maybe
much sooner isn't really knowable but in the interim it's probably
safe to predict that demand will continue to inch higher because
a larger and larger percentage of the population doesn't even re-
member when silver was the coinage of the land.

SanctionII · December 2, 2008 8:05AM

For the most part the replies in this thread are accurate.

However, those who believe that all clad coins are ugly junk are mistaken. Some clad coins are very beautiful.

CoinJunkie · December 2, 2008 8:08AM

It would be useful if everyone replying to the thread would state their age, or at least whether
they were born before or after 1964. Thanks.

DieClash · December 2, 2008 8:09AM

I was born in '63. My first coin in my collection was a 1938 Jefferson Nickel (not a clad but an alloy). Interestingly the 5-cent Nickel has weighed 5 grams and composed of 75% Copper and 25% Nickel since it was first minted in 1866 (except for WWII silver nickels)!

Anyway, I was too young to get a lot of silver coins in change, although when I was younger I did get many.

I started collecting all the current modern series coins, including the clads and their silver predecessors. I continue to collect Proof & Mint clad & silver current series U.S. coins just to keep the sets current. But I also collect classic Silver dollars and half dollars as well as 20th & 19th century silver and modern Silver bullion coins.

I prefer the Silver coins because of their precious metal content, scarcity and design, but I do not in any way disdain the clads.

coinkat · December 2, 2008 8:10AM

demographics are always interesting...

tjkillian · December 2, 2008 8:22AM

I was born in 1962 and by the time I started collecting in 1971 (I was a late bloomer), all the silver had disappeared. I do not like clad coinage and prefer only silver coinage.

PerryHall · December 2, 2008 8:26AM

Most collectors have trouble respecting the coins they used to spend. I was born in 1947 and I still remember spending walking liberty and Franklin halves, mercury dimes, buffalo nickels, wheat cents, etc. To me they are still only pocket change.

cladking · December 2, 2008 8:30AM

<< It would be useful if everyone replying to the thread would state their age, or at least whether
they were born before or after 1964. Thanks. >>

I started collecting in 1957.

19Lyds · December 2, 2008 8:49AM

I was born in 1948 and IMO, a coin is a coin is a coin.

To me, it doesn't matter what it's made of as metal composition is NOT the reason I collect them.

coinnut · December 2, 2008 8:52AM

I was born in 1950 and also have zero interest in clad coinage. Most of the boring designs should have been retired long ago (Jefferson nickel, Roosevelt dime, Washington Quarter, Kennedy half). Basically, anything with a president or a building on it needs to go. The obverse of the Lincoln Cent may be the only exception.

gonzer · December 2, 2008 8:55AM

Born in '58, also no interest in CC. Just like aluminum bats. Kinda took the "feel" outta the game.

Coxe · December 2, 2008 8:56AM

I was born pre-clad as well. Sure wish I had socked away unc clad quarter rolls over the years. I was an avid collector when the Bicentennial coinage was out. I was casually amused but didn't care for them, even as outsiders were putting them away like folks did state quarters these past 10 years. (Ten years? Gee how a decade ain't what it used to be!)

veryfine · December 2, 2008 9:58AM

There are probably many collectors like me, who started off piecing clad sets together during childhood years. We quickly realized that there were bigger and better coins out there, so we lost interest in those common and artistically uninspiring clunkers.

If you are the type of collector who appreciates condition rarities, then there's a special clad home for you out there. There are plenty of modern issues that have and will continue to be overlooked.
But if you're like me; someone who appreciates the artistic beauty of SOME American coins, then you couldn't care less about the MS-67 through MS-69 population reports of a cupro-nickel Kennedy half!

Furthermore, you must lower your aesthetic sensibilities by pretending that you love "flat as a pancake" reliefs, haunting our coins for the last 15-20 years. At least the silver Washington quarters had a strong bold relief, sans the linguini hair of today.

IT'S ALL ABOUT ART!!!!!!!

Walmann · December 2, 2008 11:41AM

Born in 1960.

There are some great looking clad Washington quarters, I agree with clarkbar though that by 1996 the redesign was not for the better.

For those lovers of toned coins some of the toned clads are quit nice looking.

Just as there is nothing wrong with collecting copper or any lesser metal/alloy there is nothing wrong with the medium itself, it is all a matter of design.

There are clad coins in my collection that I will hold, whereas there are a number of lesser silver coins I would have no remorse if I had to part with.

OKbustchaser · December 2, 2008 1:22PM

Born in 1951...As a teen-age collector I never had any interest whatsoever in collecting the new clads. However, I also had zero interest in collecting the pre-clad coins that I grew up seeing in every day circulation. That was simply what I used in order to buy coins for my collection.

19Lyds · December 2, 2008 1:27PM

<< Bonr in 1960.

There are some great looking clad Washington quarters, I agree with clarkbar though that by 1996 the redesign was not for the better.

For those lovers of toned coins some of the toned clads are quit nice looking.

Just as there is nothing wrong with collecting copper or any less metal/alloy there is nothing wrong with the medium itself, it is all a matter of design.

There are clad coins in my collection that I will hold, whereas there are a number of lesser silver coins I would have no remorse if I had to part with. >>

Did he just say Bonr?

fc · December 2, 2008 1:30PM

<< Born in 1975 and have absolutely zero interest in clad coinage. >>

ditto. i spend clad... not collect it.

GrumpyEd · December 2, 2008 2:13PM

I was born before clad coins but I still filled folders with clads and memorial cents.

One BM I used to visit a few years ago was run by a nice older guy, sometimes I'd ask for something newer than 64 and he'd remind me "don't sell that post 64 stuff" but then he'd hand over a few nice clad uncs he got in collections as my change.

It's not true that moderns won't ever have a market. Try putting together a roll set of unc 1959-2008 cents, you'll easily find the earlier ones but the 80s and newer are tough to find in unc rolls. Clad coins in unc rolls are even harder to find, nobody thought to save rolls.!

jmski52 · December 2, 2008 2:34PM

Born in 1950. Bonr in 1962.

I held clad mostly in disdain until coming under cladking's influence. I lost interest in coins around 1971, partly because I was in college, partly because of the removal of silver, and partly because the coins were poorly-struck at that time. The Mint got sloppy, production increased drastically and the impressions got mushy. Enough said.

Now, I'm of a mind that the clads are under-appreciated, under-collected, not at all hoarded, and due to be seen someday as a very difficult series. And in becoming very difficult, very sought after and very pricey. Maybe not in my lifetime, but someday.

ProofArtworkonCircs · December 2, 2008 3:05PM

I was born in 1935 and was collecting, on a limited scale, by 1940. I almost think I see a trend here. Oldtimers have some respect for clads.
I like clads for two reasons.

1) I remember when silver coins were considered junk. There were so many made and they were just fiat money. The silver in them was no where near worth face value. I have to admit it was a certain thrill to go to a bank and get rather ancient silver dollars. Not being able to afford keeping them, I enjoyed spending them. When clad coins came out, the cheapness of the material did not matter to me - it was sort of business as usual.

2) It was the in clad era that I realized certain series had unique artwork for proofs. Better yet sometimes they appeared on circulation strikes in limited numbers. But the silver ones were made at Philadelphia where the proofs were made. So what if I had a rare unc strike, there were millions of proofs of the same date and mint. Now in the clad era we have unique unc proof artwork in some of the D mint quarters and the 1972 Philly dollar. They have NO corresponding proof production at the same mint. How many of you can come up with a 1972 D type B quarter and a 1972 P type 2 dollar? Or for that matter, just the quarter?

AmericanCopper · December 2, 2008 3:35PM

<< I was born in 1950 and also have zero interest in clad coinage. Most of the boring designs should have been retired long ago (Jefferson nickel, Roosevelt dime, Washington Quarter, Kennedy half). Basically, anything with a president or a building on it needs to go. The obverse of the Lincoln Cent may be the only exception. >>

Although Russ has shown me his Kenny's and they truly have eye-appeal and that "Wow" factor, I just can't find it to be so bowled over as to want to collect them, or any clad coinage seriously - certainly not like the first red Indianhead cent I saw. I respect what anyone collects, be it buttons or butterflys, but I just can't my panties in a bunch over much unless it's the old classics - preferably old copper. The only "modern" stuff I now have is the 2008 4-piece gold proof buffalo. (and a few stray commeratives whose design I liked). My age??...well, <ahem> ...<cough, cough>, lets just say pre-WWll.

Arizonadesertrat · December 2, 2008 5:36PM

I was born in 1957 and collected coins from ca. 1970 to 1982 (finished a Barber half set in ChEF-AU), and left the hobby until Jan. 2007.
Aside from the 1936-1942 proof coins, my collecting interests are mostly 19th-century U.S. to 1921 (large cents and Morgan dollars). I have no interest in clad coinage.

StubbyMcNumbthumbs · December 2, 2008 7:10PM

I was born in '61 and don't really remember silver coinage, except for later when it was cool to find a silver one in change. I started collecting stamps, actually. That was when I was 8 or so. I would go to the local Stamp & Coin shop and spend every penny I had. I would get the good ones that I could afford, then spend the remainder of my change in the "2cent box" on common ones.
I really liked the looks of the coins they had on display, but my dad steered me away from them because they "...cost too much compared to stamps".
I really wish he had steered me TOWARDS the coins, as I wouldn't have spent any more money than I was already spending, and years later my collection would have actually been worth something.

Didn't get into coins until probably about 1984 or so.

I have some clad coins in Dancsos but mostly just to fill in those times when I can't afford any REAL coins to collect. OUCH - Did he really say that??

PutTogether · December 2, 2008 8:28PM

I was born in 1980 and have zero interest in clad coinage. That said, I don't think it is the metal composition, but rather the age that intrigues me about coins. I don't think of any of my classic coins as "silver." I don't even think of them as made of silver. I just think of them as neat old coins in varying stages of preservation. It is definitely age of the coin that makes me smile, and the fact that it would be impossible to find in circulation today, and most people will not have EVER seen one.

DHeath · December 2, 2008 8:56PM

I am older than the OP. I collect 20th century coins, and love clads, mainly because the mint didn't. I also enjoy searching raw stock, having unwritten information others don't based on my own experience. The raw material is not manipulated by investors. Great classic coin collections are built from deceased collectors coins, and the competition to build sets is about who has the connections (who kisses the most dealer butt, or pays the most profit for the longest period) or money needed to acquire them. Classic "investors" worry alot about the coin "market", so much so that they need certifiers to certify certified coins. . If you collect clads, it probably isn't about what you can buy.

Collecting clads isn't about whose is bigger, it's about who's smarter. Finding what will be conditionally rare later while you can still find it raw seems perfectly logical to me.

ProofArtworkonCircs · December 3, 2008 12:32AM

Well put - DHeath! I quite agree.

19Lyds · December 3, 2008 12:42AM

<< If you collect clads, it probably isn't about what you can buy.

Collecting clads isn't about whose is bigger, it's about who's smarter. Finding what will be conditionally rare later while you can still find it raw seems perfectly logical to me. >>

This is what attracted me to coin collecting as I could never afford to even go to a coin shop. It was all pocket change based on what was currently available.

BillJones · December 3, 2008 1:02AM

I was born in 1949, and my interest in clad coinage is pretty much limited to Proof sets. And even there I much prefer the silver sets to the clad sets.

I don't have a huge interest in most modern coins. I collect the modern commemorative coins and the Proof sets, but I have almost no interest in the business strike coins regardless of the grade.

cupronik · December 3, 2008 1:44AM

Seems like a good number of thread responders were born in 1959; add me to the list.

I can appreciate eye-appealing top grade MS clad coins. I like to think some day there will be more interest
and a more determined effort to build superb collections as these coins are as much a part of our nation's
numismatic heritage as any other circulation strike U.S. series. When may this happen? Who knows?!

veryfine · December 3, 2008 2:12AM

Those who were born in the late fifties or early sixties have an interesting coin collecting perspective.
We were too young to remember the free flow of circulating silver coins, yet we did occasionally see a few turn up in change. Therefore we were instantly confronted with a comparison:

The "coolness" of a silver coin or

The "new" base metal clad coin.

The choice was clear, and to this day, many of us want to recapture the old days, when precious metals were a part of everyday life.

BillJones · December 3, 2008 2:30AM

<< The choice was clear, and to this day, many of us want to recapture the old days, when precious metals were a part of everyday life. >>

For me the issue is appearance. The copper-nickel surfaces of the clad coins simply are not as attractive as the silver pieces.

It disappoints me that all but two of the modern commemorative half dollars (the 1982 George Washington and the Bill of Rights half dollars are silver) are made on clad planchets. Some of those coins, such as the Statue of Liberty commemorative half dollar would have looked much nicer in silver.

DHeath · December 3, 2008 3:53AM

Bill Jones' presidential ferrotype collection makes me very jealous.

Boom · December 3, 2008 4:10AM

Oooh! I'm 54 - born in 54 and recall when oreo coinage came out.
Of course, Lincoln Cents hadn't yet changed - still pretty, Red Copper.

Nobody liked the look, the feel or the sound of "Oreos" as opposed to the very
distinct sound of silver. At that point nothing being minted was interesting from a
collector's perspective. The only thing worth collecting was coins minted pre 1964.

JMHO - FWIW!

RyGuy · December 3, 2008 4:12AM

Born in '86 and no interest in clad coinage. I have no reason to dislike it, just lacks any sort of appeal to me.

Correlation between attitude toward clad coinage and age of collector?

Comments

Leave a Comment