I really hate to think what it would cost to pursue my favorite coins (draped bust quarters and halves in good to fine) if everyone else collecting coins was after them, too, because there were no more modern coins in higher grades, "monster rainbows", perfect collector bullion and other Made for Collectors(tm) items, and TPG-manufactured "condition rarities" of all of the above to dilute demand.
I hope and pray that if and when the market for common coins shifts to Real Old Rare Coins that it happens after I'm done buying (as it is, things have really slowed down for me as prices of early stuff has risen)
<< <i>I really hate to think what it would cost to pursue my favorite coins (draped bust quarters and halves in good to fine) if everyone else collecting coins was after them, too, because there were no more modern coins in higher grades, "monster rainbows", perfect collector bullion and other Made for Collectors(tm) items, and TPG-manufactured "condition rarities" of all of the above to dilute demand.
I hope and pray that if and when the market for common coins shifts to Real Old Rare Coins that it happens after I'm done buying (as it is, things have really slowed down for me as prices of early stuff has risen) >>
The market already has shifted to the older coins. Just look at how much more they cost in the circulated grades that you collect, Baley, than the they did 10 or 12 years ago. The supply has dried up too. Problem from examples of Bust quarters and haves in VG to Fine are not seen that often. I'll leave the Good coins out it because more problems are expected on those.
But, yes, all it takes is a small increase in demand the price of the 18th and early 19th century coins goes way up because the supply is so thin.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Very interesting thread. The points of view on the board don't vary as much as I would have expected.
My thoughts- what is wrong with liking both? Why is there one or the other mentality, instead of what in my opinion should be there- "Live and let live", or in this case, "Collect and let collect"
With that said, personally I favor absolute rarity over conditional rarity. I am basing this on what I like to look at, not what I like to buy, because I can't really afford absolute OR conditional rarity. Looking at a better preserved example of something even I can have doesn't really excite me much. Looking at something that's so rare I've never seen one before, that, I find exciting.
I think, when it comes down to the bottom line, I like collecting knowledge more than I like collecting physical "things", and to me there is more knowledge to be gained from something totally new than, like I said above, something that I could even have a copy of just in a better state of preservation...although there are limits to that too. For example, I have a 1956 D quarter. It's black and crusty with a big old scratch that I accidentally applied myself on literally the first day I became a collector. (I learned quickly to pull/poke them out of the bucket they were in with a screwdriver). So I would like a better example version. But I wouldn't want a high grade one, I am perfectly happy to collect the coinage that most people consider not worth collecting- IE, commonly circulated.
My secret collections II, III, IV & V. I've added three items to those collections so far this year. I'll be lucky if I add 5-6 more for the rest of the year. They just aren't around.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a keeping up with the Jones mentality that exists in this hobby
The whole condition rarity thing is just a general obsession with being number 1 and having the belief one needs to have the finest.
It really doesn't work for me. I would rather have an 1881-s in a 64 holder at 75 bucks than a 68 at 4 or 5 thousand- then I could use the difference to buy something that really matters
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
For me it's the beauty of the coin. I'd rather have a beautiful 1881-s Morgan than a beat-to-hell 1895-o Morgan that looks like it came out of a wood chipper.
Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived.
<< <i>Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived. >>
If ever I've seen a statement that was totally 180 degress off the mark, this is it. Condition rarity for modern coins is highly subjective. For "classic coins" it can very much be a matter of opinion, especially when it comes to a piece that is clean for the grade versus a piece that is net graded for problems. Granted that are coins, like the 1937-D three legged buffalo nickel and the low grade 1916-D Mercury dime, that are WAY over rated for rarity, but when the grade comes down to hair splitting, this statement is way off base.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>I'd be happy to collect condition rarities of many types of common coins if the premiums were a whole lot lower. >>
The excessive prices that some pay for very minor improvements in quality have been something I've warned new collectors about for years.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I would say there is such a thing as condition rarity. It's just that most items called condition rarities really are not such. I think the issue is that we often judge condition rarity based only on the arbitrary "70-point" grade system with ill-defined steps between grades. And, once we consider that we could just as well have a system with say, eight mint state gradations, or where the steps between grades are "shifted" "one-half point" from where they are considered to be now, there would be many fewer condition rarities. IOW, a condition rarity needs to be conditionally rare in any realistic grading system, not merely the one presently used. There are coins which meet this difinition. For some odd reason, the Norweb-Bass 1864-S half eagle is the one I always use as a true condition rarity. There are others, and I'm sure that even a few modern condition rarities remain.
<< <i>For me it's the beauty of the coin. I'd rather have a beautiful 1881-s Morgan than a beat-to-hell 1895-o Morgan that looks like it came out of a wood chipper.
Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived. >>
By your reasoning are the four 1854-S $2.50's graded by PCGS as G6 to F12 contrived rarities?
Perhaps a well worn coin takes on more beauty when only 11-12 are known.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i> << For me it's the beauty of the coin. I'd rather have a beautiful 1881-s Morgan than a beat-to-hell 1895-o Morgan that looks like it came out of a wood chipper. Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived. >>
By your reasoning are the four 1854-S $2.50's graded by PCGS as G6 to F12 contrived rarities? Perhaps a well worn coin takes on more beauty when only 11-12 are known. >>
The real question is whether I'd rather have one of the most beautiful Liberty $2.50 Gold coins in whatever date, or a decent-looking one with a date they didn't make many of. I'll take beauty over date rarity. I guess that makes me a type-set guy.
Looking at the numbers and mintmarks don't do much for me. Any date will do.
<< <i> << For me it's the beauty of the coin. I'd rather have a beautiful 1881-s Morgan than a beat-to-hell 1895-o Morgan that looks like it came out of a wood chipper. Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived. >>
By your reasoning are the four 1854-S $2.50's graded by PCGS as G6 to F12 contrived rarities? Perhaps a well worn coin takes on more beauty when only 11-12 are known. >>
The real question is whether I'd rather have one of the most beautiful Liberty $2.50 Gold coins in whatever date, or a decent-looking one with a date they didn't make many of. I'll take beauty over date rarity. I guess that makes me a type-set guy.
Looking at the numbers and mintmarks don't do much for me. Any date will do. >>
Absolute rarity has stood "the test of time," whereas condition rarity is a phenomenon of recent times. Personally, I am more impressed with absolute rarity, although if one can combine the two (a very rare coin in superb condition), that's really significant.
The problem with condition rarity is that the condition is always just the opinion of whoever graded the coin. Spending gazillions of dollars on an opinion with which a lot of people may not agree strikes me as foolishness. Also, if we are talking about moderns, condition rarity is subject to change with time. Plus certain opinions carry more weight than others, and just the generally held acceptance of that principle can greatly affect pricing of identically graded items.
I like owning coins where I know only a handful of collectors will ever own one. I'm not talking about, for example, 93S dollars, which are plentiful but expensive. I'm talking about coins that you can search for for years without finding one no matter how much money you are willing to spend on it. The hunt is everything.
I like the quote someone posted from Antiques Roadshow.
Of course,what one considers "modern" is arbitrary.I consider coins made after 1933 to be modern so that's quite a few billion coins in the various series.
It would be an interesting thing to know.What is the ratio of moderns to classics,in all series,using 1933 as the cut-off point?
I suspect that this obsession with condition rarity and willingness to spend big money on common coins in uncommonly high condition has a lot to do with the phenomenon of the "quest for the perfect coin" that afflicts most collectors at some time in their collecting careers.
I just think that spending big money on modern coins in highest grades has big potential to eventually sour the collector spending the money since the future liquidity is not really going to be there for them.
3500? for a 1956-D Lincoln cent in MS67 RD? 1.098 billion 1956-D Lincolns were made.Only 1944 "P" is higher for mintage of wheat cents at 1.43 billion.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>>>>Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived. <<<
This is completely backwards. There is NOTHING rare about a coin made yesterday by the billions no matter what grade.
BUT the Shield nickel shown above is rare! >>
In reality they both have some facets that are contrived and others that are not. How many exist, that is fact...even if it is sometimes unknown. General grading of the coin, also fact...one has less wear than the other...there comes a point when it becomes an opinion, especially in high grades, but in general grading is fact. "This coin has more metal left on the coin than that one." Within a narrow range it becomes somewhat "contrived" so to speak because it becomes a judgement call. "Which coin is better, the one with the tic on the head, or the one with the mark in the field."
But in reality "rarity" tends to be contrived, it's based on our perception of availability. If a coin that is empirically rare (say 10 in existence,) but one comes to auction every year, the interest for such a rarity is greatly diminished...since it appears that no one wants it, collector demand and pricing goes down. Now lets take a coin that is exactly 10x more common, but one only sees an example at auction once every 50 years...well the perceived rarity goes through the roof, since no one has likely seen one in their entire collecting careers...suddenly it isn't just rare, but super desirable as well.
But it's WAY more common!!!! See contrived rarity...happens all the time. Don't believe me, take almost any three cent nickle in the 1880's and compare the pops to any of the "rare" Morgan dollars...see what I mean!
<< <i>A circulated 1880 Shield Nickel is a condition rarity, not an absolute rarity. Proofs/alleged Mint State specimens are not particularly hard to find. >>
I'd concur the Proofs are not that hard, but the biz strikes seem to be. It's a coin that's missing from all but the top registry sets at both services, rarely appears at auction, and CoinFacts ranks it an 8.0 in terms of rarity, with a survival rate estimated at 100 coins, in all grades.
<< <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? >>
Many of us were alive in 1956 so the date is very meaningful to us. It has a story that weve heard ever since 1956. Where many collectors won't collect dates after their birth or some specific time like, perhaps WW II, there are many more who do collect such coins. '56-D quarters weren't so much "bad" as they were universally mediocre. Why should a collector want to remember 1956 with a "mediocre" coin. Why not try to remember it with a superb example to match his memory or the ideal of what the date could have been. For that matter why would a much younger collector prefer a typical example of the date.
I might agree that "needing" the very best is an activity for the very few but wanting superb examples is simply engrained on almost all collectors of almost everything. No matter what anyone says there are numerous later dates and moderns that can be very tough to find as superb examples. People didn't save moderns so finding choice coins can be very tough. This goes many times over for scarcer dates and varieties.
Why would a collector desire choice coins but then put a typical coin in the slot for a 1956-D.
<< <i> 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. >>
I know you're referring to SLQ here (which makes the statement even more perplexing), but why wouldn't the collector of anything prefer the finest coins. Obviously "finest" can be even lower than unc in many of the rare coins ('72-D DDR quarters aren't known in unc) but if a collector can "afford" a higher grade and it exists then why would he buy something less. For some collectors a Very Fine is plenty good enough and in my opinion the sweet spot for moderns is really near Gem to Gem be- cause price does play a role in what grade most collectors desire a coin. The percieved value plays a role and the perception of future value very often is considered as well.
I don't see why " “Pop -1” stuff" should fall out of favor. The reason these weren't available before isn't that they had yet to be promoted or collectors were too smart to waste their money on them. It was because they simply weren't generally available. In 1956 a dealer would laugh youout of the shop if you asked him to find the nicest 1950 Franklin half on the market. There was no mechanism to identify the coin and no means to bring it to market. There was no market because there was no supply.
All this is changed now. The finest examples of just about everything more than a few years old are available and a market exists. There's no reason to believe this won't continue or that collectors won't continue to pay a premium for quality.
<< <i> 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. >>
Same here. But if I did collect silver quarters I would want at least a nice Gemmy '56-D.
<< <i>I think we all would prefer absolute rarity over condition rarity in general, but where you can buy an 1804 dollar or 1913 Lib Nickel for about $4000? Some of us just like rarity, and so maybe condition rarity Roosevelt Dimes, Washington Quarters, or obscure die varieties of some older series, or something else esoteric, is all we can afford. >>
Indeed. I'll probably never be able to own the unique 1964 clad quarter.
But I can and do own some of the finest clad quarters in very rare grades as well as some "rare" varieties.
Collectors tend to seek rarity above all else and if you collect moderns that means "common" coins have to be at least near-Gem. Of course most modern sets can be appreciated and collected even in MS-60 and these can be a little bit "pricey" as well depenndent on what is included. There's nothing wrong with an MS-60 '72-D quarter but why own this when a solid Gem costs no more.
<< <i>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.
>>
What most people don't understand is that moderns can be nearly as rare (perhaps even rarer)('70-S 5c) before the big jump in price.
I prefer nice examples of coins right below the big jump as well.
<< <i>I'd be happy to collect condition rarities of many types of common coins if the premiums were a whole lot lower. >>
In some ways it was a lot more fun collecting high grades in the old days. Premiums were tiny to almost non-existent but the work involved was huge. You simply had to look at a great number of coins and this could be impossible in many cases. It's really the reason I switched to clad since look- ing at lots of rolls of Franklins was too difficult. But I could go to the bank or look through mounds of mint sets until my eyes went crossed.
Today almost any high grade can be bought with just a few clicks of the mouse.
<< <i>Absolute rarity has stood "the test of time," whereas condition rarity is a phenomenon of recent times. Personally, I am more impressed with absolute rarity, although if one can combine the two (a very rare coin in superb condition), that's really significant. >>
I don't disagree but I do believe the only reason condition rarity hasn't stood the test of time is that this is still only the year 2012.
<< <i>A circulated 1880 Shield Nickel is a condition rarity, not an absolute rarity. Proofs/alleged Mint State specimens are not particularly hard to find. >>
I'd concur the Proofs are not that hard, but the biz strikes seem to be. It's a coin that's missing from all but the top registry sets at both services, rarely appears at auction, and CoinFacts ranks it an 8.0 in terms of rarity, with a survival rate estimated at 100 coins, in all grades. >>
As someone who collected Mint State Shield Nickels very seriously back in the mid to late 1990's I can say from experience that I don't buy the explanations that discern proof from mint state for this date. I was offered several "mint state" examples and rejected all of them. I eventually just put a proof into the set and decided not to worry about it. (My collection was sold in 1999.)
If you have to wonder about it it isn't worth a premium.
the only reason condition rarity hasn't stood the test of time is that this is still only the year 2012.
I get around this by imagining myself in the year 1959.Then condition rarity for issues earlier than 1959 stand the test of time for me.
1956 D Lincoln cent in Unc. was $.05,according to the Redbook, in 1959.That's a fancy price in 1959 for a coin that was minted only three years earlier.
2009 Redbook has this issue at $.50 in MS 65.That's reasonable,in my opinion,for a gem '56-D,given inflation 50 years plus.
Unc. (1959)-$.05 MS65 (2009)-$.50
I might go $1 or $2 in 2012 for a really nice (Gem+ or Gem++) '56-D Lincoln cent but that's about it.I don't have a 2012 Redbook so I can't speak to what it lists for a price on '56-D.
I'm relying on my instincts when I say I would pay $1 or $2 for a nice gem for my collection of Lincoln cents.
Now 1956-D/D in gem? Quite a bit more than $1 or $2 I would pay based on my knowledge of how scarce this mintmark variety actually is.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>the only reason condition rarity hasn't stood the test of time is that this is still only the year 2012.
I get around this by imagining myself in the year 1959.Then condition rarity for issues earlier than 1959 stand the test of time for me.
1956 D Lincoln cent in Unc. was $.05,according to the Redbook, in 1959.That's a fancy price in 1959 for a coin that was minted only three years earlier.
2009 Redbook has this issue at $.50 in MS 65.That's reasonable,in my opinion,for a gem '56-D,given inflation 50 years plus.
Unc. (1959)-$.05 MS65 (2009)-$.50
I might go $1 or $2 in 2012 for a really nice (Gem+ or Gem++) '56-D Lincoln cent but that's about it.I don't have a 2012 Redbook so I can't speak to what it lists for a price on '56-D.
I'm relying on my instincts when I say I would pay $1 or $2 for a nice gem for my collection of Lincoln cents.
Now 1956-D/D in gem? Quite a bit more than $1 or $2 I would pay based on my knowledge of how scarce this mintmark variety actually is. >>
I don't disagree but there were an awful lot of 1956-D cents saved. These came fairly nice fairly often so why pay huge premiums for even gemmy ones unless you want to have the finest. There were likely a couple million of these coins set aside and going through only a few dozen will provide a very nice example.
But let's compare this to a comparable modern. By 1982 the value of the nickel had decreased to about what the value of a 1956 cent had been so let's take a look at 1982 nickels. Where thwere had been a couple million of the '56-D cent there were fewer than 200,000 1982-P nic- kels saved. But unlike '56 cents mostof these nickels were not very well made nor well preserved. They came out of the mint badly scratched up and had other problems with strike and retained planchet flaws. The attrition on these few saved was quite high the first few years and there is still a lot of degradation caused by improper storage in folders and the like.
Where all you have to do is order a few 1956-D cent rolls and choose the best you'll find it's very difficult to even check 1982 nickels for choice coins because they are so much scarcer and so much more spread out. I'd wager only about one coin shop in three has the nickel in stock but most have the cents and in small quantity since there's a broader market for wheat cents than modern nickels. Where checking 40 or 50 cents will be easy, cheap, and productive you'll find none of this applies to the nickel except for cheap. A nice choice specimen will cost only two or three dol- lars usually when it is finally found. This leaves most would be collectors of the coin to either wait or buy a slabbed coin which will cost at least ten or twenty dollars. Most of these cheap ones are "mistakes" of the submitter. But there aren't tens of thousands of these lying around like the '56 cent. There are maybe just several dozen in aggregate.
Again, I'm not suggesting that people should rush out and pay "moon money" for top grade '82 nickels. This appeals to some collectors and not others. I would never suggest that people buy any coin for investment reasons but the fact is nice '82-P nickels are greatly undervalued relative 1956 cents or almost any pre-'65 US coin and this even extends to the pop tops. This underval- uation has persisted for decades and could never end. I believe it's coming to a screeching halt as soon as the economy turns the corner.
I can't imagine looking at the 1893-s more than once and saying "Well, that's what a beat-up Morgan looks like." I'd never get tired of looking at the 1885-o. For me, that's what it comes down to. Investment-wise? Probably better to buy that ugly 93-s, stick it in a drawer somewhere and forget about it.
<< <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? >>
When I was in junior high school in 1972, one day I had a "job" collecting the money for a movie being shown in the school auditorium. Even at that time, silver coins in circulation were practically non-existant. I still remember getting a 1956-D silver quarter (which I was able to keep by substituting a clad quarter of my own). It was a beauty - blazing luster, few marks, and nice golden toning around the rims.
You'll never find out that the coin you substituted for it was a rare '72-D DDR quarter or condition census type "b" reverse. >>
Even so, given the odds and the choice between an UNC 1956-D silver quarter (sure thing), and a random clad quarter in circulation in 1972 (speculation), I'd still take the silver.
the fact is nice '82-P nickels are greatly undervalued relative (to) 1956 cents or almost any pre-'65 US coin
To be clear,I'm not assuming that $3500 1956-D Lincolns exist by the roll.
I can most likely agree with you about 1982 nickels being undervalued "relative to 1956 cents" but to "almost any pre-'65 US coin?"
Can you explain why you think really nice 1982 nickels (several dozen known?) are undervalued relative to almost any pre-'65 coin?
Also,what price will a no questions, top grade 1982 nickel fetch from a collector who is determined to obtain one of the finest of these for his/her collection?
I think the dollars a determined Jeff collector is willing to pay for a top grade 1982 example,one of the several dozen, is an important consideration here.
The number for 1956-D Lincoln cent is $3500.This is for PCGS graded MS 67 RD.
1982 Jefferson Nickel-????
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
What about when a coin is considered to be the best example in an entire series? Does it being common really hurt it? Personally, I follow the quality AND rarity. But I will buy a common proof indian or early Lincoln if the quality is truly exceptional. And by common, I'm talking mintages in the 500 - 5000 range. On the flip side, I find it exceptionally difficult to buy a very rare coin in bad shape, or even if it's just not pretty. I've been burned too many times to let that happen again. So I guess it's quality/appeal first, rarity second.
<< <i>Can you explain why you think really nice 1982 nickels (several dozen known?) are undervalued relative to almost any pre-'65 coin?
Also,what price will a no questions, top grade 1982 nickel fetch from a collector who is determined to obtain one of the finest of these for his/her collection?
I think the dollars a determined Jeff collector is willing to pay for a top grade 1982 example,one of the several dozen, is an important consideration here.
>>
I'm not referring to pop top '82-P nickels. I know very little about them and had no good luck finding this particular date in very high grade despite putting effort toward it since 1982. I have a nice decent near-Gem and that's it. It was found in a Philly souvenir set of all places.
I maintain there are only dozens of nice attractive Gem and near-Gem '82-P nickels (the same applies to the quarters). The highest grade in existence depends largely on luck since there just weren't many people looking back when it mattered. I've told this story before but it bears re- petition. Back around 1980 I tried to get my bank (1st nat E Chi) to let me buy new coins. They kept telling me that it was too much trouble and they didn't want to do it. So I found eight or ten little errors in my accounts dating back several years that were 27c in their favor. I told a manager whom I had asked a few times about procurring new coins that I didn't want that amount of mon- ey hanging over my head indefinitely. She suggested that it might be easier for me to bear if I could get new coins and I agreed.
I talked to the vault manager and he told me he called around to see if there were others ordering new coin and found none at all in the Chicago area who had ever heard of any demand for clad. I'm sure he wasn't including SBA's or bicentennials.
There wasn't really much more demand for nickels and even cent supplies can be spotty. This means that since 98% of the available coins today are atrocious that very very few nice attractive BU's and near Gem exist. I don't know what a very high grade one is worth because I never found one to have any idea of their incidence. Until I actually see a nice clean well made example I have some doubt they even exist. The quarters I've got a better feel for since I've looked much harder and been more successful at tracking down.
Nice attractive 56-D cents and quarters are about a dime a dozen. If you don't like one then just pass and a nicer one will come around. This simply isn't true for '82-P nickels; if it's the best you've seen you better buy it because there won't be many more coming around and you might never see a better one. Despite this nice attractive '82-P nickels will usually be pretty cheap if you ever find one.
Then there's the fact that these come with two distinct reverses. Neither is especially more scarce but the demand might be doubled and the reverse of '81 might be even tougher in high grade. Essentially this simply cuts the supply in two if many people desire to own both and I'd guess this will be true even- tually.
My point isn't that top pop moderns are desirable at any price just that nice attractive coins can be very elusive and this certainly applies to the highest graded coins as well. Some dates come very nice, like the '71-D nickel, and spending a lot of money for the highest grade won't get you a coin that stands head and shoulders above everything else. But other coins can be far nicer in the highest grade than even the second highest grades. I don't presume to tell people what they should collect or how. After all these years there no longer seems to be any rush to get to the future but it still comes at us apace.
Comments
I hope and pray that if and when the market for common coins shifts to Real Old Rare Coins that it happens after I'm done buying (as it is, things have really slowed down for me as prices of early stuff has risen)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>I really hate to think what it would cost to pursue my favorite coins (draped bust quarters and halves in good to fine) if everyone else collecting coins was after them, too, because there were no more modern coins in higher grades, "monster rainbows", perfect collector bullion and other Made for Collectors(tm) items, and TPG-manufactured "condition rarities" of all of the above to dilute demand.
I hope and pray that if and when the market for common coins shifts to Real Old Rare Coins that it happens after I'm done buying (as it is, things have really slowed down for me as prices of early stuff has risen) >>
The market already has shifted to the older coins. Just look at how much more they cost in the circulated grades that you collect, Baley, than the they did 10 or 12 years ago. The supply has dried up too. Problem from examples of Bust quarters and haves in VG to Fine are not seen that often. I'll leave the Good coins out it because more problems are expected on those.
But, yes, all it takes is a small increase in demand the price of the 18th and early 19th century coins goes way up because the supply is so thin.
My thoughts- what is wrong with liking both? Why is there one or the other mentality, instead of what in my opinion should be there- "Live and let live", or in this case, "Collect and let collect"
With that said, personally I favor absolute rarity over conditional rarity. I am basing this on what I like to look at, not what I like to buy, because I can't really afford absolute OR conditional rarity. Looking at a better preserved example of something even I can have doesn't really excite me much. Looking at something that's so rare I've never seen one before, that, I find exciting.
I think, when it comes down to the bottom line, I like collecting knowledge more than I like collecting physical "things", and to me there is more knowledge to be gained from something totally new than, like I said above, something that I could even have a copy of just in a better state of preservation...although there are limits to that too. For example, I have a 1956 D quarter. It's black and crusty with a big old scratch that I accidentally applied myself on literally the first day I became a collector. (I learned quickly to pull/poke them out of the bucket they were in with a screwdriver). So I would like a better example version. But I wouldn't want a high grade one, I am perfectly happy to collect the coinage that most people consider not worth collecting- IE, commonly circulated.
<< <i>Do you get excited about anything? >>
My secret collections II, III, IV & V. I've added three items to those collections so far this year. I'll be lucky if I add 5-6 more for the rest of the year. They just aren't around.
The whole condition rarity thing is just a general obsession with being number 1 and having the belief one needs to have the finest.
It really doesn't work for me. I would rather have an 1881-s in a 64 holder at 75 bucks than a 68 at 4 or 5 thousand- then I could use the difference to buy something that really matters
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived. >>
If ever I've seen a statement that was totally 180 degress off the mark, this is it. Condition rarity for modern coins is highly subjective. For "classic coins" it can very much be a matter of opinion, especially when it comes to a piece that is clean for the grade versus a piece that is net graded for problems. Granted that are coins, like the 1937-D three legged buffalo nickel and the low grade 1916-D Mercury dime, that are WAY over rated for rarity, but when the grade comes down to hair splitting, this statement is way off base.
<< <i>I'd be happy to collect condition rarities of many types of common coins if the premiums were a whole lot lower. >>
The excessive prices that some pay for very minor improvements in quality have been something I've warned new collectors about for years.
I think collectors should move toward, not away, from condition rarity.
K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>For me it's the beauty of the coin. I'd rather have a beautiful 1881-s Morgan than a beat-to-hell 1895-o Morgan that looks like it came out of a wood chipper.
Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived. >>
By your reasoning are the four 1854-S $2.50's graded by PCGS as G6 to F12 contrived rarities?
Perhaps a well worn coin takes on more beauty when only 11-12 are known.
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
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i> << For me it's the beauty of the coin. I'd rather have a beautiful 1881-s Morgan than a beat-to-hell 1895-o Morgan that looks like it came out of a wood chipper. Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived. >>
By your reasoning are the four 1854-S $2.50's graded by PCGS as G6 to F12 contrived rarities? Perhaps a well worn coin takes on more beauty when only 11-12 are known. >>
The real question is whether I'd rather have one of the most beautiful Liberty $2.50 Gold coins in whatever date, or a decent-looking one with a date they didn't make many of. I'll take beauty over date rarity. I guess that makes me a type-set guy.
Looking at the numbers and mintmarks don't do much for me. Any date will do.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
<< <i>
<< <i> << For me it's the beauty of the coin. I'd rather have a beautiful 1881-s Morgan than a beat-to-hell 1895-o Morgan that looks like it came out of a wood chipper. Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived. >>
By your reasoning are the four 1854-S $2.50's graded by PCGS as G6 to F12 contrived rarities? Perhaps a well worn coin takes on more beauty when only 11-12 are known. >>
The real question is whether I'd rather have one of the most beautiful Liberty $2.50 Gold coins in whatever date, or a decent-looking one with a date they didn't make many of. I'll take beauty over date rarity. I guess that makes me a type-set guy.
Looking at the numbers and mintmarks don't do much for me. Any date will do. >>
I agree. That's why "rarity" here is subjective.
<< <i>Do you get excited about anything? >>
This would be good thread title.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I like owning coins where I know only a handful of collectors will ever own one. I'm not talking about, for example, 93S dollars, which are plentiful but expensive. I'm talking about coins that you can search for for years without finding one no matter how much money you are willing to spend on it. The hunt is everything.
I like the quote someone posted from Antiques Roadshow.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
This is completely backwards. There is NOTHING rare about a coin made yesterday by the billions no matter what grade.
BUT the Shield nickel shown above is rare!
Condition rarity can work both ways.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>>>>Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived. <<<
This is completely backwards. There is NOTHING rare about a coin made yesterday by the billions no matter what grade.
BUT the Shield nickel shown above is rare! >>
Date rarity is an absolute. I do not undertand how someone could state that its contrived?
The name is LEE!
It would be an interesting thing to know.What is the ratio of moderns to classics,in all series,using 1933 as the cut-off point?
I suspect that this obsession with condition rarity and willingness to spend big money on common coins in uncommonly high condition has a lot to do with the phenomenon of the "quest for the perfect coin" that afflicts most collectors at some time in their collecting careers.
I just think that spending big money on modern coins in highest grades has big potential to eventually sour the collector spending the money since the future liquidity is not really going to be there for them.
3500? for a 1956-D Lincoln cent in MS67 RD? 1.098 billion 1956-D Lincolns were made.Only 1944 "P" is higher for mintage of wheat cents at 1.43 billion.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>>>>Condition rarity is true rarity. Date rarity is contrived. <<<
This is completely backwards. There is NOTHING rare about a coin made yesterday by the billions no matter what grade.
BUT the Shield nickel shown above is rare! >>
In reality they both have some facets that are contrived and others that are not. How many exist, that is fact...even if it is sometimes unknown. General grading of the coin, also fact...one has less wear than the other...there comes a point when it becomes an opinion, especially in high grades, but in general grading is fact. "This coin has more metal left on the coin than that one." Within a narrow range it becomes somewhat "contrived" so to speak because it becomes a judgement call. "Which coin is better, the one with the tic on the head, or the one with the mark in the field."
But in reality "rarity" tends to be contrived, it's based on our perception of availability. If a coin that is empirically rare (say 10 in existence,) but one comes to auction every year, the interest for such a rarity is greatly diminished...since it appears that no one wants it, collector demand and pricing goes down. Now lets take a coin that is exactly 10x more common, but one only sees an example at auction once every 50 years...well the perceived rarity goes through the roof, since no one has likely seen one in their entire collecting careers...suddenly it isn't just rare, but super desirable as well.
But it's WAY more common!!!! See contrived rarity...happens all the time. Don't believe me, take almost any three cent nickle in the 1880's and compare the pops to any of the "rare" Morgan dollars...see what I mean!
<< <i>A circulated 1880 Shield Nickel is a condition rarity, not an absolute rarity. Proofs/alleged Mint State specimens are not particularly hard to find. >>
I'd concur the Proofs are not that hard, but the biz strikes seem to be. It's a coin that's missing from all but the top registry sets at both services, rarely appears at auction, and CoinFacts ranks it an 8.0 in terms of rarity, with a survival rate estimated at 100 coins, in all grades.
<< <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? >>
Many of us were alive in 1956 so the date is very meaningful to us. It has a story that weve heard
ever since 1956. Where many collectors won't collect dates after their birth or some specific time like,
perhaps WW II, there are many more who do collect such coins. '56-D quarters weren't so much "bad"
as they were universally mediocre. Why should a collector want to remember 1956 with a "mediocre"
coin. Why not try to remember it with a superb example to match his memory or the ideal of what the
date could have been. For that matter why would a much younger collector prefer a typical example
of the date.
I might agree that "needing" the very best is an activity for the very few but wanting superb examples
is simply engrained on almost all collectors of almost everything. No matter what anyone says there
are numerous later dates and moderns that can be very tough to find as superb examples. People didn't
save moderns so finding choice coins can be very tough. This goes many times over for scarcer dates
and varieties.
Why would a collector desire choice coins but then put a typical coin in the slot for a 1956-D.
<< <i>
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. >>
I know you're referring to SLQ here (which makes the statement even more perplexing), but why
wouldn't the collector of anything prefer the finest coins. Obviously "finest" can be even lower than
unc in many of the rare coins ('72-D DDR quarters aren't known in unc) but if a collector can "afford"
a higher grade and it exists then why would he buy something less. For some collectors a Very Fine
is plenty good enough and in my opinion the sweet spot for moderns is really near Gem to Gem be-
cause price does play a role in what grade most collectors desire a coin. The percieved value plays
a role and the perception of future value very often is considered as well.
I don't see why " “Pop -1” stuff" should fall out of favor. The reason these weren't available before
isn't that they had yet to be promoted or collectors were too smart to waste their money on them. It
was because they simply weren't generally available. In 1956 a dealer would laugh youout of the
shop if you asked him to find the nicest 1950 Franklin half on the market. There was no mechanism
to identify the coin and no means to bring it to market. There was no market because there was no
supply.
All this is changed now. The finest examples of just about everything more than a few years old are
available and a market exists. There's no reason to believe this won't continue or that collectors won't
continue to pay a premium for quality.
<< <i>
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. >>
Same here. But if I did collect silver quarters I would want at least a nice Gemmy '56-D.
<< <i>I think we all would prefer absolute rarity over condition rarity in general, but where you can buy an 1804 dollar or 1913 Lib Nickel for about $4000? Some of us just like rarity, and so maybe condition rarity Roosevelt Dimes, Washington Quarters, or obscure die varieties of some older series, or something else esoteric, is all we can afford. >>
Indeed. I'll probably never be able to own the unique 1964 clad quarter.
But I can and do own some of the finest clad quarters in very rare grades as well as some "rare" varieties.
Collectors tend to seek rarity above all else and if you collect moderns that means "common" coins have to be at least near-Gem. Of course most modern sets can be appreciated and collected even in MS-60 and these can be a little bit "pricey" as well depenndent on what is included. There's nothing wrong with an MS-60 '72-D quarter but why own this when a solid Gem costs no more.
<< <i>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.
>>
What most people don't understand is that moderns can be nearly as rare (perhaps even rarer)('70-S 5c)
before the big jump in price.
I prefer nice examples of coins right below the big jump as well.
<< <i>I'd be happy to collect condition rarities of many types of common coins if the premiums were a whole lot lower. >>
In some ways it was a lot more fun collecting high grades in the old days. Premiums were tiny to
almost non-existent but the work involved was huge. You simply had to look at a great number of
coins and this could be impossible in many cases. It's really the reason I switched to clad since look-
ing at lots of rolls of Franklins was too difficult. But I could go to the bank or look through mounds
of mint sets until my eyes went crossed.
Today almost any high grade can be bought with just a few clicks of the mouse.
<< <i>I'm into condition beauty. MJ >>
Bingo!
The finest examples aren't only desirable because they are finest but because they are most beautiful.
I think it's more the latter than the former.
<< <i>Absolute rarity has stood "the test of time," whereas condition rarity is a phenomenon of recent times. Personally, I am more impressed with absolute rarity, although if one can combine the two (a very rare coin in superb condition), that's really significant. >>
I don't disagree but I do believe the only reason condition rarity hasn't stood the test of time
is that this is still only the year 2012.
<< <i>
<< <i>A circulated 1880 Shield Nickel is a condition rarity, not an absolute rarity. Proofs/alleged Mint State specimens are not particularly hard to find. >>
I'd concur the Proofs are not that hard, but the biz strikes seem to be. It's a coin that's missing from all but the top registry sets at both services, rarely appears at auction, and CoinFacts ranks it an 8.0 in terms of rarity, with a survival rate estimated at 100 coins, in all grades. >>
As someone who collected Mint State Shield Nickels very seriously back in the mid to late 1990's I can say from experience that I don't buy the explanations that discern proof from mint state for this date. I was offered several "mint state" examples and rejected all of them. I eventually just put a proof into the set and decided not to worry about it. (My collection was sold in 1999.)
If you have to wonder about it it isn't worth a premium.
I get around this by imagining myself in the year 1959.Then condition rarity for issues earlier than 1959 stand the test of time for me.
1956 D Lincoln cent in Unc. was $.05,according to the Redbook, in 1959.That's a fancy price in 1959 for a coin that was minted only three years earlier.
2009 Redbook has this issue at $.50 in MS 65.That's reasonable,in my opinion,for a gem '56-D,given inflation 50 years plus.
Unc. (1959)-$.05
MS65 (2009)-$.50
I might go $1 or $2 in 2012 for a really nice (Gem+ or Gem++) '56-D Lincoln cent but that's about it.I don't have a 2012 Redbook so I can't speak to what it lists for a price on '56-D.
I'm relying on my instincts when I say I would pay $1 or $2 for a nice gem for my collection of Lincoln cents.
Now 1956-D/D in gem? Quite a bit more than $1 or $2 I would pay based on my knowledge of how scarce this mintmark variety actually is.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>the only reason condition rarity hasn't stood the test of time is that this is still only the year 2012.
I get around this by imagining myself in the year 1959.Then condition rarity for issues earlier than 1959 stand the test of time for me.
1956 D Lincoln cent in Unc. was $.05,according to the Redbook, in 1959.That's a fancy price in 1959 for a coin that was minted only three years earlier.
2009 Redbook has this issue at $.50 in MS 65.That's reasonable,in my opinion,for a gem '56-D,given inflation 50 years plus.
Unc. (1959)-$.05
MS65 (2009)-$.50
I might go $1 or $2 in 2012 for a really nice (Gem+ or Gem++) '56-D Lincoln cent but that's about it.I don't have a 2012 Redbook so I can't speak to what it lists for a price on '56-D.
I'm relying on my instincts when I say I would pay $1 or $2 for a nice gem for my collection of Lincoln cents.
Now 1956-D/D in gem? Quite a bit more than $1 or $2 I would pay based on my knowledge of how scarce this mintmark variety actually is. >>
I don't disagree but there were an awful lot of 1956-D cents saved. These came fairly nice
fairly often so why pay huge premiums for even gemmy ones unless you want to have the
finest. There were likely a couple million of these coins set aside and going through only a few
dozen will provide a very nice example.
But let's compare this to a comparable modern. By 1982 the value of the nickel had decreased
to about what the value of a 1956 cent had been so let's take a look at 1982 nickels. Where
thwere had been a couple million of the '56-D cent there were fewer than 200,000 1982-P nic-
kels saved. But unlike '56 cents mostof these nickels were not very well made nor well preserved.
They came out of the mint badly scratched up and had other problems with strike and retained
planchet flaws. The attrition on these few saved was quite high the first few years and there is
still a lot of degradation caused by improper storage in folders and the like.
Where all you have to do is order a few 1956-D cent rolls and choose the best you'll find it's very
difficult to even check 1982 nickels for choice coins because they are so much scarcer and so much
more spread out. I'd wager only about one coin shop in three has the nickel in stock but most
have the cents and in small quantity since there's a broader market for wheat cents than modern
nickels. Where checking 40 or 50 cents will be easy, cheap, and productive you'll find none of
this applies to the nickel except for cheap. A nice choice specimen will cost only two or three dol-
lars usually when it is finally found. This leaves most would be collectors of the coin to either wait
or buy a slabbed coin which will cost at least ten or twenty dollars. Most of these cheap ones
are "mistakes" of the submitter. But there aren't tens of thousands of these lying around like
the '56 cent. There are maybe just several dozen in aggregate.
Again, I'm not suggesting that people should rush out and pay "moon money" for top grade '82
nickels. This appeals to some collectors and not others. I would never suggest that people buy
any coin for investment reasons but the fact is nice '82-P nickels are greatly undervalued relative
1956 cents or almost any pre-'65 US coin and this even extends to the pop tops. This underval-
uation has persisted for decades and could never end. I believe it's coming to a screeching halt
as soon as the economy turns the corner.
1893-s
or this:
1885-o
I can't imagine looking at the 1893-s more than once and saying "Well, that's what a beat-up Morgan looks like." I'd never get tired of looking at the 1885-o. For me, that's what it comes down to. Investment-wise? Probably better to buy that ugly 93-s, stick it in a drawer somewhere and forget about it.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
One should be able to buy a very nice Bust dollar for $4000.
The 93-S? Some yo-yo filed the rims.
Or is it the wear that makes it ugly to you?
I would seek out a problem-fee VG,maybe F (from a motivated seller?) for my $4000 if I needed this date for my collection of Morgans.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <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? >>
When I was in junior high school in 1972, one day I had a "job" collecting the money for a movie being shown in the school auditorium.
Even at that time, silver coins in circulation were practically non-existant. I still remember getting a 1956-D silver quarter (which I was able to keep by substituting a clad quarter of my own). It was a beauty - blazing luster, few marks, and nice golden toning around the rims.
I was pretty exited about it.
It is all about the context.
<< <i>
It is all about the context. >>
Indeed!
You'll never find out that the coin you substituted for it was a rare '72-D DDR quarter or condition census type "b" reverse.
<< <i>
<< <i>
It is all about the context. >>
Indeed!
You'll never find out that the coin you substituted for it was a rare '72-D DDR quarter or condition census type "b" reverse.
Even so, given the odds and the choice between an UNC 1956-D silver quarter (sure thing), and a random clad quarter in circulation in 1972 (speculation), I'd still take the silver.
To be clear,I'm not assuming that $3500 1956-D Lincolns exist by the roll.
I can most likely agree with you about 1982 nickels being undervalued "relative to 1956 cents" but to "almost any pre-'65 US coin?"
Can you explain why you think really nice 1982 nickels (several dozen known?) are undervalued relative to almost any pre-'65 coin?
Also,what price will a no questions, top grade 1982 nickel fetch from a collector who is determined to obtain one of the finest of these for his/her collection?
I think the dollars a determined Jeff collector is willing to pay for a top grade 1982 example,one of the several dozen, is an important consideration here.
The number for 1956-D Lincoln cent is $3500.This is for PCGS graded MS 67 RD.
1982 Jefferson Nickel-????
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
But a common 19th century coin in super-gem condition always gets my blood pumping.
Empty Nest Collection
<< <i>I've never gotten excited about moderns.
But a common 19th century coin in super-gem condition always gets my blood pumping. >>
Superb gem common date seated is just wonderful.
As is a moderately rare/ rare date in "just" gem.
Great stuff
It's never time to move away from "condition rarity". Ever.
<< <i>Can you explain why you think really nice 1982 nickels (several dozen known?) are undervalued relative to almost any pre-'65 coin?
Also,what price will a no questions, top grade 1982 nickel fetch from a collector who is determined to obtain one of the finest of these for his/her collection?
I think the dollars a determined Jeff collector is willing to pay for a top grade 1982 example,one of the several dozen, is an important consideration here.
>>
I'm not referring to pop top '82-P nickels. I know very little about them and had no good luck
finding this particular date in very high grade despite putting effort toward it since 1982. I have
a nice decent near-Gem and that's it. It was found in a Philly souvenir set of all places.
I maintain there are only dozens of nice attractive Gem and near-Gem '82-P nickels (the same
applies to the quarters). The highest grade in existence depends largely on luck since there just
weren't many people looking back when it mattered. I've told this story before but it bears re-
petition. Back around 1980 I tried to get my bank (1st nat E Chi) to let me buy new coins. They
kept telling me that it was too much trouble and they didn't want to do it. So I found eight or ten
little errors in my accounts dating back several years that were 27c in their favor. I told a manager
whom I had asked a few times about procurring new coins that I didn't want that amount of mon-
ey hanging over my head indefinitely. She suggested that it might be easier for me to bear if I
could get new coins and I agreed.
I talked to the vault manager and he told me he called around to see if there were others ordering
new coin and found none at all in the Chicago area who had ever heard of any demand for clad. I'm
sure he wasn't including SBA's or bicentennials.
There wasn't really much more demand for nickels and even cent supplies can be spotty. This means
that since 98% of the available coins today are atrocious that very very few nice attractive BU's and
near Gem exist. I don't know what a very high grade one is worth because I never found one to have
any idea of their incidence. Until I actually see a nice clean well made example I have some doubt
they even exist. The quarters I've got a better feel for since I've looked much harder and been more
successful at tracking down.
Nice attractive 56-D cents and quarters are about a dime a dozen. If you don't like one then just pass
and a nicer one will come around. This simply isn't true for '82-P nickels; if it's the best you've seen
you better buy it because there won't be many more coming around and you might never see a better
one. Despite this nice attractive '82-P nickels will usually be pretty cheap if you ever find one.
Then there's the fact that these come with two distinct reverses. Neither is especially more scarce but
the demand might be doubled and the reverse of '81 might be even tougher in high grade. Essentially
this simply cuts the supply in two if many people desire to own both and I'd guess this will be true even-
tually.
My point isn't that top pop moderns are desirable at any price just that nice attractive coins can be very
elusive and this certainly applies to the highest graded coins as well. Some dates come very nice, like
the '71-D nickel, and spending a lot of money for the highest grade won't get you a coin that stands
head and shoulders above everything else. But other coins can be far nicer in the highest grade than
even the second highest grades. I don't presume to tell people what they should collect or how. After
all these years there no longer seems to be any rush to get to the future but it still comes at us apace.