Options
Is it time for collectors to move away from "condition rarity"?
291fifth
Posts: 24,675 ✭✭✭✭✭
There was a recent thread about a very high grade 1956-D quarter that got me thinking about condition rarity.
The truth is, I couldn't get excited about a 1956-D quarter no matter how high the grade.
I'm tired of condition rarity.
I want to see absolute rarity.
Am I alone in this?
The truth is, I couldn't get excited about a 1956-D quarter no matter how high the grade.
I'm tired of condition rarity.
I want to see absolute rarity.
Am I alone in this?
All glory is fleeting.
0
Comments
In the esoteric areas I collect I can often buy coins with total mintages in the dozens or less, and surviving pops in the handful for under $1k. But if everyone started collecting them then I couldn't afford them any more.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>I'm tired of condition rarity. >>
Collecting condition rarity is a relatively 'young' concept in numismatics, and my sense is that it is only going to increase in popularity.
<< <i>Well, that's what is so wonderful about our hobby. Anyone can collect whatever they want to.
SIGLINE worthy.
Also would like to state that while my thoughts often are in contrast to the OP's... This particular question is very good for critical thinking and I want to publicly thank 291Fifth for his involvement here. The questions are teachers, themselves.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>There was a recent thread about a very high grade 1956-D quarter that got me thinking about condition rarity.
The truth is, I couldn't get excited about a 1956-D quarter no matter how high the grade.
I'm tired of condition rarity.
I want to see absolute rarity.
Am I alone in this? >>
You're not alone. But it's not unanimous either. The rare stuff is in great demand. The high grade more common stuff is in great demand. It's the stuff meeting both categories that people are less excited about.
Example - I don't get excited about late date walkers in the mega grades; MS64/65 is 'good enough' for me. And one person's (or TPG) MS66
may be another person's MS65 or MS67, as the differences are minute, and the grading standards based on these minor attributes that separate coins at this grade level
may change over time.
Then take a 21D walker - not a rare coin in AG/G, but in AU it is a rarity. Most rational people know an AU walker when they see one, it's attractive
at this grade level, and always in demand.
<< <i>I have always been an absolute rarity guy, but it is a matter of personal preference. >>
Same here. In many cases the condition rarity coins are extremely common moderns where the top pop coins are the only ones that have any real value.
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
Condition is important to me. I don't buy junk, and I don't like problem coins. But when a fairly minor or perhaps nonexistent increase in quality via a Mint State or Proof grading number increases the price by a huge amount, I step back, and I’m often I’m “out.”
I think that a lot of this “mega quality mania” is driven by the registries. I learned a while back that I could never be the top dog in the type coin registry because I would have alter my patterns as a collector to do it. The guy who has the #1 type set across the street has all of the fairly common types in high grades.
BUT he has a Mint State 1804 Restrike piece (a piece was struck circa 1860 from a salvaged 1803 obverse and 1820 reverse die) in the in the Draped Bust large cent (1796 to 1807) category, which I think is wrong. My Chain Cent is a VF-30; his is a Good-4. My Gobrecht dollar is PR-62; his is a VF. I have a 1796 half dollar (the king of the type coins) in Fine-15; he does not have that type. All of my early coins and head shoulders about his coins (VF to MS-64 to his pieces in Good to Fine), but he beats me because his modern coins are MS-67 and 68 while mine are MS or PR 65. He gets as many points for a couple high grade Standing Liberty quarters as I get from a 1796 Quarter in VF-25.
This is the reason why the “Pop -1” stuff brings so much money. After a while I think that this situation will run its course, and the price of these items will stabilize or fall a bit. In other words if you think that you are going to make money by buying this stuff now, you might reconsider. Like everything thing else economic, once the price run-ups have occurred it’s too to get rich off an item unless the market makes another adjustment upward.
As for that 1956 quarter I have no doubt that it is scarce in high grade. I learned that 1962-D half dollars are scarce in high grade after I cracked a couple of unopened rolls and found most MS-60 grade coins. But the question is do I care enough about a 1956 quarter to pay a high price for it? The answer is no.
Super high grade moderns is not for me and looks like not for a lot of long time collectors.
Yes, on this forum, quality, rarity, relatively high priced coins (only the top 10% of income earners might be able to afford), tend to get top billing, but this forum is only a small slice of the collector population. At the local club, low price, and bullion value are big factors. Quality gets little attention because most at the club don't know how to grade. Those that can grade, don't care about quality within a single grade. It ain't their thing.
I am bringing a non-coin buddy to the Long Beach show. Last time he went, he thought that anyone that paid big money for a key date (absolute rarity) was an idiot when they could buy the "same" coin in a different date or mintmark for maybe 1/100 the price.
What about c coin like the 1884-S $10 in PCGS MS-63? It sounds like a generic coin, but, in fact, there are 9 in MS-63 and none higher. In 60 and lower, the coin sells for generic prices, but in lower MS grades, there is an escalating premium from 61-63.
The 1884-S $20 has a similar pricing and population profile. In 60 and lower, it is generic, and in MS grades, there is a significant premium ($6000 in MS-63 compared to $2200 for generic) because of the relative condition rarity.
There are countless examples in the Liberty $10 and $20 series, especially the former, that are similar.
<< <i>There was a recent thread about a very high grade 1956-D quarter that got me thinking about condition rarity.
The truth is, I couldn't get excited about a 1956-D quarter no matter how high the grade.
I'm tired of condition rarity.
I want to see absolute rarity.
Am I alone in this? >>
Define "Absolute Rarity"?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm tired of condition rarity. >>
Collecting condition rarity is a relatively 'young' concept in numismatics, and my sense is that it is only going to increase in popularity. >>
I'm guessing the current emphasis on condition rarity is a direct result of the introduction of the registry sets. I think it will remain popular as long as the registry remains popular.
I think it is a valid concept and has its place, but I think it's importance has been blown out of proportion. In my opinion, absolute rarity should add a LOT more value to a coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm tired of condition rarity. >>
Collecting condition rarity is a relatively 'young' concept in numismatics, and my sense is that it is only going to increase in popularity. >>
I agree.
I happened to see an Antiques Roadshow episode where an appraiser said (not about coins): "On a common item, condition is everything, on a rare item, condition is not so important"
I think this is rapidly becoming true in the Numismatic world. If you think about it it explains a lot of what is going on today.
If we lose money in the hobby, we have coins worth less money, and nothing to worry about.
If we gain knowledge from these losses, we have gained wisdom and have nothing to worry about.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Define "Absolute Rarity"? >>
How about the Sheldon definition of "rare", R-5, 31 to 75 examples known in ALL grades, including Poor-1.
Of course “rare” can be a relative term compared to the demand for the item. Recently I purchased this pattern gold, the only true pattern in my collection. There are an estimated 40 examples of this piece known, but compared to other gold patterns it’s “common.”
The coin has a good story, which is what I like. When government personnel were considering issuing the silver again in 1836, treasury secretary, Levi Woodberry, asked the mint to prepare dies for a gold dollar. Woodberry was aware of the gold dollars that the Bechtlers had issued in North Carolina and thought that the concept should be explored along with the silver dollar. Mint director, Robert Patterson, opposed the idea because he thought the issuance of small gold coins by the United States would reflect badly on the country. Only the 19th century equivalent of “banana republics” issued such coin in his opinion.
Following the orders of his boss, Christian Gobrecht made the dies for this obviously inspired by the Liberty Cap design that appeared on Mexican coinage. The idea didn’t go any further although the mint did produced restrikes of this coin in later years.
As a nice PR-64, this coin is as nice as any I have seen of this pattern although I’ve seen no more than seven or eight of these pieces in my time as a collector. I usually don’t spend much time with patterns, but I knew the story about this one and bought it.
But among the gold patterns, this coin is not considered to be “rare.”
<< <i>I happened to see an Antiques Roadshow episode where an appraiser said (not about coins): "On a common item, condition is everything, on a rare item, condition is not so important" >>
Well-said, and an important point to keep in mind.
My priorities were as much about aesthetics as anything...and there are numerous criteria for each collector to determine. Mine was "the best possible".
ps. Look at the link below of my?Duckor's 1928 MS67+ that recently sold in the Duckor sale. It was a "common" 67 condition rarity, but it was magnificent. I bought it for 7K, sold it to Steve, who loved the coin, for 18K and it sold in auction for $54K!! Fifty four thousand...for a 1928...ok, it has a "+" designation now...but there's an example of a condition "sort of rarity" that was first and foremost, beautiful and secondly, hugely profitable.
1928 MS67+
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
<< <i>In my set I favor the coins that are rare in any grade. A scarce coin in Fine can be as pleasing as a MS 67. >>
I agree.
<< <i>In my set I favor the coins that are rare in any grade. A scarce coin in Fine can be as pleasing as a MS 67. >>
Although I would have prefered to found this one in VF ...
CG
<< <i>BillJones. I have to ask, it's worth a shot, but can I have your 1796 half? >>
Sorry ... It took me 50+ years to get to this point .. This was the last coin I needed to complete my half cent through non gold dollar type set.
Sure I'd like a better one, but since the few known nice VF's are more than a significant portion of my annual income, this is what I have for now:
If there are only 2 quarters in ms69 of one date, but only 2 quarters surviving in g4 in another date, wouldn't those 4 quarters respectively all have the same rarity?
You're basically comparing date rarity to condition rarity (unless of course you're ONLY talking about type coins that have super low mintages which are a minute percent of the coin market and shouldn't be the basis of this topic)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Personally, I've never been enamored with condition (ie grade) rarity. That's because I'm not enamored with "grade" per se. I just like pretty coins whether they are XF, AU or MS65. Of course, my definition of "eye appeal" might differ from others.
High mint state grades don't do much for me because if there is a super high grade coin for big money somewhere there is probably a choice coin I'd like just as much at a fraction of the price. I like buying just below the big jump....always have.
So to the OP: No, you aren't alone.
jom
If there are only 2 quarters in ms69 of one date, but only 2 quarters surviving in g4 in another date, wouldn't those 4 quarters respectively all have the same rarity?
You're basically comparing date rarity to condition rarity (unless of course you're ONLY talking about type coins that have super low mintages which are a minute percent of the coin market and shouldn't be the basis of this topic)
Imagine a pile of all 50 or so known 1802 half dimes, the best one, a Pop-1 AU50, on top, and most of them in the Fair to VG range, and about half with a host of problems like cleaned, bent, dinged, etc.
Next to this little stack is a mountain of the 4+ billion existing 2006 Lincoln cents, and at the very very top, a single Pop-1 MS69+ (or whatever the top pop condition rarity is)
Are you really asking if the two top pop coins at the top of each stack have the same Rarity because there's one of each? And that therefore they should demand the same collector intrest, respect, and pricing structure?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Why is there 2 definitions of rare?
If there are only 2 quarters in ms69 of one date, but only 2 quarters surviving in g4 in another date, wouldn't those 4 quarters respectively all have the same rarity?
You're basically comparing date rarity to condition rarity (unless of course you're ONLY talking about type coins that have super low mintages which are a minute percent of the coin market and shouldn't be the basis of this topic)
Imagine a pile of all 50 or so known 1802 half dimes, the best one, a Pop-1 AU50, on top, and most of them in the Fair to VG range, and about half with a host of problems like cleaned, bent, dinged, etc.
Next to this little stack is a mountain of the 4+ billion existing 2006 Lincoln cents, and at the very very top, a single Pop-1 MS69+ (or whatever the top pop condition rarity is)
Are you really asking if the two top pop coins at the top of each stack have the same Rarity because there's one of each? And that therefore they should demand the same collector intrest, respect, and pricing structure? >>
Yup.
<< <i>Why is there 2 definitions of rare?
If there are only 2 quarters in ms69 of one date, but only 2 quarters surviving in g4 in another date, wouldn't those 4 quarters respectively all have the same rarity?
You're basically comparing date rarity to condition rarity (unless of course you're ONLY talking about type coins that have super low mintages which are a minute percent of the coin market and shouldn't be the basis of this topic)
Imagine a pile of all 50 or so known 1802 half dimes, the best one, a Pop-1 AU50, on top, and most of them in the Fair to VG range, and about half with a host of problems like cleaned, bent, dinged, etc.
Next to this little stack is a mountain of the 4+ billion existing 2006 Lincoln cents, and at the very very top, a single Pop-1 MS69+ (or whatever the top pop condition rarity is)
Are you really asking if the two top pop coins at the top of each stack have the same Rarity because there's one of each? And that therefore they should demand the same collector intrest, respect, and pricing structure? >>
Yes.
I'm asking about the definitions of rarity, not whether it should demand the same collector interest. (every collector is different, so that term is just so grey to me).
If both of your example coins have a pop of 1, then yes, according to the definition of "rare" or "unique", I would say they fall into the same category.
Someone who loves to collect wheaties and has a common date that is a top pop is probably just as proud to own it as someone who has a lot of expendable income and has a top pop $20 high relief.
I just don't think this is something that can have a set in stone description...there is some opinion involved as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>Define "Absolute Rarity"? >>
How about the Sheldon definition of "rare", R-5, 31 to 75 examples known in ALL grades, including Poor-1.
Of course “rare” can be a relative term compared to the demand for the item. Recently I purchased this pattern gold, the only true pattern in my collection. There are an estimated 40 examples of this piece known, but compared to other gold patterns it’s “common.”
The coin has a good story, which is what I like. When government personnel were considering issuing the silver again in 1836, treasury secretary, Levi Woodberry, asked the mint to prepare dies for a gold dollar. Woodberry was aware of the gold dollars that the Bechtlers had issued in North Carolina and thought that the concept should be explored along with the silver dollar. Mint director, Robert Patterson, opposed the idea because he thought the issuance of small gold coins by the United States would reflect badly on the country. Only the 19th century equivalent of “banana republics” issued such coin in his opinion.
Following the orders of his boss, Christian Gobrecht made the dies for this obviously inspired by the Liberty Cap design that appeared on Mexican coinage. The idea didn’t go any further although the mint did produced restrikes of this coin in later years.
As a nice PR-64, this coin is as nice as any I have seen of this pattern although I’ve seen no more than seven or eight of these pieces in my time as a collector. I usually don’t spend much time with patterns, but I knew the story about this one and bought it.
But among the gold patterns, this coin is not considered to be “rare.” >>
Thanks Bill as that was exactly what I was looking for. Specifically, too often folks confuse rarity with value when the reality is that "rarity" IS an absolute number but "value" is directly related to whatever folks are willing to pay. Often, highly valued coins which are labeled "rare" are actually a product of popularity and not necessarily rarity.
The name is LEE!
I have been collecting what I can afford since I was 14 years old. Now that I am in My fifties I still love to just collect coins and only sell to upgrade My collection.
Coins to Me are like a piece of art , some with amazing colors . I don’t really understand why some question what others want to collect. Most of Us take pride in our collection no matter if it is modern coins of rare coins..
On the flipside I do not see the value when an MS66 is priced in the tens of dollars range...and the grade higher is in the thousands of dollars range...I just don't get it. Give me a PQ 66 anyday! Minor price bumps for major money is not my idea of collecting.
NO CONTEST!!
Nothing is rare just because there is only one graded 69 when there are billions in the next grades down.
Get real! Please!
Do I get excited about modern coins or bullion made yesterday by the BILLIONS........NO!! No matter what grade!!
<< <i>Some of Us do not collect coins for profit , but for the fun of collecting coins.
I have been collecting what I can afford since I was 14 years old. Now that I am in My fifties I still love to just collect coins and only sell to upgrade My collection.
Coins to Me are like a piece of art , some with amazing colors . I don’t really understand why some question what others want to collect. Most of Us take pride in our collection no matter if it is modern coins of rare coins.. >>