NGC's reponse to adjusting the Presidential MS point posted by walnutto

[Afterword]

"That said, it must be noted, in fairness to the other responses to the op, that they may feel the that points have become more valuable, to the op, than the coins they represent."

 

 

 

Yes, I know. Someone feels differently than they do about collecting coins and they do not like it. I do not understand this at all. Why do they feel that everyone should collect coins in a manner that suits them?

 

It seems like collecting coins is almost like a religion to some people, and they come knocking at the door to someone's thread spreading their numismatic gospel in a conformist attempt to save your coin collecting soul.

 

They have every right to do so, but I do not understand their elitist mentality.

[Lucky One]

"I don't think I ever said anyone was wrong, except for those who obviously slighted this gentleman for no good reason without offering help or constructive criticism."

 

 

You indicated I was doing wrong, simply because I admitted that I am perplexed by the registry set phenomenon. You singled me out over those who were obviously slighting the OP, even though I suggested that their posts completely mystified me.

 

No, you were attacking me personally and without provocation. I have no doubt of this.

 

The only question is why?

 

 

I didn't single you out and I have nothing against you, period- I have no clue who you are and I don't attack people without provocation, and to be clear, I saw no provocation in anything you wrote, I simply disagreed with you. I love how people find intent in things that they can't possibly know for sure. Maybe you just have a complex, I don't know, but I didn't attack you in any way, that is silly- at what point did the attack start and what exactly did I say that offended you personally? Some people are just too sensitive- if you can't have a civil discussion without taking something personally, maybe you're best not to say anything at all... sigh

[Lucky One]

We have to agree to disagree on that point, Mark. At any rate, it is over.

 

but it isn't over- you accused me in public of something and that is just plain unfair and uncalled for...

[Lucky One]

First, let me explain that I am now back in the CS after about a 2 year hiatus. After reading the journal article and all the replies here, I guess I want to put in my 2 cent piece and reply.

 

My feeling is, what has happened with the Presidential dollars is no different than what the Sac dollars have gone through. Thanks to 6 Mile Rick, my Sac Dollar proof set is complete thru 2015. I have been working on the set off and on since 2006. When I first started, I bought a 2001-S Proof graded PF-70 Ultra Cameo. At the time, this coin, in this grade, had a Numismedia value of well over $200, and that is what I paid. Well thru the years, the price guides have decreased their price on this course by over 50%. Why? Because as a few people have mentioned, there are a lot of coins being held and just now graded, and more PF70Ultra Cameo's have been graded.

 

So, what does this do? It's supply and demand. When the supply exceeds the demand, a coin's valuation and point total goes way down. All modern coins have this happen, although possibly not to the same degree. So to get on NCG's case and say they're duping us, to me, is not right and very unfair to NGC.

 

I tried to make this same point to a certain person on this board. Many of the older veteran's here probably remember him. Paul is his first name and that's all I'm giving out. He was getting on another member for not buying PF 70 Sacs. Called this person dumb etc. and I called him on it and he could not understand that the coins were being reduced in value because more were coming on the market.

 

I am not trying to bash anyone, just trying to make all of us understand on modern coins, I feel this problem is not a problem, no one is trying to dupe us because this is a fact of economic life.

 

Thanks for reading and I hope I have made my point in a clear manner.

 

EXACTLY. Simple supply and demand in itself explains this, and every modern series has gone through it. But there is a little more to it I'm sure (I haven't looked at the series the OP's complaint is about because I know nothing about the series) because there are many glaring discrepancies in the series I collect too and i'm sure across the board. It's still nothing to get upset about, but corrections can be made with the right reasoning. NGC is always ready to jump in and fix things if you can show them where and why they're broken, we all just have to stay on top of it...

[Lucky One]

NGC has a Registry area in the forums, which has a sub-forum entitled “NGC Registry Help and Instructions.” In the latter, there is prominently a FAQ thread that is anchored to the top. That thread was created in April of 2007 (your series began in 2007), and contains a link to a post by Dena (also from April of 2007) addressing how NGC determines the point value:

 

We place a value on each coin that is based on the relative rarity of its type, date and grade. This value takes many factors into account such as grade, population, market value, eye appeal and expert opinion. When a set is ranked in the registry, its rank is judged based on the total of the individual scores of all the coins.

 

As a basic guide to our system, collectors can look to the market as an excellent method of comparing the relative rarity of one coin to another. There is simply no better indicator of how much a coin is desired.

 

There is, however, no one perfect source that accounts for all the elements needed to be considered when ranking sets in the Registry. Comparative values of coins in the market can appear distorted (especially at the top end). On the other hand the grades alone are a poor indicator of how much "finer" a coin is because the grade does not reflect the rarity of a coin.

 

Through extensive market research, we are able to provide a ranking system that recognizes the intelligence of the market, but offers a more true reflection of relative rarity than does market value, because it appropriately adjusts for market distortions.

 

To summarize: The point values are based on relative rarity, grade/population data, and market value. In case you haven't been paying attention to prices realized, the coin market is not doing well over all. Moderns are performing especially abysmally (although there are exceptions). As such, did you really expect that the point values would not change when (1) the population increased and thus the relative "rarity" also decreased and (2) the market has performed poorly? If anything, the changes are long over due. No criticism meant to NGC, but is often slow in adjusting scores which is consistent with what we are observing here. You could argue that the timing was less than ideal (and perhaps it is), but the changes are well justified.

 

On another note, I do not see the "snooty" posts referenced by another poster. I think many posters were reacting to the language that collectors were somehow "duped" or that there was a nefarious intent on the part of NGC. Moreover, your post also seems to place the value of a coin on its registry points, which many advanced collectors are correct to question. Top sets and coins do not depend on labels and points - the coins do the talking. And that is true regardless of whether we are talking about 18th century and early 19th century coinage or moderns - some coins are better than others. Create a set you are proud of and provide high quality images, allowing the coins to do the "talking."

 

I don't know who wrote that but there is a glaring mistake there- eye appeal couldn't possibly be included in the score- how could it? Not that it matters, but explanations *should* be as accurate and close to reality as possible in my humble opinion- how does it help to clarify anything when the clarification contradicts itself?

 

As for your personal comment, I couldn't agree more. While I like the points and try to keep them proper when compared to the scarcity of other coins in the series, I think too many people forget why we collect in the first place- because we love assembling sets of beautiful coins. I have many undergraded coins in slabs, i am a verrrrry picky collector, but that doesn't mean I'm going to break them out and have them re-graded just for the points. The coins are what they are and that is all the registry set should really be about. If the excitement was only in the points gained, I'd have been bored outta my gourd long ago. Collectors today aren't anything like the collectors in my day. In the 1960's when I started collecting, there was nothing in the hobby but the coin, no slabs, no special grades, no hype, just coins and folders and Coin World and The Restrike (how many reading this remember The Restrike?) to find other collectors who had coins to trade or sell. Back then you had grades like unc, BU and sometimes you'd see a discriminating dealer call really nice BU's choice or even gem, but there were no standards, we just bought and paid based on appearance alone, and no one cared what you called it as long as it was pretty and priced fairly. People today get too caught up in the grade, the slab, the insert in the holder, the size of the 'coin' (5oz series), etc, etc, and they concern themselves with everything peripheral but not the coins themselves. I have a suggestion for anyone who can't find extreme pleasure in the hobby- collect something else that doesn't get slabbed or a hundred opinions. Classic cars are relatively cheap, old militaria is fun, I even have a lot of fun with colonial era foreign coins, they are about the least expensive rare coins you can find today but largely ignored, likely the reason they're so cheap. I'm not saying stop collecting what you want, just that it is a worthless endeavor if you aren't happy with the situation you're stuck in. As for moderns- it doesn't take a lot of logic to see that they are the type of coin with huge productions that will eventually saturate the market, especially when the prices go up only because a few registry set builders are fighting over bragging rights. Go for a series that few collect. That is one of the reasons I went to half eagles five years ago- not many were into them back then. Today it is about the only real bright spot in the market, a real contrast to moderns and the rest of the 20th century series. Be creative, there are a lot of niches to build a registry set in. Now that I've almost completed my half eagle set, I'm already looking for the next series to excite me. I hope everyone who is disgruntled finds a series to collect that won't give them heartburn. Collecting is supposed to be a challenging and ENJOYABLE hobby. Make it so with yours!

[Lucky One]

First, let me explain that I am now back in the CS after about a 2 year hiatus. After reading the journal article and all the replies here, I guess I want to put in my 2 cent piece and reply.

 

My feeling is, what has happened with the Presidential dollars is no different than what the Sac dollars have gone through. Thanks to 6 Mile Rick, my Sac Dollar proof set is complete thru 2015. I have been working on the set off and on since 2006. When I first started, I bought a 2001-S Proof graded PF-70 Ultra Cameo. At the time, this coin, in this grade, had a Numismedia value of well over $200, and that is what I paid. Well thru the years, the price guides have decreased their price on this course by over 50%. Why? Because as a few people have mentioned, there are a lot of coins being held and just now graded, and more PF70Ultra Cameo's have been graded.

 

So, what does this do? It's supply and demand. When the supply exceeds the demand, a coin's valuation and point total goes way down. All modern coins have this happen, although possibly not to the same degree. So to get on NCG's case and say they're duping us, to me, is not right and very unfair to NGC.

 

I tried to make this same point to a certain person on this board. Many of the older veteran's here probably remember him. Paul is his first name and that's all I'm giving out. He was getting on another member for not buying PF 70 Sacs. Called this person dumb etc. and I called him on it and he could not understand that the coins were being reduced in value because more were coming on the market.

 

I am not trying to bash anyone, just trying to make all of us understand on modern coins, I feel this problem is not a problem, no one is trying to dupe us because this is a fact of economic life.

 

Thanks for reading and I hope I have made my point in a clear manner.

 

The only thing I will say is that, yes, many Proof Sac and Pres dollars have yet to be graded. However, the longer people wait to submit them, the fewer 70s are going to be obtained. The manganese copper alloy is prone to spotting and discoloration, and coins in mint packaging are not ideally suited for long term storage.

 

this is a good point but keep in mind that a slab doesn't protect a coin, it still has to be stored in an environmentally controlled space and kept from contaminants in the air or surroundings. I do believe a lot of these are being removed from mint packaging and placed in inert holders, and the fact that the tarnish inhibtors are so popular in this hobby suggest to me that there will be an abundance of well oreserved coins in spite of the poor alloy. In short, and I honestly don;t mean to rain on anyone's parade, but these will likely not perform any better than a lot of the low mintage Franklin Mint stuff from the seventies, and remember, at least those coins were made of silver and gold so they have reason to hold some of their value. I still see coins with mintages of five hundred or a thousand selling for close to bullion, so if that is any indication of what is to come for the modern mass produced series, maybe it's time for more reflection and some changes in collecting habits.

[Lucky One]

NGC also provides registry rankings based on the total points awarded in all of the participant's sets. As such, a point decrease could decrease relative ranking there. Even though I have never cared for registry sets personally, even if I did, I do not realistically see any value to that ranking system and it emphasizes faux rarity with many of the moderns being ranked unusually high (or at least the pieces were at one time). Many series, particularly early 19th century and 18th century material including early gold, is not weighed as heavily as it should be for its rarity. In short, I think most collectors couldn't care less about it and do not think it would have any effect on value or desirability. Rather, a large increase in population with the realization that there are many raw examples in high level of preservation coupled with a poor market are to blame on that end.

 

In another thread here on NGC Journals, the OP complains that they lost over 6500 registry points on these presidential dollars. To provide a point of comparison, I list a few examples below to support your point. Two are awarded fewer points and two greater.

 

Regardless, it should be apparent that the points awarded to these coins versus just those lost by the OP is completely disproportional to what remotely makes any sense.

 

1802 half PCGS MS-62 16919

1796 quarter PCGS MS-61 11384

1800 dollar NGC AU-58 4724 (Bill Jones' coin)

1732 Mexico pillar 4R trial strike NGC AU-58 5734

 

 

GREAT EXAMPLE- this has always been my complaint although I haven't tried to push the issue with NGC. How can mass-produced moderns be ranked so high in the point scale and truly rare early coins be ranked relatively low in comparison. I think it is high time to re-evaluate every series and every issue. With today's computers, this should be an easy task. If I can do it with a simple spreadsheet, and I have been doing this since the mid-1980's, then it is definitely possible and should be done, and it appears that NGC has finally gotten around to addressing the issue.

 

As for your example, some of the half eagles in my registry set are in the same boat, and the problem extends to the value guides also- popular isn't a good reason to raise the values, rarity and availability should be the number one consideration. Look up a 1862 half eagle in VF or XF- it is a joke to see the price guides place such a small value on na coin that you can't even find! And I have several coins in my set that have less than 50 examples known to exist, yet they rank low when compared tosome issues in modern series.

 

My bet is that many other collectors of early type complained, and rather than inflate the point values on these, NGC rightly chose (in my humble opinion) to decrease the point values on the moderns to put them back into proper perspective.

 

I agree with Mark on this topic- it has aired a lot of opinions and it was time for this debate. What is really good about it is that NGC got ahead of us this time, and that is a good thing for all of us- they are aware and acting on the problem and my hat is off to them for doing the right thing finally.

[Lucky One]

"That said, it must be noted, in fairness to the other responses to the op, that they may feel the that points have become more valuable, to the op, than the coins they represent."

 

 

 

Yes, I know. Someone feels differently than they do about collecting coins and they do not like it. I do not understand this at all. Why do they feel that everyone should collect coins in a manner that suits them?

 

It seems like collecting coins is almost like a religion to some people, and they come knocking at the door to someone's thread spreading their numismatic gospel in a conformist attempt to save your coin collecting soul.

 

They have every right to do so, but I do not understand their elitist mentality.

 

huh???

[coinman_23885]

NGC has a Registry area in the forums, which has a sub-forum entitled “NGC Registry Help and Instructions.” In the latter, there is prominently a FAQ thread that is anchored to the top. That thread was created in April of 2007 (your series began in 2007), and contains a link to a post by Dena (also from April of 2007) addressing how NGC determines the point value:

 

We place a value on each coin that is based on the relative rarity of its type, date and grade. This value takes many factors into account such as grade, population, market value, eye appeal and expert opinion. When a set is ranked in the registry, its rank is judged based on the total of the individual scores of all the coins.

 

As a basic guide to our system, collectors can look to the market as an excellent method of comparing the relative rarity of one coin to another. There is simply no better indicator of how much a coin is desired.

 

There is, however, no one perfect source that accounts for all the elements needed to be considered when ranking sets in the Registry. Comparative values of coins in the market can appear distorted (especially at the top end). On the other hand the grades alone are a poor indicator of how much "finer" a coin is because the grade does not reflect the rarity of a coin.

 

Through extensive market research, we are able to provide a ranking system that recognizes the intelligence of the market, but offers a more true reflection of relative rarity than does market value, because it appropriately adjusts for market distortions.

 

I don't know who wrote that but there is a glaring mistake there- eye appeal couldn't possibly be included in the score- how could it? Not that it matters, but explanations *should* be as accurate and close to reality as possible in my humble opinion- how does it help to clarify anything when the clarification contradicts itself?

 

I think they are referring to the star designation, and the fact that these coins are given extra bonus points. I think it is wholly inadequate though. Eye appeal matters regardless of the star. Sometimes the best coin isn't the numeric finest, which is why I'm not a huge fan of registries. They also create faux rarity.

[Lucky One]

NGC has a Registry area in the forums, which has a sub-forum entitled “NGC Registry Help and Instructions.” In the latter, there is prominently a FAQ thread that is anchored to the top. That thread was created in April of 2007 (your series began in 2007), and contains a link to a post by Dena (also from April of 2007) addressing how NGC determines the point value:

 

We place a value on each coin that is based on the relative rarity of its type, date and grade. This value takes many factors into account such as grade, population, market value, eye appeal and expert opinion. When a set is ranked in the registry, its rank is judged based on the total of the individual scores of all the coins.

 

As a basic guide to our system, collectors can look to the market as an excellent method of comparing the relative rarity of one coin to another. There is simply no better indicator of how much a coin is desired.

 

There is, however, no one perfect source that accounts for all the elements needed to be considered when ranking sets in the Registry. Comparative values of coins in the market can appear distorted (especially at the top end). On the other hand the grades alone are a poor indicator of how much "finer" a coin is because the grade does not reflect the rarity of a coin.

 

Through extensive market research, we are able to provide a ranking system that recognizes the intelligence of the market, but offers a more true reflection of relative rarity than does market value, because it appropriately adjusts for market distortions.

 

I don't know who wrote that but there is a glaring mistake there- eye appeal couldn't possibly be included in the score- how could it? Not that it matters, but explanations *should* be as accurate and close to reality as possible in my humble opinion- how does it help to clarify anything when the clarification contradicts itself?

 

I think they are referring to the star designation, and the fact that these coins are given extra bonus points. I think it is wholly inadequate though. Eye appeal matters regardless of the star. Sometimes the best coin isn't the numeric finest, which is why I'm not a huge fan of registries. They also create faux rarity.

 

oh, duhhhh, I guess that makes sense, thanks for pointing that out. I have several + grades in my set and remember getting about five hundred extra points for the MS64's

 

by the way- I tend to agree with you about faux, but contrast this site to the totally faux world, faux country, faux state of politics, faux idols and heros, faux etc and from that perspective the state of our registry sites looks a lot more real. The way I see it though, we all have a responsibility to ourselves and our wallets to research the coins we buy and be sure the hype is recognised and priced in. Anyone who believes he's going to make money on ANY mass produced coin over time is fooling himself. To each his own I guess...

[coinman1794]

First, let me explain that I am now back in the CS after about a 2 year hiatus. After reading the journal article and all the replies here, I guess I want to put in my 2 cent piece and reply.

 

My feeling is, what has happened with the Presidential dollars is no different than what the Sac dollars have gone through. Thanks to 6 Mile Rick, my Sac Dollar proof set is complete thru 2015. I have been working on the set off and on since 2006. When I first started, I bought a 2001-S Proof graded PF-70 Ultra Cameo. At the time, this coin, in this grade, had a Numismedia value of well over $200, and that is what I paid. Well thru the years, the price guides have decreased their price on this course by over 50%. Why? Because as a few people have mentioned, there are a lot of coins being held and just now graded, and more PF70Ultra Cameo's have been graded.

 

So, what does this do? It's supply and demand. When the supply exceeds the demand, a coin's valuation and point total goes way down. All modern coins have this happen, although possibly not to the same degree. So to get on NCG's case and say they're duping us, to me, is not right and very unfair to NGC.

 

I tried to make this same point to a certain person on this board. Many of the older veteran's here probably remember him. Paul is his first name and that's all I'm giving out. He was getting on another member for not buying PF 70 Sacs. Called this person dumb etc. and I called him on it and he could not understand that the coins were being reduced in value because more were coming on the market.

 

I am not trying to bash anyone, just trying to make all of us understand on modern coins, I feel this problem is not a problem, no one is trying to dupe us because this is a fact of economic life.

 

Thanks for reading and I hope I have made my point in a clear manner.

 

The only thing I will say is that, yes, many Proof Sac and Pres dollars have yet to be graded. However, the longer people wait to submit them, the fewer 70s are going to be obtained. The manganese copper alloy is prone to spotting and discoloration, and coins in mint packaging are not ideally suited for long term storage.

 

this is a good point but keep in mind that a slab doesn't protect a coin, it still has to be stored in an environmentally controlled space and kept from contaminants in the air or surroundings. I do believe a lot of these are being removed from mint packaging and placed in inert holders, and the fact that the tarnish inhibtors are so popular in this hobby suggest to me that there will be an abundance of well oreserved coins in spite of the poor alloy. In short, and I honestly don;t mean to rain on anyone's parade, but these will likely not perform any better than a lot of the low mintage Franklin Mint stuff from the seventies, and remember, at least those coins were made of silver and gold so they have reason to hold some of their value. I still see coins with mintages of five hundred or a thousand selling for close to bullion, so if that is any indication of what is to come for the modern mass produced series, maybe it's time for more reflection and some changes in collecting habits.

 

The question really is, what grade is the coin on the day it is slabbed, rather than what happens to the coin after it's slabbed. The longer coins go raw, the fewer 70s will be graded. Looks at early silver eagles vs recent ones, as an example.

 

Also, I would argue that slabs are exceptionally better than mint packaging, in preserving coins, all else being equal; and that not very many people have spent the money on intercept and other holders to preserve raw PF70s.

 

In no way, shape, manner, or form am I suggesting these coins are going to be valuable someday.

[Seafury007]

Hello,

I too have collected right alongside with Walnutto. In fact even competed with each other at times bidding for rare coins in these President dollar categories. The points should stay as they are and in fact i know some coins that should be put in even higher amounts due to the rarity. I love all the coins and I take pride in the sets, so seeing any degradation in points feels like degradation in value for the sets. I have a lot $$$ into these sets and the idea was for retirement investment. I hoped to at least triple my investment 20 years down the road. If the points reflect a value or symbolizes the rarity, then it looks like not very rare to the end users eye as far as NGC is concerned and thus the value wont rise. That, my friends is my only worry. If anything, points go up on coins over time, not down, typically.

 

Robert

[MarkFeld]

Hello,

I too have collected right alongside with Walnutto. In fact even competed with each other at times bidding for rare coins in these President dollar categories. The points should stay as they are and in fact i know some coins that should be put in even higher amounts due to the rarity. I love all the coins and I take pride in the sets, so seeing any degradation in points feels like degradation in value for the sets. I have a lot $$$ into these sets and the idea was for retirement investment. I hoped to at least triple my investment 20 years down the road. If the points reflect a value or symbolizes the rarity, then it looks like not very rare to the end users eye as far as NGC is concerned and thus the value wont rise. That, my friends is my only worry. If anything, points go up on coins over time, not down, typically.

 

Robert

 

It is the populations of the coins, their rarity, relative rarity, demand and availability that affect their prices/value. And their point ratings have little or nothing to do with all but one of those considerations.

[coinman_23885]

Hello,

I too have collected right alongside with Walnutto. In fact even competed with each other at times bidding for rare coins in these President dollar categories. The points should stay as they are and in fact i know some coins that should be put in even higher amounts due to the rarity. I love all the coins and I take pride in the sets, so seeing any degradation in points feels like degradation in value for the sets. I have a lot $$$ into these sets and the idea was for retirement investment. I hoped to at least triple my investment 20 years down the road. If the points reflect a value or symbolizes the rarity, then it looks like not very rare to the end users eye as far as NGC is concerned and thus the value wont rise. That, my friends is my only worry. If anything, points go up on coins over time, not down, typically.

 

Robert

 

I hate to come off as a jerk or kill joy, but don't rely on these sets as providing a substantial portion of your retirement savings. Since there are millions and millions of these coin in unsearched rolls (that even most banks don't want back as change - try depositing a couple thousand dollars in face value and you will see what I mean), it is likely that more and more high end coins will be certified and that the values will plummet sharply.

[Star City Homer]

I'm not sure why there is quite so much angst. The point system is not a price guide, though maybe I notice this lack of correlation more as I collect mostly non-US material.

 

If the points are dropped across the board, they are dropped for all collectors equally, so a number one set would remain so. I can only see the points being an issue if it's only one or two coins in the set being rebalanced (which this does not sound like), or if you are worrying about total point standings. Nothing wrong with the latter, but if the points are being dropped to reflect up to date information, that seems fair. A point system should be adjusted as new data is accounted for.

 

I must confess to being a bit late to the registry game. I was on the verge of selling all but a few sets, and keeping mostly bullion when I first decided on a custom set or two for my 'favorites'. As a person staring down an early-ish semi-retirement I will admit to being very aware of investing. Income real estate, stocks, bonds and even bullion make sense though individually all can be risky. It's as a balanced portfolio you make a sound retirement plan. (And the dang registries have made my OC heart find the love of the coin hunt once again, so I've got to work just a tad longer).

 

Collectibles including art, coins, stamps, Hummels and beanie babies just don't cut it. Too many variables. The collecting base ages out and dies. A valuable Renoir will probably always be valuable...but can you count on it to appreciate a specific amount to fund a retirement? No. Plus, the average collector has too many factors working against him/her in terms of commisions, visibility when selling etc.

 

In any case, if you are a collector, one should not EXPECT to retire on the proceeds. My advice would be to collect what gives you joy, stimulates your mind, or otherwise fascinates you. If it holds value or increases, well, that's a bonus.

 

Keep your investment funds separate, or value your collection as part of your net worth based on either bullion value, or at 1/4 of catalog so you don't overestimate what you can get in a liquidation sale if you need cash to pay bills. There are NO guarantees a collectible will hold value but bullion can be calculated (and even that fluctuates wildly).

 

Points in a registry are not responsible for your retirement.

[Lucky One]

First, let me explain that I am now back in the CS after about a 2 year hiatus. After reading the journal article and all the replies here, I guess I want to put in my 2 cent piece and reply.

 

My feeling is, what has happened with the Presidential dollars is no different than what the Sac dollars have gone through. Thanks to 6 Mile Rick, my Sac Dollar proof set is complete thru 2015. I have been working on the set off and on since 2006. When I first started, I bought a 2001-S Proof graded PF-70 Ultra Cameo. At the time, this coin, in this grade, had a Numismedia value of well over $200, and that is what I paid. Well thru the years, the price guides have decreased their price on this course by over 50%. Why? Because as a few people have mentioned, there are a lot of coins being held and just now graded, and more PF70Ultra Cameo's have been graded.

 

So, what does this do? It's supply and demand. When the supply exceeds the demand, a coin's valuation and point total goes way down. All modern coins have this happen, although possibly not to the same degree. So to get on NCG's case and say they're duping us, to me, is not right and very unfair to NGC.

 

I tried to make this same point to a certain person on this board. Many of the older veteran's here probably remember him. Paul is his first name and that's all I'm giving out. He was getting on another member for not buying PF 70 Sacs. Called this person dumb etc. and I called him on it and he could not understand that the coins were being reduced in value because more were coming on the market.

 

I am not trying to bash anyone, just trying to make all of us understand on modern coins, I feel this problem is not a problem, no one is trying to dupe us because this is a fact of economic life.

 

Thanks for reading and I hope I have made my point in a clear manner.

 

The only thing I will say is that, yes, many Proof Sac and Pres dollars have yet to be graded. However, the longer people wait to submit them, the fewer 70s are going to be obtained. The manganese copper alloy is prone to spotting and discoloration, and coins in mint packaging are not ideally suited for long term storage.

 

this is a good point but keep in mind that a slab doesn't protect a coin, it still has to be stored in an environmentally controlled space and kept from contaminants in the air or surroundings. I do believe a lot of these are being removed from mint packaging and placed in inert holders, and the fact that the tarnish inhibtors are so popular in this hobby suggest to me that there will be an abundance of well oreserved coins in spite of the poor alloy. In short, and I honestly don;t mean to rain on anyone's parade, but these will likely not perform any better than a lot of the low mintage Franklin Mint stuff from the seventies, and remember, at least those coins were made of silver and gold so they have reason to hold some of their value. I still see coins with mintages of five hundred or a thousand selling for close to bullion, so if that is any indication of what is to come for the modern mass produced series, maybe it's time for more reflection and some changes in collecting habits.

 

The question really is, what grade is the coin on the day it is slabbed, rather than what happens to the coin after it's slabbed. The longer coins go raw, the fewer 70s will be graded. Looks at early silver eagles vs recent ones, as an example.

 

Also, I would argue that slabs are exceptionally better than mint packaging, in preserving coins, all else being equal; and that not very many people have spent the money on intercept and other holders to preserve raw PF70s.

 

In no way, shape, manner, or form am I suggesting these coins are going to be valuable someday.

 

Agreed on all points. One thing I want to stress though is that oxidation takes longer if a coin is put into ANY type of holder, sealed or not, unless all oxygen and contaminants are taken from the slab upon sealing it. Further, there have been enough independent tests done that prove that a sealed slab isn't exactly sealed- they do leak, and when a slab is put into a contaminated atmosphere for a period of time, the contaminants *will* seep in and cause oxidation to occur in the 'sealed' slab. I know PCGS has it's safer slab and I haven't seen any test results on that but I'd be surprised if anything is 100% protective.

 

On you last point- it seems very odd to me that the average moderns collector doesn't take math into account. I can consult any population guide and find that there are *many* classic 18th and 19th century proofs in high grade, and they had very limited mintages, so it goes to show that if that many near perfect coins have been preserved for decades and even centuries, why wouldn't at least similar percentages, if not much higher percentages, exist of today's specially made and more carefully preserved coins in a century or three?

 

In other words, if you take the mintage of a proof 1859 half dollar (800 pieces; example chosen because this is the first year that proofs are available in large numbers today) and look at the number in major slabs today graded at least 65 (29 from NGC & 20 from PCGS), it becomes clear that at least 5% of the original specimens struck 16 decades ago survived everything more than a century and a half of turmoil and human stupidity could throw at them. With today's modern protective packaging, you should expect much higher percentages surviving far into the future, meaning that the 2013-S 5 Star Generals silver half dollar proof (chosen because it is the lowest mintage silver commem half made) should have at least 2,367 (this number represents just 5% of the original 47,339 mintage, but survival rates will likely be at least ten times that!) survivors in the year 2266 and more likely tens of thousands of high quality specimens (Proof 67 through 70) will still be available. Use these numbers for the most common ones and you see that no matter what mother nature or human stupidity has to say about it, there should be more than enough to satisfy demand.

I don't mean to put anyone down, that is far from my intent. Some people just have deep pockets and don't care what it costs to build the perfect set, but they obviously aren't worth that much, which brings me to the point that I always make concerning moderns registry sets- they can't be bragging up the rarity of the coin, so they must be bragging up the fact that they were able to procure, at extreme expense, one of the few plastic slabs that houses one of these very common coins.

Sorry if I rained on anyone's parade. The sets are cool to look at, but for my money, I'd rather buy the 1870-CC half eagle that I recently purchased in a low circulated grade. I *know* how many are around and they are absolutely a rare find (took me six years to find one I could afford that was acceptable for my set).

[Lucky One]

It is the populations of the coins, their rarity, relative rarity, demand and availability that affect their prices/value. And their point ratings have little or nothing to do with all but one of those considerations.

 

Absolutely, great point Mark. I don't understand why some people don't get this and LOOK AT THE MATH. All respect to anyone for their choice of investments, but I study something I'm about to 'invest' in very carefully before I spend the big bucks, I grew up poor and I never want to live like that again. I looked at every modern issue every time a new one hit the market and I can't remember thinking a single one of them was a money maker over time.

 

Also, I suggest to the gentleman who invested in modern commons in special plastic to re-evaluate his position and understand the difference between a quick speculation play and a long term secure investment. I collect extremely rare early issues with well known remaining populations, and I still don't think that I'm perfectly safe- every time a treasure ship is found, a new hoard of that extremely rare issue could be discovered.

 

As an even better example- most Morgan dollar collectors don't know it today, but the 1898-O and 1904-O dollars were extremely rare before the treasury released their hoard in the 1960's. Collectors who were wealthy enough to own these issues before 1960 had potential million dollar coins upon retirement or death right up until that monumental event, and even after their release and public rumors that they were about to flood the market, some of those owners didn't believe it until they started seeing the price come down preciptously.

 

Never 'invest' in something made by the thousands or millions to be perfect from the get-go. There is plenty of recent history to show that most US Mint issues aren't worth much more than junk bonds or penny stocks over time, and many sell for bullion plus a small premium today...

[Lucky One]

... My advice would be to collect what gives you joy, stimulates your mind, or otherwise fascinates you. If it holds value or increases, well, that's a bonus...

 

Points in a registry are not responsible for your retirement.

 

Yep, couldn't agree more- a hobby is about what makes you feel good, teaches you something you didn't expect to learn and gives you the challenge and stimulation that the human mind needs. And I'll add that after fifty one years in the hobby, I've found that while it is impossible to know what will or will not perform well over time, IF you buy only truly rare coins and only very attractive specimens, you will not lose overall. My collection continues to grow even though I have been retired for 7 years (without a pension and too young for SS) and I beleive it is because I was so picky all these years. It's about the choices you make when deciding to 'invest'. We should always make them wisely. "A penny saved is a penny GOT" (quote from old Ben Franklin)

[World Colonial]

I agree with your points.

 

I am dubious that financially, the existing premiums between one point increments in the highest grades will exist over "the long term" for any coin. There certainly is nothing significant numismatically in it and its a narrow, arbitrary and artificial concept of "scarcity".

 

But even if current practices remain, the supply of post 1998 US circulating coinage (starting with SQ) is huge in the highest grades versus all other coins which preceded them, even earlier US moderns.

 

My guess (and this is all it is) is that there may be one or at most two dozen collectors for most (if not all) US modern series (including presidential quarters) who are willing to pay the current open market price for "grade rarities" and only a somewhat larger number for the "under grade". This as opposed to the much larger number of "cherry pickers" who are looking to "make" these grades but won't pay more than a nominal price for it. This should make it self evident that out of tens or even hundreds of thousands of collectors, there is no market depth for the top registry coins most of the time except at lower or much lower prices.

 

I also don't see why anyone would believe the perception of these coins will change substantially in the future. As a guess, I estimate there are at least 250,000 coins and over 10,000 series across US, world and ancient coinage from 600BC to today. And in the internet age unlike when you and I started collecting, there is no need to limit your choices to what is available in circulation or even your local coin shop, unless your budget requires it.

 

Considered in this context, Presidential dollars and others like it in the highest grades are not numismatically competitive at current prices versus the vast majority of other coins, even if the latter are in somewhat and in many instances much lower grades. So why exactly would any large number of future buyers want to pay a lot more than now? For the $10,000 one of these posters mentioned having in their presidential dollar set, a substantial percentage of these 10,000 series and 250,000 coins are available as alternatives.

 

This is what I believe those who bought this (and other similar series) for "investment" did not adequately consider.

 

 

[Lucky One]

I agree with your points.

 

I am dubious that financially, the existing premiums between one point increments in the highest grades will exist over "the long term" for any coin. There certainly is nothing significant numismatically in it and its a narrow, arbitrary and artificial concept of "scarcity".

 

But even if current practices remain, the supply of post 1998 US circulating coinage (starting with SQ) is huge in the highest grades versus all other coins which preceded them, even earlier US moderns.

 

My guess (and this is all it is) is that there may be one or at most two dozen collectors for most (if not all) US modern series (including presidential quarters) who are willing to pay the current open market price for "grade rarities" and only a somewhat larger number for the "under grade". This as opposed to the much larger number of "cherry pickers" who are looking to "make" these grades but won't pay more than a nominal price for it. This should make it self evident that out of tens or even hundreds of thousands of collectors, there is no market depth for the top registry coins most of the time except at lower or much lower prices.

 

I also don't see why anyone would believe the perception of these coins will change substantially in the future. As a guess, I estimate there are at least 250,000 coins and over 10,000 series across US, world and ancient coinage from 600BC to today. And in the internet age unlike when you and I started collecting, there is no need to limit your choices to what is available in circulation or even your local coin shop, unless your budget requires it.

 

Considered in this context, Presidential dollars and others like it in the highest grades are not numismatically competitive at current prices versus the vast majority of other coins, even if the latter are in somewhat and in many instances much lower grades. So why exactly would any large number of future buyers want to pay a lot more than now? For the $10,000 one of these posters mentioned having in their presidential dollar set, a substantial percentage of these 10,000 series and 250,000 coins are available as alternatives.

 

This is what I believe those who bought this (and other similar series) for "investment" did not adequately consider.

 

 

many good points for one side of the debate but I didn't count many for the other. I hate to see moderns collectors pitted against the old school though and hope no one here takes it that way. ALL series are worthwhile as long as we don't let our excitement overload our decision making. I firmly believe your shallow market theory fits perfectly with my idea of that 'market'- it is a bunch of very successful young execs who are buying bragging rights. They are correct that there won't be a lot more graded, but in my series (US half eagles), if only twice as many are graded for some issues, they go from being less than 50 known to maybe over 100 known- that is a big hit. So we can conclude that there is a shallow market because not that many people wealthy enough to pursue the ultra grades are interested in them (shallow market) but we can also conclude that you need deep pockets to absorb the cost of those bragging rights (my theory that they are only bought buy those with deep pockets). I guess the most interesting thing about this discussion though is the fact that some of us see the math and it impacts our decision making in an entirely different way that those on the other side of the debate. Human nature is impossible to predict. Great discussion though, even if we dragged it a little off topic...

 

ps- you should 'promote' world coins to your friends out here- they might find themselves enjoying the hobby again rather than the points competition. I have a lot of interesting old (colonial and pre-colonial era) unslabbed foreign coins that give me a lot of pleasure even though I rarely buy one and rarely pick up a book to read about them, I've just enjoyed buying one or two neat coins a year throughout my 50 yrs in the hobby, with no aim or direction. Just something about holding them in my hand and thinking about the hands they went through and the conditions of the times. Sometimes they make me feel better than some coins that cost me hundreds or even thousands of times more. Collecting foreign coins is a very worthy hobby with a lot of great value, but you don't have to leave US coinage to find great value either.

[cladking]

 

But even if current practices remain, the supply of post 1998 US circulating coinage (starting with SQ) is huge in the highest grades versus all other coins which preceded them, even earlier US moderns.

 

 

Who'd expect a modern bashing thread right in the registry forum?

 

What defines moderns more than anything else is that the coins weren't set aside. Every year up until 1964 millions and millions of coins were set aside for investment. This came to a screeching halt in 1965. People didn't only stop saving the higher denominations which had been silver and were now debased garbage but they also stopped saving cents and nickels which hadn't changed at all.

 

What changed was the perception of value. Everyone knew that no one would ever collect the garbage made after 1964 and so far they're pretty close to being right. It has increased markedly since 1980 and then ramped up again in 1999 and has been slowly increasing but far more people collect wheat cents than memorial cents. Everyone knows that all the memorials are common as grains of sand on the beach in Gem and billions upon billions have never been checked for Gems so they don't collect them.

 

The real irony is that nice pristine and well struck 1984 cents with good surfaces may be much scarcer than the '09-S VDB in the same condition. And it can be had for a buck or two.

 

 

[coinman1794]

First, let me explain that I am now back in the CS after about a 2 year hiatus. After reading the journal article and all the replies here, I guess I want to put in my 2 cent piece and reply.

 

My feeling is, what has happened with the Presidential dollars is no different than what the Sac dollars have gone through. Thanks to 6 Mile Rick, my Sac Dollar proof set is complete thru 2015. I have been working on the set off and on since 2006. When I first started, I bought a 2001-S Proof graded PF-70 Ultra Cameo. At the time, this coin, in this grade, had a Numismedia value of well over $200, and that is what I paid. Well thru the years, the price guides have decreased their price on this course by over 50%. Why? Because as a few people have mentioned, there are a lot of coins being held and just now graded, and more PF70Ultra Cameo's have been graded.

 

So, what does this do? It's supply and demand. When the supply exceeds the demand, a coin's valuation and point total goes way down. All modern coins have this happen, although possibly not to the same degree. So to get on NCG's case and say they're duping us, to me, is not right and very unfair to NGC.

 

I tried to make this same point to a certain person on this board. Many of the older veteran's here probably remember him. Paul is his first name and that's all I'm giving out. He was getting on another member for not buying PF 70 Sacs. Called this person dumb etc. and I called him on it and he could not understand that the coins were being reduced in value because more were coming on the market.

 

I am not trying to bash anyone, just trying to make all of us understand on modern coins, I feel this problem is not a problem, no one is trying to dupe us because this is a fact of economic life.

 

Thanks for reading and I hope I have made my point in a clear manner.

 

The only thing I will say is that, yes, many Proof Sac and Pres dollars have yet to be graded. However, the longer people wait to submit them, the fewer 70s are going to be obtained. The manganese copper alloy is prone to spotting and discoloration, and coins in mint packaging are not ideally suited for long term storage.

 

this is a good point but keep in mind that a slab doesn't protect a coin, it still has to be stored in an environmentally controlled space and kept from contaminants in the air or surroundings. I do believe a lot of these are being removed from mint packaging and placed in inert holders, and the fact that the tarnish inhibtors are so popular in this hobby suggest to me that there will be an abundance of well oreserved coins in spite of the poor alloy. In short, and I honestly don;t mean to rain on anyone's parade, but these will likely not perform any better than a lot of the low mintage Franklin Mint stuff from the seventies, and remember, at least those coins were made of silver and gold so they have reason to hold some of their value. I still see coins with mintages of five hundred or a thousand selling for close to bullion, so if that is any indication of what is to come for the modern mass produced series, maybe it's time for more reflection and some changes in collecting habits.

 

The question really is, what grade is the coin on the day it is slabbed, rather than what happens to the coin after it's slabbed. The longer coins go raw, the fewer 70s will be graded. Looks at early silver eagles vs recent ones, as an example.

 

Also, I would argue that slabs are exceptionally better than mint packaging, in preserving coins, all else being equal; and that not very many people have spent the money on intercept and other holders to preserve raw PF70s.

 

In no way, shape, manner, or form am I suggesting these coins are going to be valuable someday.

 

Agreed on all points. One thing I want to stress though is that oxidation takes longer if a coin is put into ANY type of holder, sealed or not, unless all oxygen and contaminants are taken from the slab upon sealing it. Further, there have been enough independent tests done that prove that a sealed slab isn't exactly sealed- they do leak, and when a slab is put into a contaminated atmosphere for a period of time, the contaminants *will* seep in and cause oxidation to occur in the 'sealed' slab. I know PCGS has it's safer slab and I haven't seen any test results on that but I'd be surprised if anything is 100% protective.

 

On you last point- it seems very odd to me that the average moderns collector doesn't take math into account. I can consult any population guide and find that there are *many* classic 18th and 19th century proofs in high grade, and they had very limited mintages, so it goes to show that if that many near perfect coins have been preserved for decades and even centuries, why wouldn't at least similar percentages, if not much higher percentages, exist of today's specially made and more carefully preserved coins in a century or three?

 

In other words, if you take the mintage of a proof 1859 half dollar (800 pieces; example chosen because this is the first year that proofs are available in large numbers today) and look at the number in major slabs today graded at least 65 (29 from NGC & 20 from PCGS), it becomes clear that at least 5% of the original specimens struck 16 decades ago survived everything more than a century and a half of turmoil and human stupidity could throw at them. With today's modern protective packaging, you should expect much higher percentages surviving far into the future, meaning that the 2013-S 5 Star Generals silver half dollar proof (chosen because it is the lowest mintage silver commem half made) should have at least 2,367 (this number represents just 5% of the original 47,339 mintage, but survival rates will likely be at least ten times that!) survivors in the year 2266 and more likely tens of thousands of high quality specimens (Proof 67 through 70) will still be available. Use these numbers for the most common ones and you see that no matter what mother nature or human stupidity has to say about it, there should be more than enough to satisfy demand.

I don't mean to put anyone down, that is far from my intent. Some people just have deep pockets and don't care what it costs to build the perfect set, but they obviously aren't worth that much, which brings me to the point that I always make concerning moderns registry sets- they can't be bragging up the rarity of the coin, so they must be bragging up the fact that they were able to procure, at extreme expense, one of the few plastic slabs that houses one of these very common coins.

Sorry if I rained on anyone's parade. The sets are cool to look at, but for my money, I'd rather buy the 1870-CC half eagle that I recently purchased in a low circulated grade. I *know* how many are around and they are absolutely a rare find (took me six years to find one I could afford that was acceptable for my set).

 

I understand and agree with your points (and I would add that I would never suggest that such moderns are worth big money or are rare), but there are two things that are starkly at odds with the very specific points I'm making, to the point that I'm finding your comparisons to be like apples and oranges.

 

First, I'm arguing about the grades of coins on the day the graders examine them, so it doesn't matter how well the coins hold up in their slabs afterwards.

 

Second, I am talking about PF70, and how quickly a coin can loose that lofty grade. There are no 18th and 19th century Proofs in PF70. I would also note that there are no manganese-copper alloy coins from that period either. If there were any, those coins would almost certainly be discolored, like most copper coins of the period. Even some early Silver Eagles are tough in MS/PF70 due to spots and mishandling, whereas the freshly minted coins that go straight to the services average almost 40% 70s. 1960s SMS coinage is nearly impossible in 70 grade, as well.

 

That said, there are currently untold thousands of potential 70 coins out there, for Presidential Dollars. The evidence I've seen suggests that the sooner these coins go to the services, the more likely they are to get 70s. Time will tell if they hold up to the elements BEFORE they pass across the desks of NGC and PCGS graders.

 

 

[RWB]

This whole point fixation borders on Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders and specifically the DSM-5 category of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders.

 

(DSM-5 is the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders")

[World Colonial]

 

But even if current practices remain, the supply of post 1998 US circulating coinage (starting with SQ) is huge in the highest grades versus all other coins which preceded them, even earlier US moderns.

 

 

Who'd expect a modern bashing thread right in the registry forum?

 

What defines moderns more than anything else is that the coins weren't set aside. Every year up until 1964 millions and millions of coins were set aside for investment. This came to a screeching halt in 1965. People didn't only stop saving the higher denominations which had been silver and were now debased garbage but they also stopped saving cents and nickels which hadn't changed at all.

 

What changed was the perception of value. Everyone knew that no one would ever collect the garbage made after 1964 and so far they're pretty close to being right. It has increased markedly since 1980 and then ramped up again in 1999 and has been slowly increasing but far more people collect wheat cents than memorial cents. Everyone knows that all the memorials are common as grains of sand on the beach in Gem and billions upon billions have never been checked for Gems so they don't collect them.

 

The real irony is that nice pristine and well struck 1984 cents with good surfaces may be much scarcer than the '09-S VDB in the same condition. And it can be had for a buck or two.

 

 

I wasn't "bashing" moderns. I was stating a fact. You need to get over your complex, seriously.

 

In this prior post you quoted, I was specifically making a distinction between the availability of 1965-1998 and post 1998 coins. I was actually agreeing with your prior posts - to a point - on how difficult these coins are to collect. This is why I explicitly stated post 1998 (as in SQ and later).

 

I disagree with your primary theme on moderns but agree with you on limited aspects. This is one of them.

[cladking]

I wasn't "bashing" moderns. I was stating a fact.

 

Mia culpa.

 

In closely rereading the thread there wasn't enough to even warrant posting.

 

This hardly means I agree with all the "facts" about moderns stated in the thread but there really wasn't a need to challenge them.

[Lucky One]

 

But even if current practices remain, the supply of post 1998 US circulating coinage (starting with SQ) is huge in the highest grades versus all other coins which preceded them, even earlier US moderns.

 

 

Who'd expect a modern bashing thread right in the registry forum?

 

What defines moderns more than anything else is that the coins weren't set aside. Every year up until 1964 millions and millions of coins were set aside for investment. This came to a screeching halt in 1965. People didn't only stop saving the higher denominations which had been silver and were now debased garbage but they also stopped saving cents and nickels which hadn't changed at all.

 

What changed was the perception of value. Everyone knew that no one would ever collect the garbage made after 1964 and so far they're pretty close to being right. It has increased markedly since 1980 and then ramped up again in 1999 and has been slowly increasing but far more people collect wheat cents than memorial cents. Everyone knows that all the memorials are common as grains of sand on the beach in Gem and billions upon billions have never been checked for Gems so they don't collect them.

 

The real irony is that nice pristine and well struck 1984 cents with good surfaces may be much scarcer than the '09-S VDB in the same condition. And it can be had for a buck or two.

 

 

First, sorry if you took any of my opinions personally, I didn't come to bash anyone's favorite series.

 

What I do have to respond to is your assumption that in 1965 all roll saving stopped. That couldn't be backed by fact because I knew a LOT of dealers and hoarders over my fifty one year numismatic career and there is no doubt that much of that stuff was buried in cellers and closets, not to come out until these people begin dying off. Since I started collecting in 1965 I can say with conviction that a lot of the change ended up in piggy banks, barrels and jugs.

 

And to be absolutely sure, the treasury department has minted more and more coinage over that period, so where does it go? I think a clad coin has a life of thirty years or more. Where did they all go? It's expensive to melt and refine clad coinage so it didn't get melted. The treasury chose clad coinage because it would save them from having to melt much of it, so they aren't taking it from circulation nearly as fast as the mint is coining it. So where are all those hundreds of billions of coins that you say no longer exist? I think they are in sock drawers and the backs of closets all over America, just waiting for baby boomers to start dying off and their children to start finding them. Just trying to treat this with some logic. No one thought the gov't would find a hundred million silver dollars in their vaults either but hoarders of 1898-O, 1903-O and 1904-O Morgans lost their pants when they were released. Baby bommer children may disperse their parents loot at a much slower rate but the fact remains that many of those coins will be high end gems. When will the Presidential dollars and the like be found? Probably in about fifty years when those hoarders children find them in the back of your closets...

[Lucky One]

 

I understand and agree with your points (and I would add that I would never suggest that such moderns are worth big money or are rare), but there are two things that are starkly at odds with the very specific points I'm making, to the point that I'm finding your comparisons to be like apples and oranges.

 

First, I'm arguing about the grades of coins on the day the graders examine them, so it doesn't matter how well the coins hold up in their slabs afterwards.

 

Second, I am talking about PF70, and how quickly a coin can loose that lofty grade. There are no 18th and 19th century Proofs in PF70. I would also note that there are no manganese-copper alloy coins from that period either. If there were any, those coins would almost certainly be discolored, like most copper coins of the period. Even some early Silver Eagles are tough in MS/PF70 due to spots and mishandling, whereas the freshly minted coins that go straight to the services average almost 40% 70s. 1960s SMS coinage is nearly impossible in 70 grade, as well.

 

That said, there are currently untold thousands of potential 70 coins out there, for Presidential Dollars. The evidence I've seen suggests that the sooner these coins go to the services, the more likely they are to get 70s. Time will tell if they hold up to the elements BEFORE they pass across the desks of NGC and PCGS graders.

 

 

OK, and of course with all respect, maybe the problem is that you yourself are comparing apples to oranges- you compare 19th century proofs that didn't have much protection for over a hundred years to coins in slabs that will be protected much better. Don't you agree that if modern coin preservation technology was available to 19th century proof collectors that most would indeed be preserved in 69 and 70 today? Silver eagle planchets for mint state coins were not rinsed properly and that explains the surface spotting, etc. I personally have seen a very low percentage of proof eagles in poor condition, most are 69 or 70 and will remain that way for centuries. It's really just a matter of mathematics now. As for 'rare' circulation issues, some of which have only attained a top grade of MS67- with mintages in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions, why would anyone think that will remain the top grade, or that as prices rise, more won't come out of the woodwork? I think the ONLY reason there aren't more graded is because that market segment is so thin that there are no more submitters simply because they already have one. And the other thing that I find odd about many moderns collectors is that they won't buy a raw coin, they only buy slabs. If that is the case, then the very expert collectors that drive that thin market don't add more supply to the chain. That would explain low pop numbers as well as unrealisticly high prices. Again, just a little logic. Maybe I'm wrong, but logic has served me well all my life and I'm not about to abandon it now.

[RWB]

"No one thought the gov't would find a hundred million silver dollars in their vaults either..."

 

In reality, the Treasury published the inventory monthly. The dollars were not hidden and were not "found." The only discovery was the large quantity of Carson silver dollars in one vault.

[Lucky One]

"No one thought the gov't would find a hundred million silver dollars in their vaults either..."

 

In reality, the Treasury published the inventory monthly. The dollars were not hidden and were not "found." The only discovery was the large quantity of Carson silver dollars in one vault.

 

this is absolutely true but has no bearing on the subject since those were numbers on a spreadsheet, not a list of dates, mints and conditions. And actually, it was known that some quantity of Carson City dollars were included, and the real surprise was the thousands of bags of 1898-O and 1904-O dollars in the mix- those were the rarest of the rare and even put the 93-S to shame so no one expected such a large percentage of the original mintage to be preserved in mint state bags. Those were the days. Today we just consult a population guide because most of them are now in slabs anyway.

[cladking]

What I do have to respond to is your assumption that in 1965 all roll saving stopped. That couldn't be backed by fact because I knew a LOT of dealers and hoarders over my fifty one year numismatic career and there is no doubt that much of that stuff was buried in cellers and closets, not to come out until these people begin dying off.

 

Not all roll saving came toa screeching stop in 1965. Indeed, there were probably almost half as many 1965 quarter rolls saved initially as 1964 rolls. But in '66 nobody wanted these rolls and it was the same in '67. Most of these rolls were simply spent. $10 was too much money to tie up in coins no one wanted in those days. As the years rolled by fewer coins were saved. The '69 quareter roll is actually scarce. You can find mint set rolls but the bank rolls were scarce in 1971 and they're far scarcer today.

 

This applies to all the coins, however pennies and nickels are more available.

 

Since I started collecting in 1965 I can say with conviction that a lot of the change ended up in piggy banks, barrels and jugs.

 

No.

 

If this were true then you could find some high grade early dates in circulation as they cycle between one hoard and another. The reality is that very few accumulations are older than about three years. In aggregate the accumulations aren't suffient in size to protect coins from getting a lot of wear. The reality is that because the FED rotates their coin stocks that ALL of the coins that collectors ignored are now heavily worn.

 

This same thing has occurred in almost every country that went to base metal coins since WW II.