NGC's reponse to adjusting the Presidential MS point posted by walnutto
1 1

157 posts in this topic

1,862 posts

Tough crowd.

 

 

Disagreeing with you while not buying moderns is not "talking them down". It is a difference of opinion but you just do not like it.

 

Not buying moderns is not "talking them down". What is talking them down is suggesting that they are all common regardless of mintage and grade. What is "talking them down" is suggesting there are vast numbers still to be checked and graded. What is "talking them down" are suggestions they are less worthy or only have value because there's always a greater fool. What is "talking them down" is the suggestion they shouldn't be collected for another 50 years depite the fact that these are as old as the 1916-D dime back when I started collecting. I'd have laughed at someone who told me buffalo nickels were too modern to collect and I'd have to wait another 50 years for them all to come out of the woodwork. This sounds just as silly to me.

 

According to one of your earlier posts in this thread, every coin is unique. Its up to you if that is your standard but when evaluating scarcity, there isn't a more liberal one possible. Now I finally understand our difference of opinion. Your claim is literally true but I never heard anyone else anywhere define scarcity in the same context. I consider it nonsensical.

 

I never said, suggested,or implied that this is my criterium for scarcity. The 1964 clad quarter is unique. This is rare. 1982-P quarters in Gem are probably rare or non-existent. I've put extreme effort into these since just about January 1, 1982 and have managed to come up with a grand total of one coin that is virtually Gem. At least it's very low end. I've sampled virtually every source for the coin and have watched eBay for years. I know for a fact and can show that there aren't tons of these out there just waiting to be checked.

 

Rarity is independent of demand and price but it absolutely isn't independent of supply. What is this supposed to mean?

 

"Rarity" is an absolute term. It, by definition, refers to something that is very few in number. "Supply" is a relative term with an ephemeral meaning that only relates to demand. In this case there is no demand. It has been eliminated by price guides that suggest that the coin is common. This suppresses demand because no one would be willing to "pay the price" for a legitimate Gem which Redbook lists at $15. The tiny demand is coupled with an artificial price generated by a hobby that wants moderns suppressed. The few people who would like to upgrade will simply wait until the right coin comes along. There is no demand under these conditions which works fine because, did I mention, there's no supply either.

 

Remember I was offering very high prices for these coins for years and now Redbook which overstates the prices of all classics lists it for $15, well under half of my offer 20 years ago. The demand is higher today and the supply is smaller but Redbook lists it for peanuts. I'd be happy to buy Gems, even low grade Gems, for this price. I have no doubt at all that there are thousands of people who'd like to upgrade who would also be willing to pay $15 but of course they can't find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,862 posts

Redbook isn't fooling anyone it would seem about the '82-P.

 

There are a few really nice MS-63's right now on eBay but they start at $30 not the $3 listed in Redbook. If they jacked this price as high as they do the classics then instead of $3 it would probably list around $55. But they talk them down too and this suppresses the market.

 

I wonder what a true Gem would list for if they were graded based on strike quality and being clean and properly reported in the Redbook. It's not much wonder why these markets are still in their infancy after 50 years. Maybe the same thing will be going on with the presidential dollars come the turn of the next century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

“"Rarity" is an absolute term. It, by definition, refers to something that is very few in number.”

 

What constitutes “very few in number” is anything but absolute, and determining what it constitutes is very much dependent on the principles of supply and demand, as it relates to numismatics.

 

What makes something rare in numismatics is availability. If there were only twenty-two 1982 P quarters but only twelve people who collect coins – they would not be considered rare.

 

Coin collectors, however, would be considered rare, relative to the population of people who do not collect coins. So rarity is a relative term, as well.

 

Edited by Afterword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts

I'll add that only absolute rarity is true rarity- you can't expect more to be found when you know where they all are and that number has stayed constant for a hundred years or more, but we're talking about coins that were manufactured by the hundreds of millions and billions, per issue, well within our lifetimes. I know they are interesting to collect, like anything else, but at what cost? I guess that is really what the two camps are disagreeing on in this debate- the value and the risk, not the series...

 

Are you seriously telling me that an 1804 dollar wasn't rare in 1850 because no one knew how many there were? I know you said this but I assumed you had misspoken.

 

Rarity is independent of supply and demand and price. If no one wants something it doesn't matter if there are none, one, or one billion and if only one of something exists it doesn't matter how many want it or how many years have elapsed since it was produced. There is a single, unique, 1964 clad quarter with a mintage of "one", 1, fewer than two exist. This coin was unique in 1965 and it is unique today. For as long as it exists there will be one. It simply doesn't matter how many want it as this affects only the price and not the number that exist.

 

Gem clad wasn't especially scarce in the year of issue. The mintage of Gem 1982-P quarters was probably on the order of 50,000 though could easily have been somewhat higher. These coins virtually all went into circulation. They were no longer Gem in 1985 and they are no longer Gem today. They won't be Gem in a hundred years either. Time is irrelevant.

 

I remember this same specious argument back in 2002. People were telling me that they had only been grading clads for a few years and in time all the moderns would be as common as grains of sand on the beach. Guess what?!? They've been grading moderns for longer now than they had been grading classics in 2002 and still there are no MS-67 '69 quarters. The pops of many of these coins has not increased or has only nominally increased.

 

Things are priced on supply and demand. If you aren't buying or selling moderns then talking them down isn't going to have a lot of effect. It will serve principally to alienate people.

 

 

Why are you so sensitive and freaking out on me? No one here is talking anything down, they're offering logic and reason and you're completely ignoring it. What I do see is you blindly promoting them when there is absolutley no evidence that you are right, but plenty that you're wrong. You've based your position on nothing but opinions. Please don't read anything into what I wrote- I didn't say anything about true rarities and wouldn't even put them in the same class with moderns- the 1804 dollar was struck as a presentation piece only, it wasn't meant to circulate and wasn't even a regular issue, so no, I don't expect you to assume anything, I expect you to accept reality and do the math. No one here is forcing you to accept what we say, we're just involved in the discussion. You can put your money where your mouth is and I'll put mine where my passion lies and we can remain friendly, can't we? Come back and find me in a decade and we'll compare notes, OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
“"Rarity" is an absolute term. It, by definition, refers to something that is very few in number.”

 

What constitutes “very few in number” is anything but absolute, and determining what it constitutes is very much dependent on the principles of supply and demand, as it relates to numismatics.

 

What makes something rare in numismatics is availability. If there were only twenty-two 1982 P quarters but only twelve people who collect coins – they would not be considered rare.

 

Coin collectors, however, would be considered rare, relative to the population of people who do not collect coins. So rarity is a relative term, as well.

 

Agreed, but rarity is *always* relative to something, and if these were truly rare, they would be relatively more expensive as well. You summed it up perfectly with your simple supply/demand example, too bad everyone in the discussion isn't on the same page with you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts
Not buying moderns is not "talking them down". What is talking them down is suggesting that they are all common regardless of mintage and grade. What is "talking them down" is suggesting there are vast numbers still to be checked and graded. What is "talking them down" are suggestions they are less worthy or only have value because there's always a greater fool. What is "talking them down" is the suggestion they shouldn't be collected for another 50 years depite the fact that these are as old as the 1916-D dime back when I started collecting. I'd have laughed at someone who told me buffalo nickels were too modern to collect and I'd have to wait another 50 years for them all to come out of the woodwork. This sounds just as silly to me.

 

Who here is saying moderns are common regardless of mintage and grade or that they shouldn't be collected by someone who wants to do so? I certainly haven't done so and I didn't hear LuckyOne say it either. You chose to read that into these posts

 

As for moderns being "less worthy", they are lower on the preference scale to most collectors if this is what you mean This is the consensus and is independent of anyone's opinion of collectability.

 

As for the number to be checked and graded, once again, it depends upon what quality standard being used. By yours, there isn't since you can define it as you choose. By mine, there is as I explained in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts
I never said, suggested,or implied that this is my criterium for scarcity. The 1964 clad quarter is unique. This is rare. 1982-P quarters in Gem are probably rare or non-existent. I've put extreme effort into these since just about January 1, 1982 and have managed to come up with a grand total of one coin that is virtually Gem. At least it's very low end. I've sampled virtually every source for the coin and have watched eBay for years. I know for a fact and can show that there aren't tons of these out there just waiting to be checked.

 

Sure sounded like this is what you said to me.

 

But regardless, you use a quality standard which few or no one else uses and then define scarcity by your definition. You use a non-standard definition, insist on using it as the basis of this discussion and then when the two of us won’t accept it, claim we are “talking moderns down” and “bashing” them.

 

I am using the TPG grade as the quality standard because that’s what is commonly used in the US today, regardless that opinions differ on assigned grades. I use what I interpret as the most widely used concepts of scarcity which appear to be these three: (1) Absolute number of survivors. (2) The “grade rarity” and (3) The quality most collectors find acceptable which is the one they are typically going to buy or find.

 

In this topic, I wasn’t using number of survivors because this standard isn’t the context of the discussion. I already acknowledged the “scarcity” of “grade rarities” because its true by definition and the same applies to your gems, even while I concurrently see zero significance to it. Mostly, I have been using PCGS MS-66 as the proxy for acceptable quality, even though its actually lower for most collectors. This is typically the “under grade” for moderns and the one which is most relevant to the largest number of collectors.

 

Using the last definition, the only coins which are or are likely more common than the 1982-P quarter are (1) Most other US moderns (2) Presumably most post-1933 US classics (3) Some Morgan and Peace dollars (4) Maybe a low proportion of 1916-1933 US classics (5) A very low proportion of world moderns such as from China and (6) Maybe some later dated world classics such as from Britain and Canada. My conclusion isn’t “bashing” the coin, it is a function of its huge mintage because it was struck in the US, the much larger collector base here both now and in the past and its recent vintage.

As for the 1964 clad quarter, it is an error and it's an invalid comparison to a generic date which is the primary context of the other claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,862 posts
“"Rarity" is an absolute term. It, by definition, refers to something that is very few in number.”

 

What constitutes “very few in number” is anything but absolute, and determining what it constitutes is very much dependent on the principles of supply and demand, as it relates to numismatics.

 

What makes something rare in numismatics is availability. If there were only twenty-two 1982 P quarters but only twelve people who collect coins – they would not be considered rare.

 

Coin collectors, however, would be considered rare, relative to the population of people who do not collect coins. So rarity is a relative term, as well.

 

Agreed, but rarity is *always* relative to something, and if these were truly rare, they would be relatively more expensive as well. You summed it up perfectly with your simple supply/demand example, too bad everyone in the discussion isn't on the same page with you...

 

Of course even "absolute rarity" is relative to something. If there are 25,000 1916-D dimes they are rare relative to the huge demand and huge number of mercury dime collectors. If there are 25 1982-P Gem quarters they are rare relative the 1916-D dime but they are common relative the demand that results from a price in the Redbook of $15. It's not the "rarity" that's wrong it's your and the publishers of the Redbook's perception that they common. I've already established that both you and the Redbook are wrong as evidenced by the prices that these coins actually bring on ebay despite the Redbook's modern bashing.

 

They apparently maintain these absurdly low prices so they don't offend their buyers who are typically people who have no interest in moderns except their disdain for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,862 posts

 

 

As for the 1964 clad quarter, it is an error and it's an invalid comparison to a generic date which is the primary context of the other claims.

 

Yes, of course. And the 1804 dollar illegally made by midnight minters and then banged up so they could be safely stolen from the mint are important numismatic coins that show an important era in US history. Everytime anyone sells one of these they wax poetic about the rarity and importance with no fear the mint will try to recover the stolen booty since they're too busy chasing down coin made and released legally and not all scratched up since every single one was made since 1933.

 

It all makes perfect sense. List the stolen coins and the "legitimate" ones not even made in the year of issue while chasing down aluminum cents legally authorized and legally owned. Why would a clad blank that accidently got mixed with good silver AFTER July of 1965 have any importance at all? This isn't historical or important because it's just an "error". I suppose the two (2) existent 1975 No-S dimes are just "errors" as well.

 

People get in habits of thought and they just can't see. You believe old coins are important and the mint believes they are legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,862 posts

 

But regardless, you use a quality standard which few or no one else uses and then define scarcity by your definition. You use a non-standard definition, insist on using it as the basis of this discussion and then when the two of us won’t accept it, claim we are “talking moderns down” and “bashing” them.

 

I'm not sure you personally have bashed moderns at all in this thread. I already retracted the statement. There has been bashing and some of it is friendly fire.

 

TPG's can grade any way they want. I have no issue with their grading. But I personally like only well made clad. This is probably the result of the great hatred I had for them in the early years. It wasn't bad enough that they attacked coin collectors through myriad means and debased good coins but the new coins were horrible. They were ugly slugs made by tired worn out dies that had never been adjusted properly in the first place. Improvements were made over the years and by the time I started collecting them in 1972 Gems were pretty "common". '72-D quarters were Gem nearly 1% of the time!!!

 

It is apparent from sales on eBay that there is some concern for strike quality.

 

I already acknowledged the “scarcity” of “grade rarities” because its true by definition and the same applies to your gems, even while I concurrently see zero significance to it.

 

You're still implying that these coins are plentiful. Yes, they made half a billion and there are still about 380 million in circulation. Anyone can search these coins and without undue effort come up with a nice well struck coin in XF. It might take a couple years but these are still out there in large numbers. Sure, it's a common coin but most modern collectors prefer Unc. In Unc the coin is scarcer than the 1909-S VDB cent. But this isn't the important thing because everyone collects cents and no one collects clad quarters. The important thing is most of the 1982-P Unc quarters look like garbage. A nice chBU with half a strike will run about $40 or $50.

 

Who knows what a nice Gem with a good strike would go for.

 

Of course it makes perfect sense to you that a 1909-S VDB sells for big bucks and an '82 quarter goes for peanuts but I believe this is not a sustainable situation. Eventually people will tire of waiting to upgrade to a Gem for $15 and go out and buy one.

 

There are many things in the hobby that are unsustainable as I'm sure you well know.

 

 

In the long run rarity and quality will usually win out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,862 posts
My conclusion isn’t “bashing” the coin, it is a function of its huge mintage because it was struck in the US, the much larger collector base here both now and in the past and its recent vintage.

 

There was virtually no "collector base" of any sort for clad quarters in 1982.

 

You just have no idea how few people cared about clads and most especially about quarters. Dealers looked at me askance if I told them I was looking for Gem quarters when I went through their mint sets. One dealer became so irate he kicked me out of his shop. After that I just told them I was looking for "special" coins.

 

If you don't believe me try buying a roll of any date from this era. Forget the one in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

"Who knows what a nice Gem with a good strike would go for."

 

 

 

https://www.ngccoin.com/auction-central/us/washington-quarters-pscid-38/auctions/1982-p-25c-ms-fgrade-67-tgrade-67-coinid-15912

 

 

 

As demand grows, the prices will rise accordingly. It is just going to take time for people to see passed that half a billion mintage figure.

 

I am curious as to whether Redbook has as much influence on sell prices as you imply. I have never even held one in my hands.

 

Do the auction results in the link above accurately reflect the Redbook price for an MS-67?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts

 

As for the 1964 clad quarter, it is an error and it's an invalid comparison to a generic date which is the primary context of the other claims.

 

Yes, of course. And the 1804 dollar illegally made by midnight minters and then banged up so they could be safely stolen from the mint are important numismatic coins that show an important era in US history. Everytime anyone sells one of these they wax poetic about the rarity and importance with no fear the mint will try to recover the stolen booty since they're too busy chasing down coin made and released legally and not all scratched up since every single one was made since 1933.

 

It all makes perfect sense. List the stolen coins and the "legitimate" ones not even made in the year of issue while chasing down aluminum cents legally authorized and legally owned. Why would a clad blank that accidently got mixed with good silver AFTER July of 1965 have any importance at all? This isn't historical or important because it's just an "error". I suppose the two (2) existent 1975 No-S dimes are just "errors" as well.

 

People get in habits of thought and they just can't see. You believe old coins are important and the mint believes they are legal.

 

I don't compare 1804 dollar restrikes or patterns to coins made for circulation either. These were also "made rare" so their scarcity is not as significant as other coins of (roughly) comparable scarcity but only in an absolute sense, not because of grade.

 

I don't believe old coins are important because of their age. I consider a variety of factors which includes the scarcity, the quality of the coins and the preference scale which is how most collectors perceive a given coin. I also have my own personal preference in the coins I like but this preference does not cloud my perception of how other collectors see it as it apparently does for you with moderns.

 

I didn't say the 1964 clad quarter isn't important because it is an error. What I am saying is that errors are presumably made unintentionally so there is nothing unusual in their scarcity, just as there isn't for patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts
You're still implying that these coins are plentiful. Yes, they made half a billion and there are still about 380 million in circulation. Anyone can search these coins and without undue effort come up with a nice well struck coin in XF. It might take a couple years but these are still out there in large numbers. Sure, it's a common coin but most modern collectors prefer Unc. In Unc the coin is scarcer than the 1909-S VDB cent. But this isn't the important thing because everyone collects cents and no one collects clad quarters. The important thing is most of the 1982-P Unc quarters look like garbage. A nice chBU with half a strike will run about $40 or $50.

 

Who knows what a nice Gem with a good strike would go for.

 

Of course it makes perfect sense to you that a 1909-S VDB sells for big bucks and an '82 quarter goes for peanuts but I believe this is not a sustainable situation. Eventually people will tire of waiting to upgrade to a Gem for $15 and go out and buy one.

 

I have made it clear what my estimates are for a coin like the 1982-P quarter. I never claimed my estimate is infallible but see no reason to believe it is much scarcer using TPG standards. If you disagree with my claim, you disagree.

 

My opinion given the mintage, current market price, age of the coin, number of collectors since 1982 and the current TPG population counts is that it is a Judd R-2 with 501-1250 in PCGS MS-66. I haven't expressed an opinion for MS-67 because I don't have one. For MS-65 and lower, I equally presume it is a small to large multiple of an R-2, just as I would for most other coins since I don't believe the population counts reflect the actual relative grade distribution.

 

Whether this estimate is "plentiful" or not is subjective. I say it is relative to most other coins for the same TPG grade because the only reason anyone cannot buy any coin with this availability in close proximity is because of the price. This is disproportionately only equally so for the coins I specifically listed in my last replies. I collect proof coins with mintages equal to or less than 500 and they aren't particularly hard to buy either.

 

As for the 1909-S VDB, I consider it one of the most overpriced coins for its scarcity and have said so in the past. I think I understand why it sell for its current price but no, I don't think it is a good numismatic value though it might be financially despite its availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts
My conclusion isn’t “bashing” the coin, it is a function of its huge mintage because it was struck in the US, the much larger collector base here both now and in the past and its recent vintage.

 

There was virtually no "collector base" of any sort for clad quarters in 1982.

 

You just have no idea how few people cared about clads and most especially about quarters. Dealers looked at me askance if I told them I was looking for Gem quarters when I went through their mint sets. One dealer became so irate he kicked me out of his shop. After that I just told them I was looking for "special" coins.

 

If you don't believe me try buying a roll of any date from this era. Forget the one in question.

 

The quote you used doesn't have anything to do with your post. My prior point was that the 1982-P quarter is more common than all other coins made for circulation except those I specifically listed. There may be a few others I omitted but I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise.

 

My related point in my last reply is that any coin which can be bought in a short time frame isn't really that scarce. Using an assumption of 500, if the average holding period is 10 years, then the coin will come up for sale 50 times per year or about once a week. No coin which can be bought this often is actually hard to buy.

 

For moderns such as the 1982-P quarter, they are somewhat or a lot harder to buy in PCGS MS-66 (and lower grades) because most of them likely aren't graded yet, the low price doesn't provide much incentive to sell it and also because of the low price, it is or may be more difficult to know when it is offered for sale. There is a difference in availability with lower priced coins and a greater information barrier but this doesn't change its scarcity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,862 posts

 

Thank you very much for the link. The first coin is only chBU. It has a very poor strike especially in LIBERTY as is common for this date. It also has significant marking.

 

The second two coins are actually pretty nice. I'd call them "gemmy" or near-Gem. They are nice and clean and have 95% full strikes. I've got a couple rolls of similar quality.

 

I am curious as to whether Redbook has as much influence on sell prices as you imply. I have never even held one in my hands.

 

Yes. I think Redbook is just a disaster for modern coins. Krause pulls the same garbage. They grossly understate the prices which simply stops most newbies dead in their tracks. The first thing newbies to every forum are advised is to buy a Redbook. I'm not going to let this slide any longer. Everytime someone says to buy a Redbook or consult one of Krause's lists I'm going to point out that they inflate the prices of classics by 50% and understate the value of moderns by a factor of up to 50. They list coins for as little as 2% FMV.

 

I believe that were it not for TPG's and price guides moderns would have taken off long ago. The damage done by the services was unintentional, inadvertant and is not on-going (for the main part). The damage done by Redbook appears to be wholly intentional and is on-going. This affects all moderns since they don't even list them in the grades they are most widely collected. They can tweak classic prices every year but they use the same obsolete and irrelevant pricing for many moderns year after year.

 

Do the auction results in the link above accurately reflect the Redbook price for an MS-67?

 

Redbook doesn't list prices above MS-65. The coins in the above link going for as much as $600 are not as good as MS-65 if you care about strike. They list an MS-65 for $15.

 

The reality is about 70% of the 80,000 Unc 1982-P's in existence are only MS-60 and most are very unattractive. Most of the rest are not as nice as chBU. Only 3-4% are gemmy. There may not exist a true Gem; clean with a full (99%) strike from good dies. (or mebbe there's one. ;) )

 

This is the reality. There is nothing common about this date. Many clad are very very tough in nice condition because nobody cared back in the early days. They'd set aside errors and varieties and never bothered to set aside even typical coins, much less Gems. Were it not for mint sets this would be painfully obvious for every single date. But the few remaining mint sets have lots of very choice examples for every date that appears in mint sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts
The reality is about 70% of the 80,000 Unc 1982-P's in existence are only MS-60 and most are very unattractive. Most of the rest are not as nice as chBU. Only 3-4% are gemmy. There may not exist a true Gem; clean with a full (99%) strike from good dies. (or mebbe there's one. ;) )

 

This is the reality. There is nothing common about this date. Many clad are very very tough in nice condition because nobody cared back in the early days. They'd set aside errors and varieties and never bothered to set aside even typical coins, much less Gems. Were it not for mint sets this would be painfully obvious for every single date. But the few remaining mint sets have lots of very choice examples for every date that appears in mint sets.

 

This extract is another contrast between our differing concepts of scarcity.

 

In the series I collect, there are almost no gems, not just for any date but for all of them. Disproportionately, there are few uncirculated or in "high quality" and in many instances, average circulated grades aren't widely available either.

 

In some of my series, I cannot find the coins either at all or when I do, not remotely in a quality contributors here would want to buy, even if they collect very low grades. There are many dates I have never seen at all, ever.

 

I see them more often now than when I started because of higher prices.. However, even the prominent collections I know, whether now or from the past, were nowhere close to complete with most dates missing, the quality of the specimens included were entirely or disproportionately low or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,862 posts

 

This extract is another contrast between our differing concepts of scarcity.

 

In the series I collect, there are almost no gems, not just for any date but for all of them. Disproportionately, there are few uncirculated or in "high quality" and in many instances, average circulated grades aren't widely available either.

 

In some of my series, I cannot find the coins either at all or when I do, not remotely in a quality contributors here would want to buy, even if they collect very low grades. There are many dates I have never seen at all, ever.

 

I see them more often now than when I started because of higher prices.. However, even the prominent collections I know, whether now or from the past, were nowhere close to complete with most dates missing, the quality of the specimens included were entirely or disproportionately low or both.

 

Everything is relative, everything is perspective, and everything is cyclical.

 

The collectors of your series and many others are fully aware how scarce these coins are. But most collectors see a mintage of half a billion and assume there are millions upon countless million of coins sitting in BU rolls just waiting to be searched for Gems that are as prevalent as the TPG's pop reports suggest. Instead there are only a few nice chBU specimens.

 

The price of coins is in many ways dependent on their percieved availability. Some people may or may not collect your series because of or despite their scarcity. But being percieved as being exceedingly common will prod very few to collect something. Couple this perception with unrealistically low catalog prices that make the coins impossible to acquire and it's a wonder there are as many collectors as there are.

 

Our chief disagreement is usually just about the same thing. I believe moderns recieve far too much attention for this status quo to persist indefinitely. If I mixed a nice Gem early clad quarter with a handful of change and a few nice states coins there are literally millions of people willing to poke through these coins and remove the states coins. Of these millions some just might notice an early Gem eagle reverse coin and wonder how it got in there. It is the unknown and wonder that lead people to collect coins. It is usually circulating coinage that first gives rise to the collecting bug in individuals. You see no reason that you'd want to collect presidential dollars and I see a hobby that just might die out if nobody does.

 

To each his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts

 

You're still implying that these coins are plentiful. Yes, they made half a billion and there are still about 380 million in circulation. Anyone can search these coins and without undue effort come up with a nice well struck coin in XF. It might take a couple years but these are still out there in large numbers. Sure, it's a common coin but most modern collectors prefer Unc. In Unc the coin is scarcer than the 1909-S VDB cent.

 

 

My wife works in a post office in the middle of nowhere, literally, way out in the country. Last year she brought home a nice BU 1982 quarter, very close to gem. That coin likely came out of a closet hoard and the rest were spent somewhere, again, likely BU's like the one she recovered from 'circulation'. By the way- you can't compare these to silver, the outer layer is made of mostly nickel, one of the hardest metals used in coinage, and for good reason- it's extreme hardness also makes it very durable for a long stay in circulation, but it also makes it very hard to strike and wears out the dies quickly. You also made reference that they are all badly struck. Well, what would you expect? They weren't thinking abiout collectors, they made them for commerce. The first thousand coins from a die likely were nice strong gems before the dies began to take the pressure. That is to be expected. In 1982 the mint decided not to issue mint sets- that is where all the business strike coins went- they were taken off the market in huge numbers for two reasons- to make up privately issued mint sets, and to put away for the future because they were expected to be 'rare'. I was there, I even worked in a coin shop at the time and remember the discussions with the boss. Neither of us thought they would ever be rare or valuable, but we KNOW they are out there in huge quantities, preserved as minted.

 

Neither of us can say with certainty that any of them are gems, but my bet is 1 in a thousand is, and there are likely millions still hiding in sock drawers, shoe boxes and the like all over America, just waiting for the owners to pass away and their heirs to find them. When that happens in great numbers as the baby boomers retire and pass on, we will know the rest of the story. until then, I'm sticking with the facts because supposition is a recipe for disaster. Sure, collect them, search for them, promote them, but don't expect the more sane and knowledgeable to go along with you and please don't call us names (bashers) just because we disagree with you!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
My conclusion isn’t “bashing” the coin, it is a function of its huge mintage because it was struck in the US, the much larger collector base here both now and in the past and its recent vintage.

 

There was virtually no "collector base" of any sort for clad quarters in 1982.

 

You just have no idea how few people cared about clads and most especially about quarters. Dealers looked at me askance if I told them I was looking for Gem quarters when I went through their mint sets. One dealer became so irate he kicked me out of his shop. After that I just told them I was looking for "special" coins.

 

If you don't believe me try buying a roll of any date from this era. Forget the one in question.

 

Again, in the early 1980's I moonlighted for a friend in his coin shop and he had about a hundred linear feet of display cases loaded with BU singles- every series, every date, many were clads, and I remember how many people came in looking for 1982 and 1983 coins since they were so difficult to find in circulation. I'd bet we sold ten times as many of those two dates than any other in the case.

 

For every argument you make, I have a counter to it it appears. Not meaning to make you look foolish, just pointing out how you make statements based soley on your own suppositions and opinions that don't fit the reality that I have lived. In the 1980's and 1990's my children filled folders with clad quarters and we were able to find most issues in gem BU from circulation. I do recall finding a couple gem 1982 and 1983 quarters. Were my children's finds just anomolies? I doubt it- many dealers sold BU clads so they all had to be catering to *someone*. And since they obviously did sell a lot of clads, again I ask- WHERE DID THEY ALL GO?

 

And if a dealer kicked you out of his shop, I have to question his true motive- I owned and operated a couple of retail shops (not coins shops- fine jewelry and custom built computers) and I think I would have been foolish and would have had to throw a lot of people out of my stores if I did it just because I didn't like the reason they wanted to look through a ring box for something I didn't like or buy a computer for a use I didn't think proper, that is just silly. Are you sure you didn't accuse him of bashing your interests and it irritated him? Customers are the life's blood of any small business, so it seems counterproductive to throw a paying customer out of your store...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts

 

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.

 

 

I made three points. I said that moderns cannot be compared to 19th century coins in the manner you chose, and I gave infinite reasons as to why. I did not make the comparison. Second, I stated that the slightest thing that happens to a coin before it's slabbed can negate a 70 grade. That means that anything in a slab is disqualified from my theory. Third, I stated that these moderns are not rare and there could be thousands more.

 

All of this was in defense of the theory that fewer of these manganese alloy coins will grade 70, the longer they wait to be slabbed, after minting.

 

That does not mean that slabbed coins will not also deteriorate.

 

It sounds like we are in nearly complete agreement, though we are definitely not talking about the same ball game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
You see no reason that you'd want to collect presidential dollars and I see a hobby that just might die out if nobody does.

 

To each his own.

 

Your assumption is that we see no reason to collect presidential dollars or other extremely common moderns. I think we all collect what we can afford, and our interests change as our pockets become deeper. Our only reason for collecting anything is the level of interest we have in it, and for me, a difficult challenge is much more interesting than an entire set I could buy in gem condition in a single day, given the funds to buy them and the contacts to get the deal done. For some of us, the challenge of tracking down truly rare coins trumps any desire to assemble sets of coins available by the tens or hundreds of thousands in the highest grades. Some of us would rather buy coins that exist in such small numbers that less than a hundred collectors could assemble a set of. Again, to each his own.

 

I have collected Morgans, assembled several choice to gem sets over my long ameteur career, but never did I have the desire to spend five or ten grand on a MS68 or 69 common date simply because someone thinks they are rare- a common date is always going to be a common date, and even if a MS69 1982 quarter remains a rarity forever, you won't see me spending big bucks on it in this lifetime because I know how many potential gems are out there yet to be found and if they are, your coins take a huge hit, just as collectors of 1898-O and 1904-O dollars did in the sixties. I'm not calling anyone a fool for doing so either- to each his own indeed, but it's a foolish idea that something made by the hundreds of millions *couldn't* exist in high grade in large numbers. In 50 more years that might change if they don't come out of the woodwork, but I'm not betting on anything today...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts

I believe the few collectors of my series (all but South Africa Union) have a general idea of their scarcity. Others presume they are scarce because they are "old" but most US collectors probably think the availability is similar to US colonial coinage when it disproportionately is not.

 

I agree with you that the scarcity of my series does and will reduce interest because to most, there is little point in attempting to collect it when there is little or nothing to buy.

 

I don't believe most collectors lack an interest or prefer moderns for the reason you gave; that they are "perceived" as common. Its because they either do not like them or like other coins better. The predecessor US classics are anything but scarce but it hasn't hurt their popularity in the least.

 

In a prior thread, you once told me I was stuck in the 1960's. No one needs to collect moderns today as US collectors did with US coins which is your benchmark for "normalcy". Because if this wasn't your standard, you wouldn't be complaining that there is anything unusual about it.

 

Whether you are going to admit it or not, the fact is that the coins you like are not viewed as being competitive with the alternative options. That you find a need to exaggerate their merits (which is exactly what you are doing here with the scarcity) is an indication that you also know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
"Who knows what a nice Gem with a good strike would go for."

 

 

 

https://www.ngccoin.com/auction-central/us/washington-quarters-pscid-38/auctions/1982-p-25c-ms-fgrade-67-tgrade-67-coinid-15912

 

 

 

As demand grows, the prices will rise accordingly. It is just going to take time for people to see passed that half a billion mintage figure.

 

I am curious as to whether Redbook has as much influence on sell prices as you imply. I have never even held one in my hands.

 

Do the auction results in the link above accurately reflect the Redbook price for an MS-67?

 

And I submit that as demand grows, so will the search for more nice specimens, and not until then will we know how many are still waiting to be found and submitted for grading. What is ignored most is the fact that most people collecting clads put them in folders long ago and forgot about them- who would waste their money to slab such common coins? Only a hard core collector like you, and that isn't meant as a bad thing, just pointing out that there are very few like you so there are very few graded so far. A coin must rise in value well past a reasonable level before the masses will dig into their personal hoards to find them. Time balances every situation and the mistake most on that side of the debate are making is that there hasn't yet been sufficient time or demand to bring these out of the woodwork.

 

As for price guides like the Red Book or the greysheet and online price guides, who cares what they say- they are merely a guide. I have paid double book for some dates in the half eagle series and have paid multiples for some dates, it is the reality of the situation. When an issue isn't seen on the market for years, how do you keep up with values? Try to buy an 1863 or 1864 half eagle for anywhere near guide prices!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts

I noticed the 1909-S VDB used as an example in one of the posts- this is a perfect example of a date that contemporary collectors thought would be rare and valuable in the future. It was saved in HUGE numbers, and today there are probably tens of thousands in gem condition available. Forget the price- they are priced high for two reasons and two reasons only- it is the most collected series on the planet, and there is an extremely unreasonable perception that they are rare and valuable. I can think of several other issues that are extremely common that go for big bucks. I mentioned the 1972 doubled die- I have personally seen bag quantities of them, mostly gems, yet they sell for five hundred dollars a pop too. Doens't make them rare, and time has shown both examples for what they are- very common coins that have been promoted to the point that collectors think they are 'rare', but reality dictates and they obviously aren't. Should they carry a premium? Who knows, but not with my money. Common is common, period. These issues are far too common to get the prices paid. For the five grand that a nice CAC MS65 1909-S VDB would bring, I can buy a couple of truly rare half eagles with less than 100 known in any condition. Why would I want to spend the big bucks for such obviously common coins when I could buy true rarity for less? And why would I trust that no more would be found of the modern clads when the 1909-S VDB proves that hoards were kept for a long time? Until the TPG's kept records of the numbers graded everyone *believed* that the 1909-S VDB was indeed rare, but what do you think now? Same will go for clads in fifty more years, when prices rise enough to make it worth digging them out and submitting them. Time WILL tell the rest of this story, just as it has with so many other issues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts

yes sir, we are in agreement on nearly every point and any elaboration on my part wasn't meant to oppose your points but to clarify. I think that once replies are made to quotes of quotes, it can become confusing who said what, so if I made a counter point to the wrong person, please forgive, I'm human and admit I'm just as fallible as the next guy. The only thing I'm really trying to stress on this thread to those who assume these will always be rare is that until sufficient time has passed, we just can't know for sure. The thrust of my argument is that there isn't enough interest yet to bring them out of the woodwork and into slabs where they can be quantified. Until then, it's a fools argument to believe in anything but the facts at hand, and history shows how often 'rare' coins turn out to be common as rocks in a quarry. I would never consider some of the key dates in modern series (20th century & up) to be even 'scarce', all one has to do is go to ebay and type it into the search box and see how many are available- if you can buy a handful on any given day, it ain't 'rare', sorry, it's just perception...

 

1909-S VDB on ebay today in mint state slabs: 3 in MS66, 9 in MS65, 17 in MS64. In various grades: 358 listed today

 

1916-D dime in various grades: 193 listed today

 

1916 SL quarter in various grades: 55 listed today, 3 in MS65 full head, 1 in MS64 FH

 

1877 Indian cent in various grades: 320, four of them in MS65, 12 in mint state TODAY.

 

All of these coins have had a few generations to shake out the hoards and all the individual coins socked away by their contemporary generations and have proven themselves, at least in their sheer numbers, to be relatively common.

 

Population guides don't lie, and the number available on any given day on just one site on the internet demonstrates just how common some coins are even though they are still thought to have small remaining numbers. I firmly believe that if people researched relative rarity and used comparitive evaluation, the market would be corrected on both the perceived 'rare' issues as well as those not yet fully understood to be truly rare.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

"What you ignore most is the fact that most people collecting clads put them in folders long ago and forgot about them- who would waste their money to slab such common coins?"

 

 

 

I am not supporting any speculation presented on this issue. It could go either way. There are too many unknowns to believe otherwise. Only time will tell.

 

However, I will contribute to the speculation.

 

 

 

I would think that at $500 for an MS-67 and over a $1,000 for a 1982 P quarter, more of these coins, at these grades and prices, would be slabbed. People would be searching through their rolls of coins or folders, and, upon finding these gems, many would either have them slabbed for selling or for preservation. Those who believed there were more out there in quantity would sell while the selling was good. Those who believed there were only a few out there would wait until the price was right. But, either way, many would likely be slabbed.

 

If there are a lot of people hording a million or more of these coins - and all would not be casual collectors - at least a few hundred of these individuals would follow auction results and trends in the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,862 posts

 

My wife works in a post office in the middle of nowhere, literally, way out in the country. Last year she brought home a nice BU 1982 quarter, very close to gem.

 

It's far more likely that this coin was part of a hoard that came from circulation in 1985 when Numismatic News started running stories about the scarcity of this issue. I believe the first of these stories began in May, 1985. For this reason there are very large numbers of AU's and sliders and sometimes dealers don't know this coin has a real premium even in AU and they tell heirs to spend them.

 

There were no Unc rolls set aside so the chance it came from such a roll are extremely low.

 

The first thousand coins from a die likely were nice strong gems before the dies began to take the pressure.

 

No. New die strikes are not always Gem because dies can be badly made, they can be misaligned, and they can be at too low pressure. The '82-P dies were pretty good with about 95% well made. But, only about 50% were aligned well and about 25% set at sufficient pressure. Only about 10% of the dies ever strucka Gem and then these would appear as late as the 5,000th strike if the dies were still good. This means about 3,500,000 Gems came off the dies. Of these about 500,000 were still Gem when they left the mint and arrived at the local bank. Collectors intercepted about .0002% of the mintage so allelse being equal there might be ~100. But all else is not equal. Somehow the nicest examples escaped everybody except me, Numismatic News promotion sets, and the CA flat pack set. Sampling suggests as many as ten or twenty in the NN sets and a "few" in the CA set. I got one nice one from the bag mentioned earlier and acquired three or four since in all my sampling.

 

Neither of us thought they would ever be rare or valuable, but we KNOW they are out there in huge quantities, preserved as minted.

 

You know wrong. Nice gemmy MS-64 coins wouldn't sell for $600 if there were huge quantities available. The ONLY reason that these rolls sell so cheap is that they are bloddy awful. The rolls wholesale for more than $200 and they'd be far higher except everyone knows that they are terrible. If you were right they wouldn't wholesale for $200.

 

Neither of us can say with certainty that any of them are gems, but my bet is 1 in a thousand is, and there are likely millions still hiding in sock drawers, shoe boxes and the like all over America, just waiting for the owners to pass away and their heirs to find them.

 

Look at the coins in circulation. Their grade range is very narrow and only between VF- and XF-. There are outliers for the reason mentioned earlier. This PROVES you're wrong. There'd be lots of nicer coins in circulation if you were right just like the '76 quarter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,862 posts

Again, in the early 1980's I moonlighted for a friend in his coin shop and he had about a hundred linear feet of display cases loaded with BU singles- every series, every date, many were clads, and I remember how many people came in looking for 1982 and 1983 coins since they were so difficult to find in circulation. I'd bet we sold ten times as many of those two dates than any other in the case.

 

I've been in coin shops allover the country looking for Gems and mint sets. In my travels I always sampled the local coinage as well.

 

There were no clads for sale at any of them. Once in a long while there'd be a few in the "books" but mostly I had to look at mints sets, souvenir sets, and once in a long while a BU roll or two. I do remember one shop, I think in Illinois somewhere that had a lot of the Paul and Judy '82 mint sets for sale for $4.

 

I don't think you appreciate how low the mintages and survival rates are on such sets.

 

Customers are the life's blood of any small business, so it seems counterproductive to throw a paying customer out of your store...

 

It's not my responsibility to know what makes a hothead tic. We had been having a very friendly conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,862 posts

I don't believe most collectors lack an interest or prefer moderns for the reason you gave; that they are "perceived" as common. Its because they either do not like them or like other coins better. The predecessor US classics are anything but scarce but it hasn't hurt their popularity in the least.

 

There's a whole lot to like with the old South African coins and Silver US coinage. There are lots of very highly desirable coins and everyone should collect what he like and fits his budget and personality. Many people, even people who don't hate base metal coins are never going to be interested in collecting circulating moderns. I suppose this is one of the things that drew me to them.

 

In a prior thread, you once told me I was stuck in the 1960's.

 

I mustta been in a foul mood. ;) Usually I just say the hobby is stuck in the 1960's.

 

No one needs to collect moderns today as US collectors did with US coins which is your benchmark for "normalcy". Because if this wasn't your standard, you wouldn't be complaining that there is anything unusual about it.

 

Quite true but if the hobby is to survive as it is we need a lot of new collectors. Most new collectors start with coins in change.

 

Whether you are going to admit it or not, the fact is that the coins you like are not viewed as being competitive with the alternative options. That you find a need to exaggerate their merits (which is exactly what you are doing here with the scarcity) is an indication that you also know it.

 

I do not believe I'm exaggerating at all. I may engage in hyperbole to make a point but I'm not exaggerating the facts.

 

All you have to do is show me a nice clean welll stuck coin from good dies. You don't even need to buy it, just show me a picture of one.

 

I know where I'd start looking. Indeed I bet I could find one in five minutes. But then I know these markets and I know who's in them and their tastes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 1