Is the Clad Quarter Market Strong?

[World Colonial]

8 hours ago, cladking said:

 I don't think a coin like an '09-S VDB will have to lose its mystique just because it's a new generation that never sought them in circulation and has less interest in date sets.  

I think one thing is certain; the hobby will be more diverse and less focused on a single era of a single country. 

Yes.

I don't believe the 09-SVD will lose its perception entirely, not where it will matter to anyone reading our comments except at the margin.  It won't be entirely because it's concurrently evident that changes in perception occur very slowly, even with the internet reducing the prior communication limitation.  This is evident not just in common classic "key" dates but also in Jefferson nickels where the post-1964 dates sell for less even though presumably at least some dates are scarcer than the earlier ones.

On one occasion, I reviewed multiple Lincoln cent "key" dates over time, in my Red Books back to 1963 compared to recent Heritage sales.  This was in "UNC" versus NGC/PCGS MS-63BN.  

All except the 55 DDO cent lost value adjusted for price changes.  The 09-S VDB lost a lot.  I believe it listed for $335 in either 1963 or 1965 while it maybe sells for about $1200 now or recently.  The comparison would be better if the "UNC" received a higher grade than a 63.  Prices seem higher now per Coin Facts but even in a 65, not enough for more than breaking even.

At minimum, I expect a repeat of this performance and probably worse.  I expect likewise for other US "key" and "semi-key" dates and many other coins which I won't list.  It should be expected because at minimum, the change in ethnic composition will decrease the affinity among US based collectors for US coinage somewhat.

[cladking]

13 hours ago, Six Mile Rick said:

So True!!  The clad era is at a stage of needing more submitters to send in GREAT strikes. I can't even hold onto a top pop modern more than a day after it is graded. By the time NGC sends my submissions back to me the top pops are already sold and get repackaged to ship. Yes --- I'd say that they are doing VERY WELL!!

I hope to start submitting some of these before too long.  My family and executor have made it clear I had better. 

Believe it or not I might dabble a little on the buy side since I'll be freeing up room in the safety deposit boxes and slabbed coins are so much more fungible. I figure I can buy undergraded and underpriced coins as I sell. 

[cladking]

46 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

 

All except the 55 DDO cent lost value adjusted for price changes.  The 09-S VDB lost a lot.  I believe it listed for $335 in either 1963 or 1965 while it maybe sells for about $1200 now or recently.  The comparison would be better if the "UNC" received a higher grade than a 63.  Prices seem higher now per Coin Facts but even in a 65, not enough for more than breaking even.

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  There are bull traps in every era and going along with the crowds especially in the long terms is always a sure means to lose.  But the collectors who sought quality, rarity and something different ended up with Gem '09-S VDB's and varieties and did OK.  Or they traded along the way so they don't have as much in their coins as it appears. 

If you do the opposite of the crowds in financial matters you have the best chance of profit.  Of course this doesn't seem to apply to the stock market since 1982.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

Yes.

I don't believe the 09-SVD will lose its perception entirely, not where it will matter to anyone reading our comments except at the margin.  It won't be entirely because it's concurrently evident that changes in perception occur very slowly, even with the internet reducing the prior communication limitation.  This is evident not just in common classic "key" dates but also in Jefferson nickels where the post-1964 dates sell for less even though presumably at least some dates are scarcer than the earlier ones.

On one occasion, I reviewed multiple Lincoln cent "key" dates over time, in my Red Books back to 1963 compared to recent Heritage sales.  This was in "UNC" versus NGC/PCGS MS-63BN.  

All except the 55 DDO cent lost value adjusted for price changes.  The 09-S VDB lost a lot.  I believe it listed for $335 in either 1963 or 1965 while it maybe sells for about $1200 now or recently.  The comparison would be better if the "UNC" received a higher grade than a 63.  Prices seem higher now per Coin Facts but even in a 65, not enough for more than breaking even.

At minimum, I expect a repeat of this performance and probably worse.  I expect likewise for other US "key" and "semi-key" dates and many other coins which I won't list.  It should be expected because at minimum, the change in ethnic composition will decrease the affinity among US based collectors for US coinage somewhat.

Gradeflation and grading definition from then to now, has to be considered. Red Book vs. Heritage sales....regardless of the date of the Red Book..... is not how I would analyze any monetary (adjusted for inflation) gain or loss. But, I also understand that I view such comparisons as a quality/vs. quantity, and not financial gain or loss. I am not and never was an investment collector.

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

If you do the opposite of the crowds in financial matters you have the best chance of profit.  Of course this doesn't seem to apply to the stock market since 1982.

The credit bubble dates to about 1982 and the stock market has been in a full fledged mania since at least 1996.  It has lasted far longer than I ever thought possible but it will end in tears, just as every other mania and bubble before it.

[World Colonial]

59 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Gradeflation and grading definition from then to now, has to be considered. Red Book vs. Heritage sales....regardless of the date of the Red Book..... is not how I would analyze any monetary (adjusted for inflation) gain or loss. But, I also understand that I view such comparisons as a quality/vs. quantity, and not financial gain or loss. I am not and never was an investment collector.

Yes, I am aware of your point and my example includes many assumptions.

I was using MS63 BN as a proxy for a 1960's UNC.  I am also aware the population reports imply that the "average" 1960's UNC 09-S VDB is a higher grade than today's MS-63 BN, as most of the population is in MS-64 and MS-65 and most are either RB or RD. 

Is this representative of the population? 

I don't know.  I have looked at numerous auction lots but these were all graded.  On the one hand, it would make sense given the number of counterfeits that the TPG counts would be representative.  On the other, I have consistently heard otherwise from numerous posts on coin forums that many more are "raw".  Due to "positive selection bias", the best specimens should be overly represented.    Then of course, there are also going to be more duplicates of the RD and RB versus BN due to the prices.  Also, it doesn't make sense to me that most would have been preserved in RD or even RB, unless of course, the grading services are also very liberal with this designation.

Second, I also assumed that the Red Books represented approximate "retail" in the 1960's.  It did for the few coin shops I bought from in the 1970's.

Under my analysis, this coin is borderline breakeven with more favorable assumptions.  For the others I looked at or other "semi-key" dates, it is either a minority or not at all.  For those I did not, I'd say exactly zero.  Many must be huge proportional financial losers, no matter what financial gymnastics are used to distort the outcome.

How would you make this comparison?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

11 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

Yes, I am aware of your point and my example includes many assumptions.

I was using MS63 BN as a proxy for a 1960's UNC.  I am also aware the population reports imply that the "average" 1960's UNC 09-S VDB is a higher grade than today's MS-63 BN, as most of the population is in MS-64 and MS-65 and most are either RB or RD. 

Is this representative of the population? 

I don't know.  I have looked at numerous auction lots but these were all graded.  On the one hand, it would make sense given the number of counterfeits that the TPG counts would be representative.  On the other, I have consistently heard otherwise from numerous posts on coin forums that many more are "raw".  Due to "positive selection bias", the best specimens should be overly represented.    Then of course, there are also going to be more duplicates of the RD and RB versus BN due to the prices.  Also, it doesn't make sense to me that most would have been preserved in RD or even RB, unless of course, the grading services are also very liberal with this designation.

Second, I also assumed that the Red Books represented approximate "retail" in the 1960's.  It did for the few coin shops I bought from in the 1970's.

Under my analysis, this coin is borderline breakeven with more favorable assumptions.  For the others I looked at or other "semi-key" dates, it is either a minority or not at all.  For those I did not, I'd say exactly zero.  Many must be huge proportional financial losers, no matter what financial gymnastics are used to distort the outcome.

How would you make this comparison?

 for the post. As to the question, my comparison is and always has been (and certainly more so after the 79/80 debacle) a quality judgement.

The monetary aspect is and was always secondary to me. If I could afford it and it made sense to me, then I bought.

It is why I enjoy the Cladking/World Colonial thread, and the . A great coin is still a great coin, regardless of how many there are or are not, and regardless of the origin, and regardless of any perceived economic gain or loss. I never viewed numismatics as primarily a financial investment hobby. Of course there is a 'silly" line that has to be considered, but if I like the coin and the quality, I don't really consider who would or would not buy the coin or how large or small the market and/or interest is for a coin. I do agree that for Quarter moderns, it is very difficult to find a superior piece in many of the dates. I also agree wholeheartedly that there are a number of Africa pieces that are rarities, and condition rarities even more rare. The same can be said for a number of ancients and Papal States, and Korean (Chosun period especially) pieces.

[LINCOLNMAN]

6 hours ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

 for the post. As to the question, my comparison is and always has been (and certainly more so after the 79/80 debacle) a quality judgement.

The monetary aspect is and was always secondary to me. If I could afford it and it made sense to me, then I bought.

It is why I enjoy the Cladking/World Colonial thread, and the . A great coin is still a great coin, regardless of how many there are or are not, and regardless of the origin, and regardless of any perceived economic gain or loss. I never viewed numismatics as primarily a financial investment hobby. Of course there is a 'silly" line that has to be considered, but if I like the coin and the quality, I don't really consider who would or would not buy the coin or how large or small the market and/or interest is for a coin. I do agree that for Quarter moderns, it is very difficult to find a superior piece in many of the dates. I also agree wholeheartedly that there are a number of Africa pieces that are rarities, and condition rarities even more rare. The same can be said for a number of ancients and Papal States, and Korean (Chosun period especially) pieces.

Well said Mr. Knowitall. One of my friends just returned from Africa where he spent about $50k to kill a bunch of beasts so that he could hang their heads on his wall. Aside from drawing comparisons between the nobility of hobbies, which is tempting, my somewhat obscure point is that most of us hobbyists spend money for the enjoyment of ownership (and maybe the "hunt"). We try not to be foolish about it, but are not always successful. Part of the fun. 

[VegasButler]

On 1/23/2018 at 8:58 AM, cladking said:

I'm not sure I have any "expected price level" per se. 

However I will say that there's no reason that it's impossible nice looking XF to Unc coins of the older dates could get over 8 to $10 each after they have fully appreciated.  Of course keys would be higher and later/ common dates lower.  It might take 30 or 40 years to be fully appreciated.  I say "nice looking" because most clads in these lower grades are poorly struck or otherwise very unattractive and I doubt they'll be widely collected. 

Nice attractive Uncs (mostly what we call MS-62 to MS-65) could easily sell for 20 or $30 but again with key dates higher and common ones lower.  Gems will be all over because their availability is very inconsistent. True Gems of some dates like 1969 or 1982 are virtually unknown and others like '72-D are virtually "common".  Their prices will be determined by the degree to which future collectors wish to own the best.  There's no reason to suppose they'll be as 'obsessed" by quality as current collectors but there's also no reason to suppose it can't be more important.  Top grade specimens and pricing is another question altogether and any suggestion as to their pricing is entirely speculative.  It will depend not only on how important good quality is but also the distribution in grades of each date.  For instance a top end '72-D is only marginally better and less common than the next grade down but a top end '83-P might be significantly nicer and scarcer than the next grades down.   In the former case I would imagine the price differential will muted and in the second less so. 

Of course EVERYTHING depends on the degree of interest and I'm merely extrapolating half a million to a million fairly serious collectors.  There's no certainty this base will exist at all.  My guess here is based on various trends but the most important one is that collectors have always sought the most unloved things of the past to collect and nothing is more reviled than clad.  Also this projection is based on how ubiquitous these coins are and have been for decades.  This also plays a major role in how much interest collectors have in old things.  The very fact that these are not only in circulation but are likely to remain there for years in the future also works strongly in their favor.  The fact that the states quarters also circulate as calling cards for collections and that millions collect them already is a strong indicator of possible trends. 

There's really not much question these older quarters are already getting peoples' attention.  That this affects the general public to much higher degree than numismatists or the hobby at all is another strong point in their favor as a future collectible.  We have significant numbers of people involved in these already and no infrastructure for supplying coins to them.  Anyone can easily locate a common circulated buffalo nickel from the 1920's in any number of venues at almost no cost other than shipping but if you want a clad you have little choice other than eBay and it has a highly limited selection for someone who understands these coins.   

 

The bottom line is price is determined principally by demand and even demand can manifest in myriad ways.  It's hardly impossible all these new collectors will prefer coins that have circulated and done their jobs yet survive in attractive worn condition.  But even here there are dates that aren't really "common" even in F.  By the time most clads wear to VG they have been lost and most of the survivors are culls.  This is different than the old silver coins which often survived to low grades without damage.  But this is partly because silver coins passed quickly to low grade and the type of forces that acted on them.  Any coin that actively circulates for 50 years is liable to acquire damage. 

Hello I’m thinking how do you grade this particular 1983 P

[cladking]

22 hours ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

A great coin is still a great coin, regardless of how many there are or are not, and regardless of the origin, and regardless of any perceived economic gain or loss. I never viewed numismatics as primarily a financial investment hobby.

I've always preferred collecting what others don't.  As a child in the '50's all of my friends collected wheat cents and I collected buffalo nickels.  When we had a fresh hoard of coins to look at they fought over the cents and I had the nickels to myself.  

Sometimes I'd have liked to collect what everyone else did just because the coins they liked were so neat.  But the prices were always screaming higher and I usually couldn't afford them.   So I usually just sold my collections if they got popular.   No, I didn't sell them because I wanted the profit, I sold them because I figured it might be years before I could work on the collection again and I could buy neat coins instead of having the money tied up in a safety deposit box.  

When I started with clads in 1972 is was chiefly because I thought the FED rotating their coin stocks presented an opportunity, but over the years I've learned to love these "ugly ducklings" anyway.  

[Just Bob]

This thread made me curious to see what dates of clad quarters could still be found in circulation, so I went out and bought the Harris albums for  pre-state/territorial clad quarters (1965-1998). After three weeks of saving coins found in pocket change, I have almost half completed the set. Interestingly, the 1965, 66, and 67 were some of the first ones found. So far, most are in the Fine/Very Fine range.

[cladking]

6 hours ago, Just Bob said:

This thread made me curious to see what dates of clad quarters could still be found in circulation, so I went out and bought the Harris albums for  pre-state/territorial clad quarters (1965-1998). After three weeks of saving coins found in pocket change, I have almost half completed the set. Interestingly, the 1965, 66, and 67 were some of the first ones found. So far, most are in the Fine/Very Fine range.

I grade them more harshly than you.  I grade them more in the VG/ Fine range with later issues VF/ XF. 

The tougher dates tend to be slightly more heavily worn and a little more likely to be culls.  The last you'll find will probably be the '68-D, '69-D, and '71.  Finding these in nice attractive F condition is becoming a little bit of a challenge.  Finding the '69-(P) in nice attractive condition is even tougher because most are very poorly made.  Indeed, about 80% of them are technically only About Good because the lettering will be worn into the rim.