Easy Question FOR ALL!! What do you think is the hardest US MODERN series set to build? posted by Six Mile Rick
0

46 posts in this topic

1,863 posts
But the primary reason for this as I also told you is because most collectors prefer higher grade coins today, can't afford the coins they used to buy from other series and the supply of the earlier series is relatively limited anyway, even in average circulated grades.

 

Yes. And this is one of the factors that might spur demand in moderns; collectors have been told to only buy "quality" for decades now. Who can afford a nice gemmy '16-D dime? Anyone at all (almost) can afford a set of high grade Lincoln memorial cents and a set can be assembled on a shoestring. A really nice clad dime set can be put together with a lot of effort going through dime rolls for less than $10.

 

A nice gemmy set of eagle reverse clad quarters could be done for $200 and herculean effort. At least in theory a Gem set could be done for a few hundred more. Indeed, you could probably buy a graded set or put one together for under $1,000.

 

You can't do this with any classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,184 posts

By any standard Gem moderns are tough. If you primarily look at them by one criterium then they aren't as tough but well made and pristine coins are not easily found. Even MS-60's of some dates are not common

There is nothing significant in the scarcity of any coin in "gem". The only coins that aren't scarce in this grade or these grades are the coins you keep comparing them to. My response is big deal.

 

So? The low supply in slabs represent a low demand. That most are available represents an efficient market not huge supply.

The population counts are usually low and lower than recent classics but not always, under the TPG criteria. The point that I was making is that the combination of the low price and availability indicates that they are a lot more common than you claim in this quality or else they would be much harder to buy. This should be self evident since all other coins that are known or likely to be scarce selling for low prices are much harder to buy, whether in the equivalent quality or not.

 

I just don't think they are all well struck from new dies. But they are still scarce coins because most '82's went straight into ciorculation and most of the few saved were scratched. The fact I consider most overgraded has no bearing on the fact that these coins still represent most of the best coins in existence for the date. Just because there may be MS-64's I'd rather own than some 66's detracts nothing from ANY MS-66. No matter what you call it or how you grade it nice quality clads can be very elusive.

 

And what I am telling you is that a current PCGS count of 150 for an MS-66(+) is not low at all. The last sale I have available was on Heritage in 2012 since I don't have another source and don't check eBay often. It was for $66. Given this price, the logical assumption is that there are a lot more available to be graded with a low proportion of duplicates and its likely a Judd R-2 with a range of 501-1250. This is not scarce once again except compared to many of these common classics.

 

So? Price of collectibles has far more to do with demand than with supply. "Common" Morganm dollar have high prices because these are great old large silver coins with widespread appeal. There is remarkable demand. Much scarcer Ikes sell for peanuts because the demand doesn't exist.

 

I wasn't talking about the price here but the scarcity.

 

Lack of demand for moderns isn't the least unusual or out of the ordinary. As previously stated in this very thread this was the norm from 750 BC to 1931.

 

But the market has changed and now it's a mass market. Lack of demand for moderns is virtually impossible. Tens of millions collect or have collected states quarters. If collecting is to remain a mass market then there will necessarily be demand for moderns. But the demand for older moderns has yet to materialize. Perhaps it never will but the fact remains that the coins are cheap because of the lack of demand and not because of any excess in supply.

 

I don't believe lack of demand is impossible at all for moderns and I still don't fully agree with you that the demand for circulating moderns is that low today. The prices are relatively low for the most part but the "serious" collector base is large. I believe that there are plenty of modern collectors who want the likely actual supply that qualifies for the mid TPG grades (MS-64 to MS-66) but it isn't economical to have them graded just as it isn't for most recent classics which I presume also exist in much larger supply. The buying and selling of all low value coins is inefficient and time consuming for both buyer and seller.

Edited by world colonial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,184 posts
But the primary reason for this as I also told you is because most collectors prefer higher grade coins today, can't afford the coins they used to buy from other series and the supply of the earlier series is relatively limited anyway, even in average circulated grades.

 

Yes. And this is one of the factors that might spur demand in moderns; collectors have been told to only buy "quality" for decades now. Who can afford a nice gemmy '16-D dime? Anyone at all (almost) can afford a set of high grade Lincoln memorial cents and a set can be assembled on a shoestring. A really nice clad dime set can be put together with a lot of effort going through dime rolls for less than $10.

 

A nice gemmy set of eagle reverse clad quarters could be done for $200 and herculean effort. At least in theory a Gem set could be done for a few hundred more. Indeed, you could probably buy a graded set or put one together for under $1,000.

 

You can't do this with any classic.

 

Collectors only buy what they like, not what they can afford. To the extent that collectors already actually like moderns I agree with you but that is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,863 posts

I doubt that the "serious" demand for most moderns is very high. There might be 2,000 collectors actively assembling sets of eagle reverse quarters in BU or from circulation who are learning the differences between the dates and trying to understand why these differences exist. Yes, there are likely another 100,000 who have put a few coins in a folder or album but, for the main part, collectors seem to think there's no rush to complete their sets. Sure, if they wait too long they might have to settle for a VG '68 quarter instead of a low end VF but there will "always" be nice coins in circulation. Some people have even purchased complete sets with the intention of someday upgrading them. Then there are also the millions who have state quarter collections and might include a few eagle reverse coins that stood out in their searches. Anyone might wonder why there would be a 1972-D quarter in beautiful AU mixed in with the regular pocket change.

 

But there's hardly a mass market in any circulating modern other than the post-1998 quarters.

 

You see millions and millions of people collecting moderns and say there is lots of demand. I see the same thing and wonder why scarce clad sells for almost nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,184 posts

Yes, I agree with you when measured by the price level but unlike you, I don't find it a mystery at all.

 

Using your grading standards, I will concur that it isn't out of the realm of possibility that the relatively low number of coins meeting your stricter criteria could and maybe will sell for a lot more, but nowhere near as much as you apparently believe going by your prior posts.

 

You are in a better position to estimate the collector base but then, I don't see what you described as unusual either. What you described is how most collectors used to approach collecting but today its much easier to buy what you want because of the internet and improved communication. This is why I don't expect collectors to pursue collecting as they did in 1965, regardless that it doesn't completely explain what happened between 1965 and maybe 1998.

 

I consider it entirely expected that far fewer collect this way and I would believe it even if the coinage differed because I don't expect people to spend their time this way as much as they did in the past. What you are describing is a time consuming recreational activity and even many dedicated collectors won't do it except because of the financial motive. Most would rather spend their time doing something else because the alternatives far exceeded what existed in the past.

 

These 2000+ collectors you mentoned, I believe they would buy these coins in better grades if they were offered for sale and if they are willing to pay a premium. The coins aren't available because of the price or when they are, its much harder to actually know it because you either have to call or visit your dealer and a lot of people cannot be bothered to do that. These coins aren't usually listed on websites to my knowledge.

 

Lastly, you also need to consider a point I have numerous times in the past which apparently you do not. Your entire posting history indicates that you don't pay current market prices for the coins you own, except in isolation and don't buy graded coins either. So why do you find it so unsual that so few others do when you won't even do it yourself?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,863 posts

 

You are in a better position to estimate the collector base but then, I don't see what you described as unusual either. What you described is how most collectors used to approach collecting but today its much easier to buy what you want because of the internet and improved communication. This is why I don't expect collectors to pursue collecting as they did in 1965, regardless that it doesn't completely explain what happened between 1965 and maybe 1998.

 

 

 

Yes! There is no certainty there will ever be a mass demand for nice choice circulated and/ or uncirculated moderns. It is a new generation and it has been pointed out that they are different with different experiences and a different knowledge set. Much of collecting is a social behavior anyway. It's entirely possible that something like type collecting will be preferred so the scarcity of specific dates won't be apparent.

 

I've long been inclined to believe that the coinage in circulation will spur many collectors. There's an entire universe of collectible coins that are coming up on half a century in circulation and they just get more interesting every year.

 

Only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,184 posts

This never came up in our prior discussions in other threads but I have tried to explain it here.

 

There is no mass market for any other coins excluding common "key dates" except at nominal prices, even for recent classics where you exaggerate both the preference and the price level. And since there isn't, I have no idea where you came up with the notion that somehow it's going to happen for moderns.

 

I have never asked you to define a "mass market" but recently, I attempted to identify all of the recent classics where there are likely 2500 or more specimens worth $1000 or more as a proxy. I came up with 13. There are other "key dates" (such as the 1927-S SLQ) with more than 2500 in existence but I don't believe this many are in a high enough quality. None of the coins you have ever profiled are remotely comporable to these coins today (except to someone like you) and given the change in collecting practices in the quote you used which is absolutely an accurate reflection of how it's approached today, no reason to believe any will be in the future either. If this isn't self-evident, you can refer to the explanations Mohawk and I provided in the thread "What constitutes a key coin".

 

These 13 "key dates" represent maybe two percent of the issues from these series and this still includes three that are errors or die varieties (1955 DDO cent, 1922 "no D" cent and 1918/7 nickel).

 

Maybe an additional five percent sell for respectable or high prices in AU to mid MS (below 65 grades) with this supply. The 1927-S and 1932-D quarters are examples.

 

For the other 90%+, all of them either sell at nominal prices as a mass market under the US price level or only sell at high prices in the highest (no lower than a 66 but typically even a 67) grades. The 1940-D quarter you used as an example before is one.

 

Even if moderns become a lot more popular which I do not believe will happen except in isolation, this increase isn't remotely going to lead to the price level implied by your prior posts. This especially applies to those which are apparenlty popular now (such as the 1970-D half and 1971-P Ike) whose prices I don't believe are low at all given their availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,863 posts

Of course there's a mass market for '16-D dimes just as there is for 1925 dimes. It just manifests differently due to price. Most collectors who own a 1925 desire to own a '16-D as well and most '16-D owners have a 1925. What separates most '25 dime owners and a '16-D is that there aren't enough available at an affordable price to satisfy the demand. This applies to every date that has a premium. There aren't enough 1945 dimes with Full Bands for the demand either and even a 1931-S brings a premium in AG. At higher prices demand falls off which brings supply and demand into balance. People define their collections with acquisition costs in mind or everyone would collect mercury dimes in MS-65 FB and be stymied by the '16-D.

 

You're also conflating an observation I once made with a prediction I believe. The closest parallel between the real world and potential of moderns is the '50-D nickel. The '50-D nickel pricing was an extreme aberration because much of the attention of the entire hobby was focused on this single coin. People had gotten the absurd notion in their heads that the rapidly expanding hobby was going to require vast quantities of new coins so they were being saved by the truck load. The '50-D nickel was exceedingly common because almost the entire mintage had been intercepted and set aside for future collectors. But the concept was there still weren't enough so the price was bid ever higher until it achieved about $200 in today's money. This meant a bag which was quite common approached a million dollars!!!

 

But this one coin was the focus of millions of people and if millions of people ever collect moderns they aren't all going to want only 1971-P nickels or 1985-D quarters. But the fact is most of the modern nickels now are already scarcer than the '50-D was in Unc!!! This isn't to suggest that a roll set of Jeffersons will aproach a million dollars merely that the scarcer ones WOULD achieve the price of the '50-D today which is $7.50. If the demand were the same the modern nickels would have about the same price.

 

Recently I learned of an existent bag of '83-P nickels. This is a very scarce date. There are a tiny fraction as many of these as there are '50-D's but it sells for about 1/3 the price. Not one third the old crazy porice but 1/3 the new price.

 

The current market makes sense to you but it's because you're looking at it from so far away and you don't really believe late date coins are "numismatic". Many people feel this way. They feel that moderns aren't historical or important so they don't collect them. Even if they believed they were important they wouldn't collect them because they are too common. And this is how this strange situation arose in the first place. We enterred the space age and internet age and all of a sudden everyone quit collecting moderns. Now half a century later they wonder how a 1983 nickel can be many times scarcer than a '50-D but can't imagine that the demand to make it as valuable would ever materialize. I know it can and most probably will . Indeed I can hardly imagine the hobby surviving as a mass market without at least a few new collectors enterring the hobby with moderns.

 

How many people would want a '16-D dime at all if the hobby reverts to being only the "hobby of kings"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,184 posts

I am aware of what you are telling me. What I am telling you is that the mass market for recent classics is disproportionately at prices that are financially irrelevant. This is why I used the $1000 cut-off.

 

Yes I admit, part of my post was a reference to your prior prediction, though it wasn't just the 50-D nickel. I am not familiar with the specifics of the 71-P and 83--P but agree what you describe is feasible.

 

Generally though, whatever decrease in the price variance between the examples we have used in this thread occurs, I think its going to happen mostly through classics declining, not from moderns increasing.

 

There are literally hundreds of thousands of coins available to any (prospective) collector at relatively nominal prices by US standards: classic, modern and ancient. A large number are a lot more compelling than all of the coins you and I have discussed in this thread.

 

If collectors collected primarily out of pocket change as they did in the 1960's or were limited to what they could buy prior to the internet, I would agree with your comments a lot more. However, it should be apparent that unlike in the past, most collectors bypass moderns today not just because they "hate" them but because the options are much better to anyone who will look at this subject impartially. In the future, I also believe many more will bypass recent classics for exactly the same reason, subject to the limitations on availability per my prior posts.

 

Also, at least some of these moderns are popular now. Here are a few examples:

 

The 1970-D half has a PCGS count of 502 in MS-66(+) and its almost certainly an R-1 with over 1250+ available. The last Heritage sale was for $258. Given the combination of this price and its probable availability, I don't see that its really underpriced versus recent classics.

 

Another is the 1971-P Ike which has a current PCGS MS-66(+) count of 61 and which I previously "guesstimated" might actually be an R-3 (201-500) with around 250. Recent Heritage sales are between $800 and $1000. This is a big decrease from 2014 but hardly "cheap" for this count. The last MS-65 sale was for $56 but then, the count is already 832 and this price isn't out of line with recent classics either.

 

Lastly, the 1983-P quarter which we have discussed numerous times currently has a PCGS MS-66(+) count of 239 and I believe its actually an R-2. The last Heritage sale was $74. In early 2013 when the count was 114, it sold for $293. I don't know whether this $293 coin is your MS-66 but if you consider most an MS-64, this price isn't much less than many MS-64 Barber quarters. There are many different date/MM combinations available for less than $500.

 

When the "Krause" thread was active and the count was somewhat lower than today, another MS-66 sold for $123. This is only somewhat lower than the $162 for a PCGS MS-66 1962-D. I can see why you believe it should sell for more, but the absolute difference is not financially meaningful.

 

By my standards, all three of these coins are popular. They are just less popular and expensive than you apparenlty believe they should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,863 posts

 

By my standards, all three of these coins are popular. They are just less popular and expensive than you apparenlty believe they should be.

 

I'm going to try to back away from this discussion since I suspect many people believe we've already jumped the shark.

 

I simply don't believe it's natural or sustainable that most collections end at 1964. You say classics will come down and I interpret this as meaning the hobby will return to being only the "hobby of kings". I sincerely hope this doesn't happen. Numiusmatics is a wonderful and highly educational hobby and pastime that is beneficial to everyone who enjoys collecting and learning.

 

The world would be a much poorer and drabber place without it. Numismatics provides a perspective from which some things can be more clearly seen.

 

...And it's a hoot.

 

Numismatics never has been for everyone though it seemed like it in the early '60's. I pray it survives no matter when or how much demand materializes for moderns.

 

 

 

Surely the shark is jumped now. :whistle:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts
What I like best about clad quarters is that you can find them with effort yet they're tough enough you won't fiond many. I think the toughest moderns if you really care about quality and two sided quality are the nickels. Just finding two sided Gems can be a challenge add in qualifiers like FS or PL and youmight as well not even start because you'll never finish (FS alone may be possible but not as full Gems). The second toughest is Ikes. Just getting a nice attractive set of Ikes is tough.

 

The quarters are a real challenge in more recent years since they added some tough dates in the '90's and the '82-P is a bear. Nice dime sets from circulation are getting tougher every year.

 

One of the most enjoyable sets is FS memorials. They sound easy but they aren't as easy as they sound.

 

PL moderns are underappreciated. A few like the '74 coins will never be graded under current standards but there are lightly PL issues out there.

 

Prooflike clad Kennedy halves and Washington quarters are generally rare; with just a couple exceptions; yet the prices realized for gem+ examples can extremely low. These coins are very under-rated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,184 posts
I simply don't believe it's natural or sustainable that most collections end at 1964. You say classics will come down and I interpret this as meaning the hobby will return to being only the "hobby of kings". I sincerely hope this doesn't happen. Numiusmatics is a wonderful and highly educational hobby and pastime that is beneficial to everyone who enjoys collecting and learning.

 

The world would be a much poorer and drabber place without it. Numismatics provides a perspective from which some things can be more clearly seen.

 

...And it's a hoot.

 

Numismatics never has been for everyone though it seemed like it in the early '60's. I pray it survives no matter when or how much demand materializes for moderns.

 

 

 

Surely the shark is jumped now. :whistle:

 

We have already discussed your natural claim previously. As I explained to you before, it is a concept of your own invention which did not exist in the past, does not now and there is nothing in numismatics anywhere requiring that it does in the future, regardless of how you want to define it

 

As I have explained to you in this entire thread, the coins you like (circulating moderns) ARE widely collected, the prices just aren't as high as you think (demand is more like it) they should be. These are two entirely different considerations, they are not mutually exclusive and to believe that they are is yet another logical fallacy.

 

If we were having this discussion prior to the internet age, I would agree with you that the health of the hobby as we know it MIGHT depend upon moderns becoming a lot more popular, but we do not.

 

There is absolutely nothing precluding collecting remaining as it is today without (US) moderns becoming anywhere near as popular as you believe and neither you nor anyone else can remotely demonstrate that it is a necessary precondition for anything except your preference.

 

As for collecting returning to the "hobby of kings", I have made it clear that I expect it to shrink primarily for economic reasons since I concurrently expect a massive economic depression "eventually" but if I am wrong, it should be evident that the majority of Americans are going to become poorer or a lot poorer for the foreseeable future. Its already been happening since at least 1999.

 

Economics is a topic for another day but the primary basis of my claim is demographical. Not yours where age is the dominant factor but cultural along with the internet and economics.

 

I believe it should be self evident that one of the primary reasons most US collectors have disproportionately collected recent classics (along with their wide availability) since 1933 is because they were the primary coins which they actually liked and which they could also buy. With the internet, this limitation no longer exists and it should also be equally obvious that these coins are not price competitive with many others (mainly world but also within the US) whose numismatic merits are superior. This is why I made this statement.

 

Though I like these classics better, I concurrently believe that a reasonable argument can be made that many (but hardly most) US moderns have a better (numismatic and economic) value proposition than these common classics (excluding silver dollars). This is why I believe most of the price gap will occur through a decline in the price of classics since it conforms with my economic outlook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,863 posts

There is absolutely nothing precluding collecting remaining as it is today without (US) moderns becoming anywhere near as popular as you believe and neither you nor anyone else can remotely demonstrate that it is a necessary precondition for anything except your preference.

 

I'm sure you're right. But I consider it highly improbable a mass market will exist without moderns benefitting to a greater or lesser extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,863 posts

 

Prooflike clad Kennedy halves and Washington quarters are generally rare; with just a couple exceptions; yet the prices realized for gem+ examples can extremely low. These coins are very under-rated.

 

I believe another underrated look is strikes from brand new dies. Clad coins struck in the first ten or twelve strikes from new dies have a very special look to them.

 

Obviously these coins are very elusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

There is absolutely nothing precluding collecting remaining as it is today without (US) moderns becoming anywhere near as popular as you believe and neither you nor anyone else can remotely demonstrate that it is a necessary precondition for anything except your preference.

 

I'm sure you're right. But I consider it highly improbable a mass market will exist without moderns benefitting to a greater or lesser extent.

 

 

 

 

 

I suspect coins produced by the US mint today will be as collectable a hundred years from now, as coins produced by the US mint a hundred years ago are collectable today. I also suspect coins produced by the US mint two hundred years ago were just as collectable a hundred years later, as coins produced by the US mint a hundred years ago are collectable today.

 

Of course, this all precludes any end-of-life-as-we-know-it events in regards to the hundred years from now scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,184 posts

There is absolutely nothing precluding collecting remaining as it is today without (US) moderns becoming anywhere near as popular as you believe and neither you nor anyone else can remotely demonstrate that it is a necessary precondition for anything except your preference.

 

I'm sure you're right. But I consider it highly improbable a mass market will exist without moderns benefitting to a greater or lesser extent.

 

I believe the reason we have a difference of opinion on your concept of mass market is because you are using the financial and business context, not as a hobby.

 

As a business or industry, I would agree that the "hobby" cannot grow substantially from where it is today without moderns increasing in popularity substantially. Popularity to mean the price level. Some yes but not a lot because of the supply limitations especially outside the United States.

 

I don't see much correlation between a continually higher price level and the continuing health of collecting as a hobby. The price level of US coins is already an issue now and I don't see that making even more coins less affordable to more collectors is a positive except to those who buy them as an "investment". I know that many buyers are primarily motivated by the financial aspects and don't expect anyone to make a substantial outlay without wanting to get most of it back. At the same time, if US numismatics actually is primarily dependent upon continually higher prices, all of you here can see the end result in the South Africa market today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0