Undervalued coins/coin series 3 3

[GoldFinger1969]

55 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

In well over a decade posting on coin forums and prior to that also reading many coin articles, I have yet to read even one believable reason supporting why it's going to happen for any common coin or series, not even one.  To my knowledge, it also hasn't happened even once with any US series.  It may have happened elsewhere but I doubt it where there is any scale, for the same reason.

I wonder if there are any coin collector articles on this Supply vs. Demand demographic impacting U.S. coin collecting ?  I know the headlines from CoinWorld, CoinWeek, Numismatist, etc...are all on big, expensive, gaudy coins that sell for 6- and 7-figures and the super collections of the Rich & Famous.

But most collections are of those small U.S. coin types.

[GoldFinger1969]

Some interesting coin collecting and demographic pieces I found:

https://www.numismaticnews.net/community/the-state-of-coin-collecting   (reminisces of the hobby)

https://coinweek.com/opinion/the-future-of-our-hobby/   (state of the hobby/investment implications)

[World Colonial]

8 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I have to plead ignorance on any details on collecting Barbers, Lincoln Pennies, Buffalo or other nickles, Walking or Standing Coins, Franklins, etc.  Aside from Saints and Morgans, I couldn't guess the population census for any year, the totals, or the Gem and Superb Gem (if any) numbers, either.

There seems to be a totally different mentality between buyers of metal substitutes (Morgan dollars, maybe Peace dollars, pre-1933 US gold and US NCLT) versus all other US coinage.  Due to what you buy, you fall into this group.  If financial considerations are most important, the buyer should buy this coinage or not collect at all.  If I were concerned about losing much or most of my outlay for the coins I collect, I wouldn't buy it.

The census counts for the other series you listed are much lower than the most common Morgan dollars and Saints but still high and in most cases (at minimum) the (vast) majority have almost certainly not been submitted.  Financially, it isn't economical to submit all of it most of the time.

The 1909-S and 1909-S VDB are two different coins but the mintage of either is far less than what you wrote.  09-0S VDB is 486,000 but don't remember 09-S without looking it up.

So yes, since the 09-S VDB was (and is) included in album folders and the Red Book, "necessary" for a "complete set", this mintage is "low" and when predominantly collecting out of circulation as in the 60's, "rare". 

In the internet age though, it's practically as common as dirt.  The current price is a leftover from prior perception from a communication limitation which has eroded substantially since 1965.  Just look at old Red Books.  It listed at $335 as "UNC" in the 1965 edition and has lost noticeable ground measured by both price changes and relatively versus other coins which have either gained ground or left it in the dust.

Given what it actually is as a collectible (as opposed to 1960's and even current current perception), there is every reason to believe this will continue, probably slowly but maybe not as it has up to this point.  However many want or buy it now, for every hundred or thousand who leave the hobby, they will almost certainly be replaced by a lower proportion who will want it later.

What I just described applies to one degree or another with all of the most widely collected US coinage.   Almost certainly going to be fewer series set collectors going forward who will also collect US coinage in lower proportion or not exclusively.  This is even ignoring future economic considerations.

[World Colonial]

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I wonder if there are any coin collector articles on this Supply vs. Demand demographic impacting U.S. coin collecting ?  I know the headlines from CoinWorld, CoinWeek, Numismatist, etc...are all on big, expensive, gaudy coins that sell for 6- and 7-figures and the super collections of the Rich & Famous.

But most collections are of those small U.S. coin types.

When I have read this type of "article", it's almost invariably marketing hype and nonsense.  Someone is promoting "the hobby", a coin or series with tunnel vision and rose colored glasses.  When I have time, I will read your links (I may have done so previously) and also look at the link from the initial post on Barber halves.

[Henri Charriere]

10 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

When I have read this type of "article", it's almost invariably marketing hype and nonsense.  Someone is promoting "the hobby", a coin or series with tunnel vision and rose colored glasses.  When I have time, I will read your links (I may have done so previously) and also look at the link from the initial post on Barber halves.

While there will be plenty of doubting Thomases quick to denounce or dismiss your views or find then inconvenient or incomprehensible, I, for one, enjoy your Farmer's Almanac-type prognostications and find your blanket declarations to be refreshing and quite possibly bald-faced truths seldom heard expressed in a hobby I hardly recognize anymore.

[World Colonial]

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Ultimately, supply and demand determine prices.  And if we assume no "hoards" hit U.S. small face value coins -- unlike what happened years/decades ago with Morgans and Saints (and apparently continue to dribble out today) -- then we can assume if prices are struggling, it's a function of demand.  

I am not aware of many hoards, of any size anyway but someone else might know.  I heard many or most 1931-S cents were bought either directly from the mint or shortly after but don't know if true.  Have heard of a specific hoard of the 1972 DDO cent, on this forum years ago.

Otherwise though, tons of this coinage dated 1933 and later was saved by the roll in (better) UNC grades; many cents, presumably the 1938D Buffalo nickel (TPG count is over 60,000 MS), and all silver denominations.  There was also one or a few reported BU rolls of the 1912-S or 1912-D LHN within the last 10 years.

Except for the last coin, there is far more likely supply than any conceivable demand to support it at current prices.  Usually, only a small proportion of the supply is offered for sale at once for a variety of reasons.

It's another topic entirely but if this ever changes due to economic conditions where the public has to conduct a "fire sale" to raise cash, this coinage will crash and never recover.  Collectors will pay current prices since they assume they can get most of their money back but if prices are ever much lower, there is no reason to believe they are going to pay a lot more (in any number) to increase the future market price noticeably because of any supposed bargains.  Common 20th century US key dates would hardly be bargains even at "discounts" up to 90% of current value.

[World Colonial]

8 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

While there will be plenty of doubting Thomases quick to denounce or dismiss your views or find then inconvenient or incomprehensible, I, for one, enjoy your Farmer's Almanac-type prognostications and find your blanket declarations to be refreshing and quite possibly bald-faced truths seldom heard expressed in a hobby I hardly recognize anymore.

Thanks, my views are presumably unpopular.  I don't claim to be infallible, I just know that my reasoning is better than those who disagree with me.

If someone believes that the public finds coin collecting a lot more interesting than is evident and collectors like what they collect a lot more than is actually evident from the evidence, then it's easy to come to a different conclusion.

If the collector doesn't care about the future price of what they buy, then nothing I write on this topic is of any relevance to them.  At any "material" outlay, the evidence proves they usually do care.

[JT2]

On 7/15/2008 at 12:39 PM, Prethen said:

Underappreciated = 3CN

LOVE EM!!

[World Colonial]

19 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Some interesting coin collecting and demographic pieces I found:

https://www.numismaticnews.net/community/the-state-of-coin-collecting   (reminisces of the hobby)

https://coinweek.com/opinion/the-future-of-our-hobby/   (state of the hobby/investment implications)

Interesting articles.  I read the second one at some point but not the first.

Most of it is off topic (for another thread) but I will comment on one aspect.  I don't believe the typical collector age in the US is in the 60's.

I definitely believe that the coins predominantly collected by this generation are going to continue to lose relative preference.  Coins typically collected out of circulation in the 50'S and 60'S are presumably mostly a one way market.  It's also my expectation that decades from now, the vast majority of date/MM combinations from post-1933 US regular issue coinage will sell for less than the grading fee or nominal premiums to silver spot, even in MS-66.

[World Colonial]

https://www.us-coin-values-advisor.com/

I took a brief look at this link and wanted to follow-up on it.  The prior post introduced it in the context of key dates.  I didn't read read all the commentary but I believe enough to comment on it.  I disagree with their conclusions because:

1) It seems to linearly extrapolate prior trends by ignoring the internet.

2) It ignores demographic trends where the future proportion who predominantly or exclusively collect US coinage is almost certainly going to be lower than now.

3) Like literally every other source (and coin forum post) I have ever read, it ignores the 800 pound gorilla in the room which is the unprecedented asset, credit and debt mania which makes current inflated prices possible.

4) For the most US common key dates at least, these coins are already among the worst numismatic values.  These may perform better than the non-key coins in the same series but most likely only relatively. 

5) It's also interesting how I can use their site (which I did) to arrive at my prior conclusion on Lincoln cent key and semi-key dates which contradicts theirs. Performance varies with the time frame but going back to 1965, the 09-S VDB, 14-D, 26-S and 31-S lost noticeable value adjusted for price changes and only the 55 DDO gained it.

I see no reason to believe any common series as a whole will mostly stagnate, lose value, or gain nominal value while the key dates do much better.  That's what is most likely to happen with the most common widely collected US series, in the aggregate.  My suspicion is that, given the estimated or likely supply, there is already noticeable speculative buying in this key date coinage.  As an example, PCGS Coin Facts estimates 50,000 for the 09-S VDB cent which I think is more of a floor than a ceiling.  It's presumably owned by many who don't collect the series now but who share the higher prior perception.  I highly doubt there are anywhere near 50,000 Lincoln cent collectors who can or could afford to buy it.

[GoldFinger1969]

33 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

Interesting articles.  I read the second one at some point but not the first.  Most of it is off topic (for another thread) but I will comment on one aspect.  I don't believe the typical collector age in the US is in the 60's.

I definitely believe that the coins predominantly collected by this generation are going to continue to lose relative preference.  Coins typically collected out of circulation in the 50'S and 60'S are presumably mostly a one way market.  It's also my expectation that decades from now, the vast majority of date/MM combinations from post-1933 US regular issue coinage will sell for less than the grading fee or nominal premiums to silver spot, even in MS-66.

No disagreements.  I wonder how Saints and Morgans will react, both assuming the gold/silver price remains unchanged from today's levels....and if the prices for both move up, say, 50% in the next 10 years. 

If you have time, hop on over to the MAC Grading Thread and let me know your thoughts there. 

[World Colonial]

1 minute ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

No disagreements.  I wonder how Saints and Morgans will react, both assuming the gold/silver price remains unchanged from today's levels....and if the prices for both move up, say, 50% in the next 10 years. 

Two different markets in my opinion, at minimum.

The generic market is mostly correlated to bullion but I expect the premiums to decline, especially for Morgan dollars.  I don't know what these actually cost now but given how common the common dates actually are, don't see why any which have .72oz should sell for more than the spot price for an ounce at most.  That's already almost a 40% premium which I still think is too high.

The other segment of (somewhat) scarcer or rarer dates (for Saints) is more dependent upon the asset mania.  If the mania ends, there is no way this coinage can retain current inflated prices, except temporarily if gold spot moves contra cyclical as money tries to find safety while other asset classes crash.  I can see this happening (temporarily) as I see a big bull market in the metals but I don't think it will really help this segment that much.

[GoldFinger1969]

14 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

https://www.us-coin-values-advisor.com/

I took a brief look at this link and wanted to follow-up on it.  The prior post introduced it in the context of key dates.  I didn't read read all the commentary but I believe enough to comment on it.  I disagree with their conclusions because:

1) It seems to linearly extrapolate prior trends by ignoring the internet.

2) It ignores demographic trends where the future proportion who predominantly or exclusively collect US coinage is almost certainly going to be lower than now.

3) Like literally every other source (and coin forum post) I have ever read, it ignores the 800 pound gorilla in the room which is the unprecedented asset, credit and debt mania which makes current inflated prices possible.

4) For the most US common key dates at least, these coins are already among the worst numismatic values.  These may perform better than the non-key coins in the same series but most likely only relatively. 

Over any period of time, ROLLING time periods would show coins to be a coin flip at best as investments and most likely losers compared to other asset classes, even PMs.  And if the starting time period is 1950 or even 1960, you caught the Baby Boomer Coin Years and then watched coins take off in the 1970's for PM and numismatic reasons.  And again in 1988-89.  And 10 years ago.  Yet overall, most coins are DOWN from recent peaks unlike a stock market that has had 3 big bear markets in 20 years and today hit record highs.

Unlike the stock market -- which actually CREATES wealth -- coins (as with most commodities) are simply a function of supply and demand.  No dividends, subject to boom-and-bust conditions = highly volatile.

At least with Morgans and Saints, I have the underlying bullion value as a floor -- though they too can move up or down -- and I just have to decide which coins I want.  Buy an MCMVII High Relief in any condition....I'm taking mostly numismatic risk, more so above AU53.  Buy a 1915-S in MS63 or lower......it's a play on gold.   Buy an MS65 1924 or 1926 or 1927....MOSTLY a play on gold with about a 25% premium for numismatic value.    

Edited April 6, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[World Colonial]

1 minute ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Over any period of time, ROLLING time periods would show coins to be a coin flip at best as investments and most likely losers compared to other asset classes, even PMs.  And if the starting time period is 1950 or even 1960, you caught the Baby Boomer Coin Years and then watched coins take off in the 1970's for PM and numismatic reasons.  And again in 1988-89.  And 10 years ago.  Yet overall, most coins are DOWN from recent peaks unlike a stock market that has had 3 big bear markets in 20 years and today hit record highs.

No disagreement here. 

I presume you have looked at it but look again at the PCGS 3000.  It took off starting around 50 years ago.  I started collecting in 1975 at age 10 but by 1977, many US coins had already appreciated substantially and these weren't "investment" coins either.  As an example, I know the common Capped Bust halves (I believe 1823 onward) listed for $450 in UNC in the '77 edition but were something like $75 in 1970.  I might be off a little on the date for the second price because I don't have my old editions with me but not that far off.  I know many of the '77 prices by memory because as  a YN, I looked at it very regularly.  This coin wasn't an aberration either and it's not even close to being rare.

Problem now is, too many US classic coins are too expensive for the mainstream but more affluent "mass market" US collector.  This I believe (along with the internet) has a lot to do with why the US price level stagnated after 2008 even as metal prices initially surged and gold remained high.

[GoldFinger1969]

45 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

No disagreement here. I presume you have looked at it but look again at the PCGS 3000.  It took off starting around 50 years ago.   I started collecting in 1975 at age 10 but by 1977, many US coins had already appreciated substantially and these weren't "investment" coins either.  As an example, I know the common Capped Bust halves (I believe 1823 onward) listed for $450 in UNC in the '77 edition but were something like $75 in 1970.  I might be off a little on the date for the second price because I don't have my old editions with me but not that far off.  I know many of the '77 prices by memory because as  a YN, I looked at it very regularly.  This coin wasn't an aberration either and it's not even close to being rare. Problem now is, too many US classic coins are too expensive for the mainstream but more affluent "mass market" US collector.  This I believe (along with the internet) has a lot to do with why the US price level stagnated after 2008 even as metal prices initially surged and gold remained high.

(1)  We're about the same age....

(2)  Yes, I've looked at the PCGS 3000.  

(3)  Why do you think that Capped Busts (and probably other non-PM coins) went up 6-fold during that 1970-77 period.....gold and silver went up 6-fold but all the coins NOT tied to PMs seemed to have matched or exceeded the gold/silver moves.  Do you think gold/silver coins just "dragged" them up ?

Great post, very informative. 

Edited April 6, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[World Colonial]

1 minute ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

(3)  Why do you think that Capped Busts (and probably other non-PM coins) went up 6-fold during that 1970-77 period.....gold and silver went up 6-fold but all the coins NOT tied to PMs seemed to have matched or exceeded the gold/silver moves.  Do you think gold/silver coins just "dragged" them up ?

Great post, very informative. 

1) Beginning of coins being widely bought as "investments".  Maybe coins were actually bought as an inflation hedge at the time?  Someone else here can probably answer this better than me.

2) If #1 is correct, the coins were very affordable (initially) to a larger more affluent collector base, more resembling the one we have now versus the 60's.

I will also have to correct my earlier estimate on Barber halves, as my cost to complete the series was too high.  In VF, it's probably more like $10K to $20K, XF $20K to $30K, and MS $50K+.  It's a lot cheaper than I previously wrote but don't believe it changes my prior conclusion at all.  It's still too expensive to be competitive.  This also means that the price performance hasn't exactly been that great over time either, as most dates listed @ $40 VF $$85 XF and $300+ MS in 1977.

[cladking]

14 hours ago, World Colonial said:

 

Otherwise though, tons of this coinage dated 1933 and later was saved by the roll in (better) UNC grades;..

This is true but highly misleading.  Millions of '55-D dimes and '50-D nickels were saved in rolls but virtually no 1969 quarters at all.  Very few moderns were saved except cents and most nickels.   

[GoldFinger1969]

3 hours ago, World Colonial said:

1) Beginning of coins being widely bought as "investments".  Maybe coins were actually bought as an inflation hedge at the time?  Someone else here can probably answer this better than me.

They were.  I think it's a case of "a rising tide lifts all boats."  

3 hours ago, World Colonial said:

2) If #1 is correct, the coins were very affordable (initially) to a larger more affluent collector base, more resembling the one we have now versus the 60's. I will also have to correct my earlier estimate on Barber halves, as my cost to complete the series was too high.  In VF, it's probably more like $10K to $20K, XF $20K to $30K, and MS $50K+.  It's a lot cheaper than I previously wrote but don't believe it changes my prior conclusion at all.  It's still too expensive to be competitive.  This also means that the price performance hasn't exactly been that great over time either, as most dates listed @ $40 VF $$85 XF and $300+ MS in 1977.

Unless you are fairly well-off (or rich), most people do not have the discretionary income to indulge in large-scale coin purchases during their 20's and 30's and 40's and into their early-50's.  This is when they are buying a house.....having a family...raising kids....it's not until they hit 55+ that they have gotten those items off their monthly expense list and by then they're usually making more $$$ at their jobs, too.  Then they have discretionary income -- and time -- once they slow down into retirement to pursue coins and spend the $$$ on building out their sets, buying gold or silver, etc.

I'll mention Saints because I'm most familiar with them but I can see the numismatic bubbles over the last 50 years as prices on generic coins and semi-scarce outstrip the price of the metal during certain time periods.  This basically insures that unless you bought at the lows....or market-timed sales near the top....that you ended up flat-or-down on an investment basis with most purchases made over the last 45 years or so.  Of course, if you started before 1974 you might have bought gold/Saints at such a low price that you made out like a bandit but this was a result of price-controls on gold before the 1973 upheaval.

If the same holds true with small face value U.S. coins -- I have no reason to think not -- then unless someone started collecting in the 1950's and/or sold periodically at highs in the last 30 years.....they are probably flat-or-down overall, depending on when they did most of their buying.

Edited April 6, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[World Colonial]

7 hours ago, cladking said:

This is true but highly misleading.  Millions of '55-D dimes and '50-D nickels were saved in rolls but virtually no 1969 quarters at all.  Very few moderns were saved except cents and most nickels.   

No, I wasn't clear.  But once again, I wasn't specifically referring to the coinage you claim and no, none of it are even close to being scarce, except in some arbitrary quality and as a specialization..

Edited April 6, 2021 by World Colonial

[World Colonial]

2 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

Double post

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by World Colonial

[World Colonial]

5 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

They were.  I think it's a case of "a rising tide lifts all boats."  

Unless you are fairly well-off (or rich), most people do not have the discretionary income to indulge in large-scale coin purchases during their 20's and 30's and 40's and into their early-50's. 

I understand your point.  Concurrently, the example I gave (Bust Half) is a "collector" coin that is relatively common even in high grades and isn't even close to being rare except as a die variety or due to the TPG label.  It's only in US collecting that such a common coin sells for such inflated prices since the mid to late 1970's.  From any other developed country, a comparable coin (if one was issued) even with a much lower survival would sell for a fraction of the price.

5 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

If the same holds true with small face value U.S. coins -- I have no reason to think not -- then unless someone started collecting in the 1950's and/or sold periodically at highs in the last 30 years.....they are probably flat-or-down overall, depending on when they did most of their buying.

The key in the last 50 years was mostly paying "reasonable" prices for quality.  The US price level has stagnated in the last 10-15 years (depending on the coin) but before that, you should have either made money or at least not lost it.

Most people didn't buy quality coins at "reasonable" prices.  They bought proof sets or silver commemoratives from the US Mint or common mass collected US coinage from their local dealer or on eBay.  Many "made money" but actually lost it adjusted for price changes.  See the 09-VDB cent example above.

If you bought world coinage, you still had to mostly buy quality.  But you also had to avoid overpaying for a coin you thought was "rare" that turned out to be a lot more common.  There is limited "price discovery" for most of it and I have both overpaid for coins myself on occasion and seen it in prior auction results.

Going forward, the primary problem is that many coins (especially US) are too expensive for the collector base that is almost certainly going to be (a lot) poorer to have any realistic prospect of appreciating substantially.  Most also lack the appeal, no matter what their proponents think.

In the 1970's, their was an influx of far more affluent buyers versus the 60's.  To repeat that now, it would take a noticeable number of highly affluent buyers and considering there are already a lot of affluent US collectors now, I'd rate the chances as virtually nil.  To the extent it happens, they are unlikely to buy the more expensive "collector" coins and certainly not what most forum members collect.

[cladking]

1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

No, I wasn't clear.  But once again, I wasn't specifically referring to the coinage you claim and no, none of it are even close to being scarce, except in some arbitrary quality and as a specialization..

And you still can't come up with an original roll of 1969 quarters in any condition at all.  

Most moderns were very lightly saved in BU rolls and the '69 25c is the posterchild.  The coins were poorly made, ugly, and perceived to be extremely common so they were not saved.  1938-D nickels were saved.  

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/5/2021 at 1:00 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Some interesting coin collecting and demographic pieces I found:

https://www.numismaticnews.net/community/the-state-of-coin-collecting   (reminisces of the hobby)

https://coinweek.com/opinion/the-future-of-our-hobby/   (state of the hobby/investment implications)

Old-timers will view these as reality checks or food for thought.  Either way, they are portents of the future which the younger generations are going to have to sort out. Btw, how's the stamp-collecting business doing?

[GoldFinger1969]

8 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Btw, how's the stamp-collecting business doing?

Aside from Inverted Jenny's, not that good.  It's basically stamp collectors trading with one another.  There is hardly a market for stamp collections anymore.

The American Philatelic Society has lost half its members in the last 20 years, down to about 25,000.

 

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

And you still can't come up with an original roll of 1969 quarters in any condition at all.  

Most moderns were very lightly saved in BU rolls and the '69 25c is the posterchild.  The coins were poorly made, ugly, and perceived to be extremely common so they were not saved.  1938-D nickels were saved.  

You are funny.  Like I have told you multiple times, this coinage is more common than 99% of all coinage ever struck, except I told you previously: NCLT, more recent proof sets, and maybe world coinage from the last 10 to 20 years.

Measuring the scarcity by availability of original rolls is a farce.  Outside of the coins I specifically listed above, maybe another few percent have one.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

Going forward, the primary problem is that many coins (especially US) are too expensive for the collector base that is almost certainly going to be (a lot) poorer to have any realistic prospect of appreciating substantially.  Most also lack the appeal, no matter what their proponents think. In the 1970's, their was an influx of far more affluent buyers versus the 60's.  To repeat that now, it would take a noticeable number of highly affluent buyers and considering there are already a lot of affluent US collectors now, I'd rate the chances as virtually nil.  To the extent it happens, they are unlikely to buy the more expensive "collector" coins and certainly not what most forum members collect.

And alot of those 1970's collectors were older...had $$$...and remembered coin collectors of the 1930's and 1940's as making fantastic sums of money by 1970 and then especially a few years later when the monetary system changed and gold/silver went up 20-fold within 8 years.

You had a Perfect Storm in the 1970's and it reminds me of the Gold Bugs always looking for inflation to bring on $5,000 gold and The Good Times of the 1970's (the gold price moving, not the Jimmy Walker sitcom )

DYN-O-MITE !!!!  

[cladking]

4 hours ago, World Colonial said:

Measuring the scarcity by availability of original rolls is a farce. 

What part of "virtually no original rolls" are you missing?   

 

This doesn't matter so much for '69 quarters but rolls of '71-D are fairly elusive as well and these are the only source for the type "h".  

I just don't understand why you believe all moderns are common except in high grade and why you consider condition scarcity to not matter.  You are apparently wrong across the board or moderns wouldn't be doing so well.  

[cladking]

Quote

Measuring the scarcity by availability of original rolls is a farce. 

Certainly there are still 65 million 1969 quarters in circulation but most are culls and the rest are VG/ F.  

Edited April 6, 2021 by cladking

[GoldFinger1969]

https://www.pcgs.com/prices/coin-index/pcgs3000

In the last 3 years, down about 4%

In the last 10 years, down about 18%.

In the last 50 years, up 27-fold or just under 7% a year (not a bad return; S&P 500 returned 7.4% on price and 10.7% including dividends).

The spike into 1979-80 is impressive, but the bubble into 1988-90 is practically legendary.  Technically, we're still basing 30 years later much like the Japanese stock market.

[GoldFinger1969]

Check out the sub-indices on the PCGS 3000 using the 1970-To-Date time interval (sometimes the data only goes back to 1979) :

https://www.pcgs.com/prices/coin-index/pcgs3000

Fascinating stuff....note the continued drop in Commemoratives, down another 50% in 15 years and below the late-1990's lows.

Generic Gold Index and Mint State Gold Index are both down from 2008 highs by about 1/3rd but Generic rising in recent years.

I don't know what is included in the Key Dates & Rarities Index, but it has generally been in an uptrend since 1970 and is only down 10% from the ATH a few years ago.

Edited April 6, 2021 by GoldFinger1969