What is your definition of Rare and ...

[Zebo]

What is your definition of rare and how do you apply it to your collection? Do you use a rarity scale?

If a coin is rare and there is no collector interest - is it worth collecting?

 

[Abuelo's Collection]

For sure I use the rarity scale. However, a practical rule for me is... is the coin has not been available for purchase in over 5 years, likely is rare. Perhaps not technically (i.e. perhaps there are more than 10) but if I want a coin and comes out for auction once a decade is rare enough to caught my attention. 

[LINCOLNMAN]

If a coin is truly rare and also in demand, I can't afford it. If a coin is scarce and in great demand, I usually buy it only if I'm eager to complete a collecting objective as I feel I can buy it at any time I'm willing to unlimber my check book. Now I mainly collect scarce-to-rare medals and a few colonials (lacking meaningful pop data) that are not in great demand, which I can afford and which require research and perseverance (i.e. fun).  

[World Colonial]

13 hours ago, Zebo said:

What is your definition of rare and how do you apply it to your collection? Do you use a rarity scale?

If a coin is rare and there is no collector interest - is it worth collecting?

 

There isn't an absolute definition of rarity.  I use it relatively from the Judd scale.  This one is for US patterns but it's easy to remember and is as good as any.  I don't and never would use one such as the Universal Rarity Scale because it's too granular and most of the tiers are meaningless.  From a practical standpoint, any coin meeting the minimum availability for a Judd R-1 with at least 1250 available can be considered "common" in the sense that it won't be hard to buy, except because of the price.

As to how I use rarity, it's in one of three ways:

First, as US collectors mostly do now which includes specialization (die varieties, "full strike" collecting such as FS, FBL, FB and FH) and quality, usually from TPG grade but also "eye appeal".  I consider this definition totally meaningless.  It is disproportionately contrived and isn't an actual scarcity.

Second, in the traditional sense which is the absolute number of survivors.  This is the most objective measure of rarity but doesn't fully reflect how most collectors actually approach collecting.

Third, by the number of survivors which exist in the minimum quality which most collectors of the coin or series will accept or want to buy.  IMO, this reflects how collectors actually collect.  It isn't an actual rarity (#2 reflects that) but it appears to reflect what is most important to the largest number of collectors.

Lastly, I'd say Abuelo's definition above my post is a simplified definition of any candidate for an actually rare coin.  Claiming that the majority of US coins often (if not usually) considered "scarce" or "rare" when the coin can be bought at any time or on short notice turns the concept on it's head.  It contradicts common sense and the only logical motive for it is to exaggerate the significance and appeal of what the collector likes and to rationalize an inflated price.  The "industry" and it's financial promoters do this all the time, as evidenced by the "Hansen Watch" thread currently active on the PCGS forum right now.  The worst are by two dealers who apparently believe their own BS that coins are under priced versus other art and collectibles.

Lastly as to whether a coin is rare and there is no collector interest, what's your definition of no interest?  I have read posts here which claims this occurs but then, I have yet to see actual evidence that this supposed "scarcity" or "rarity" is an actual one.

[Zebo]

Interesting...

I agree that many coins listed as rare are actually scarce at best. With that said, I use rarity in two different ways. I use the tiered rarity rating C (common) to R7 (1 or 2 examples known) for my sovereign collection because that is the scale Michael Marsh used. Marsh is known for his sovereign research. His research has flaws as most do, but his work is well regarded, for my other collections, I do not use the tiered system, but rather judge rarity by how often it is offered for sale.

regarding my other question concerning rarity and lack of collector interest - I am interested in hearing others opinions on it. No interest should have been stated as traded very thinly meaning while there are some collectors out there, there aren't many and even the rare issues do not move quickly. 

[World Colonial]

19 minutes ago, Zebo said:

Interesting...

I agree that many coins listed as rare are actually scarce at best. With that said, I use rarity in two different ways. I use the tiered rarity rating C (common) to R7 (1 or 2 examples known) for my sovereign collection because that is the scale Michael Marsh used. Marsh is known for his sovereign research. His research has flaws as most do, but his work is well regarded, for my other collections,

You are using a non-US series as an example.  Foreign collectors have a much lower tendency to exaggerate.  This is evident from reading auction listings.  One exception is South Africa, which has been infected with the same preferences which exist in the US, since this where they got it from. 

As I mentioned in a recent post, I don't place much reliance on (supposed) knowledgeable specialists.  Whether I would in your example depends upon Marsh's methodology.  For example, I recently bought Brad Yonaka's book on the Mexican Pillar coinage minor denominations and I am waiting to receive the follow-up volume covering the other mints.  In the Mexico book, he provides distribution tables by date and denomination from a sample of 5007 specimens he (apparently) personally inspected.  So though it isn't scientific and the sample isn't random, I'd say it's vastly better than what is available practically anywhere else and reasonably representative of actual (relative) scarcity.

On the other hand, when Heritage claimed in an auction listing that maybe 50 examples exist of the 1941H Sarawak cent are believed to exist yet the combined TPG population reports now include 42, it's obvious this estimate is almost certainly grossly understated. 

This equally applies to many estimates in PCGS Coin Facts where it's apparent the contributor just made it up.  PCGS Coin Facts is a great source and this sounds harsh, but it's evident that there was little if any sanity checking of the data before it was published.  In my limited review, there are so many self evident contradictions it is easy to find them.  One obvious example is the estimate of 150 1894 MS IHC.  Given the price and the current TPG counts, there is no reason to believe it.  I'd have to check but I think the current MS counts already exceed it and the price level doesn't support more than a minimal number of duplicates. 

Another is the 1921 and 1921-D Mercury dimes with estimates of 2000 and 3500.  If all are correct, then the 1921 has fewer survivors than the 1807 half dollar and the 1921-D approximately equal.  A quick check of the TPG counts, Heritage archives and current eBay listings makes it obvious it isn't so.  If this estimate was remotely true, the price would be much higher since the 1916-D has an estimate of 10,000.  With mintages exceeding 1MM, how this low number could exist with mass market collecting using coin albums starting less than 20 years later isn't evident either.  I'd guess the actual survival rate is at least a multiple of 10 for both, if not far more.

With the Sovereign series specifically, I am only familiar with South Africa.  There are conflicting mintage records for the 1923 and 1924 circulation strikes, even within South African sources.  The accepted mintage today for the 1923 is 719 for both circulation strikes and proofs.  Proof mintage is believed to be 655 leaving 64 circulation strikes.  In the sale of the Bentley Collection, DNW addressed this discrepancy and I believe they cited Marsh as the source but if not, they claimed the actual mintage is 506 and not 64.  This coin is certainly at least very scarce but this discrepancy creates the distinct possibility a lot more may exist than most believe.  Similar thoughts for the 1924, though it's a lot more common.  It's somewhat scarce but I wouldn't call it rare.

[World Colonial]

45 minutes ago, Zebo said:

for my other collections, I do not use the tiered system, but rather judge rarity by how often it is offered for sale.

This probably makes sense if the coin or series sells at "strong" prices for the scarcity, but not necessarily otherwise.    I certainly haven't checked every coin or series but I suspect if we did, we'd find there are quite a few coins which aren't really that scarce than don't come up for sale very often.  The primary if not only reason would be the value.

[World Colonial]

49 minutes ago, Zebo said:

regarding my other question concerning rarity and lack of collector interest - I am interested in hearing others opinions on it. No interest should have been stated as traded very thinly meaning while there are some collectors out there, there aren't many and even the rare issues do not move quickly. 

I'd answer this question from the perspective of US collecting and elsewhere collectively.

For US coinage, there literally isn't an actually scarce or rare coin which can be described as lacking "noticeable" collector interest.  There is exaggeration by US collectors for numismatic trivial minutia such as some specialization but that's not an actual scarcity.

Outside the US, I'm not sure it's a lack of interest either if my estimate of maybe 250,000 coins and 10,000 series is directionally accurate.  It's also the fact that most collectors lack adequate knowledge to know what even exists to be bought.  I'd say I have a good awareness of every coin in the broader US series (Red Book) and a noticeable percentage from world coinage (after 1500).  I know enough to know what I like and what I don't.  For example, I can't tell you what exists for most Asian or Islamic coinage (of any time period) but don't have any interest in it because I'm not going to collect coins where I can't even read the legend and I don't care for the designs most of the time either.  Alternatively, I like some or many ancient Greek, Roman, Judean, Byzantine and European medieval coins but haven't looked into it except minimally.  This is one definition of lack of interest in the sense I could do it but I'm not sure I would extrapolate this to the broader collector population.

Within the series I collect, I would describe all as "thinly traded", except for South Africa which I don't buy now.  I have mentioned I am trying to complete one or more denominations for Bolivia and Peru pillar minors.  My experience in buying from eBay, the few dealers who sell it and auction firms such as Heritage indicates to me that I am competing with a very low number of buyers.  It's also different from US coinage in the sense that when a coin I want comes up for sale, it's one of the few if not only opportunity to buy it for the foreseeable future.  For example, I bought a coin recently where I have seen this type in XF or better only nine times in 16 years for the entire series covering 21 years.  I see lower (usually awful looking) grade coins somewhat more (but still not very) often but don't recall seeing this date, at all.

In my example, the interest is obviously much lower than comparable US half dollars (flowing hair and draped bust) but I think it's more of a function of the very limited survival rate.  The interest is very low for the quality which disproportionately exists but not for the few better specimens as indicated by the price versus most other world coins.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

17 hours ago, Zebo said:

If a coin is rare and there is no collector interest - is it worth collecting?

 

For historical purposes, I would state yes.

The question that come to my mind is, if the coin is rare (use whatever definition of rare or scarce that you are any other collector uses to define rare or scarce) and the collector can't afford it....is it worth collecting? That is the stumbling block for 99.99% of collectors. To the  remaining collector percentage that can afford it, of course it is worth collecting, and the answer would still be yes. But, that percentage of collectors to resell to would be limited to the available limited market that could afford to buy the coin from them, at a later date. I would proffer that there is always a market for same. It is the nature of the collector to pursue such rarities/scarcities if it can be afforded. It is in a collectors' blood to do so. I don't care if it is a U.S. coin, a South Africa coin, a Bolivia coin. A South Africa coin, etc. If it can be afforded, the collector will darn sure buy it. 

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

For historical purposes, I would state yes.

The question that come to my mind is, if the coin is rare (use whatever definition of rare or scarce that you are any other collector uses to define rare or scarce) and the collector can't afford it....is it worth collecting? That is the stumbling block for 99.99% of collectors. To the  remaining collector percentage that can afford it, of course it is worth collecting, and the answer would still be yes. But, that percentage of collectors to resell to would be limited to the available limited market that could afford to buy the coin from them, at a later date. I would proffer that there is always a market for same. It is the nature of the collector to pursue such rarities/scarcities if it can be afforded. It is in a collectors' blood to do so. I don't care if it is a U.S. coin, a South Africa coin, a Bolivia coin. A South Africa coin, etc. If it can be afforded, the collector will darn sure buy it. 

You are correct.  My prior post didn't mention the difference between "popular" coins (measured by the size of the collector base) and those which are actually preferred.  

In the home market, the rarest coins will usually be among the most actually preferred, though in many developing countries because of the limited collecting tradition the proportion of actually rare or scarce coins will be much higher than in a developed country such as the US or UK.

Outside of the home market, the majority of the demand usually comes from US buyers except and on occasion the most prominent coins.  There aren't that many series or even individual coins with universal appeal outside of the home country or a limited geography, except at drastic discounts to the home market price.  I'd rank ancient Greek, Roman and Judean first though comparing the definition of a series between the first two and all modern (post 1500) coinage isn't an exact comparison.  Next would be the Sovereign and Spanish colonial cobs.  The Mexican pillar dollar is probably owned by tens of thousands worldwide but I'd guess maybe as few as several hundred are really trying to complete the entire series.

In support of your point, one coin which is definitely "thinly traded" which I'd like to have a shot at buying (near the last sale price) is the 1934 New Zealand proof set and I essentially never buy coins outside of my series anymore.  I'd rank it first from New Zealand, it has a recorded mintage of 20 but purportedly only one set is available for private purchase.  Noble Numismatics graded it (near) FDC on the one or two occasions when they sold it in the last 15 years.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Referencing your last paragraph, my collecting need for a shot is the 1970 12 Coin Republic of Korea "The 5 Millenia History of Korea" Set: 6 pieces Gold and 6 pieces Silver. First piece I acquired was in 1971-the 25,000 Won King Sejong The Great piece. Since then a few of the Set have been acquired, but I am still pursuing my collecting nature, in regards to this Set. A slow process, a very slow process, and considering the dirty little secret of the involvement of the 1970 gold Valcambi Mint Turtle Ship and the Paris Mint Turtle Ship pieces that I also covet, I doubt my collecting ability to complete my personal nature urge.

[physics-fan3.14]

Many US collectors use the Sheldon rarity scale, or some adaptation of it. Bust half collectors such as myself rely on the fairly accurate rarity ratings in Overton, which uses the Sheldon scale.

In the Sheldon scale, anything with less than 75 pieces known is called R5, and is considered rare. These pieces may show up once or twice a year, and sometimes much less frequently. While there are plenty of coins much rarer than that, as you mentioned above, ifind this to be a reasonable line of distinction.

[World Colonial]

8 hours ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Referencing your last paragraph, my collecting need for a shot is the 1970 12 Coin Republic of Korea "The 5 Millenia History of Korea" Set: 6 pieces Gold and 6 pieces Silver. First piece I acquired was in 1971-the 25,000 Won King Sejong The Great piece. Since then a few of the Set have been acquired, but I am still pursuing my collecting nature, in regards to this Set. A slow process, a very slow process, and considering the dirty little secret of the involvement of the 1970 gold Valcambi Mint Turtle Ship and the Paris Mint Turtle Ship pieces that I also covet, I doubt my collecting ability to complete my personal nature urge.

The New Zealand 1934 proof set is nowhere near my "go to" coin or set as I understand it is for you with your Korea set.  It is just one I would like to be able to buy, some day.

[Conder101]

I use the Sheldon scale

Rare = 31 - 75 known 

On 8/1/2018 at 9:43 PM, Zebo said:

If a coin is rare and there is no collector interest - is it worth collecting?

If you want it, sure it is.  The fact that no one else wants it doesn't matter.  At least one person wants it, YOU.  If a second collector never appears you may not be able to get your money back out of it, but who cares?

[physics-fan3.14]

5 hours ago, Conder101 said:

I use the Sheldon scale

Rare = 31 - 75 known 

If you want it, sure it is.  The fact that no one else wants it doesn't matter.  At least one person wants it, YOU.  If a second collector never appears you may not be able to get your money back out of it, but who cares?

It also means you won't pay much for it.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

2 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

It also means you won't pay much for it.

I disagree. In fact, I have experienced the opposite, almost every time I purchase such a piece, whether U.S or World. The chances of no one else wanting a rare piece (Sheldon scale) is zero. It is simply not purchased by somebody else because of course affordability, but it is not because of somebody else not wanting the rarity.

[LINCOLNMAN]

1 hour ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I disagree. In fact, I have experienced the opposite, almost every time I purchase such a piece, whether U.S or World. The chances of no one else wanting a rare piece (Sheldon scale) is zero. It is simply not purchased by somebody else because of course affordability, but it is not because of somebody else not wanting the rarity.

I'm working on a few sets of world 18th century medals. It's virtually impossible to know the absolute rarity. However, based on how tough they are to find I would have to guess they are "rare". In practice they certainly are. When I do find them in decent condition, they sell for a small fraction of what a comparatively "rare" US coin would sell for, i.e. they are very "affordable". But, these aren't given away, so I'm certainly not alone, and when they appear in auction I do get competition. So, I would agree that there may always be some demand, but in back streets of numismatics p-f is correct. BTW these pieces are beautifully crafted and have great historical relevance, go figure (not complaining mind you). 

[World Colonial]

4 hours ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

I'm working on a few sets of world 18th century medals. It's virtually impossible to know the absolute rarity. However, based on how tough they are to find I would have to guess they are "rare". In practice they certainly are. When I do find them in decent condition, they sell for a small fraction of what a comparatively "rare" US coin would sell for, i.e. they are very "affordable". But, these aren't given away, so I'm certainly not alone, and when they appear in auction I do get competition. So, I would agree that there may always be some demand, but in back streets of numismatics p-f is correct. BTW these pieces are beautifully crafted and have great historical relevance, go figure (not complaining mind you). 

Medals have a direct historical connection of varying significance, in contrast to the overwhelmingly contrived and imaginary one for practically any coin.

Many medals also have much better artistic visual appeal versus coins.  If I were to buy any, I'd probably start with Spanish colonial but I actually think 17th and 18th century European have the best designs.  I haven't seen hardly any US medals or post 1800 from elsewhere that I really like.  A few, but not many.

On buying very hard to buy coins, my experience is mixed but more like yours and John's.  The Lissner sale was the one exception where the coins were real cheap and I regret not buying more.  But then, I was buying Bolivian Republic decimals.

Otherwise with my other series, I am coming to agree that buying it from dealers at a fixed price on the few occasions when  it comes up for sale is the safer and possibly cheaper option.  There is one coin which sold on a dealer website recently up for sale again at auction in two weeks.  I didn't see it (or else I would have bought it) but the buyer is obviously "flipping it".   By co-incidence, another one in a slightly lower condition sold earlier this year but otherwise the three I have seen for this date represent one-third of the nine I have seen for this type in 16 years.  It could easily sell for double the dealer price and if it does, I have decided to pass on it.

[numisport]

Someone mentioned eye appeal so a potential buyer must figure that into rarity. I certainly agree without any doubt that eye appeal should figure in on your own assessment of relative rarity. I own several coins that I have justified paying multiples of list price just to acquire a pleasing example. 1936 proof coins are a good example of low appeal coins in gem holders. Be prepared to pay up for nicer specimens.

[World Colonial]

2 hours ago, numisport said:

Someone mentioned eye appeal so a potential buyer must figure that into rarity. I certainly agree without any doubt that eye appeal should figure in on your own assessment of relative rarity. I own several coins that I have justified paying multiples of list price just to acquire a pleasing example. 1936 proof coins are a good example of low appeal coins in gem holders. Be prepared to pay up for nicer specimens.

I mentioned eye appeal but in the context that it isn't an actual scarcity.  It's one of numerous extremely liberal standards where either a noticeable minority or even outright majority of the 250,000+ coins ever struck will qualify since it is so subjective. 

A few posts above here referenced die varieties.  Same principle though it's an actual scarcity, just another narrower one.  There is nothing unusual about scarcity as a die variety since most date/MM/denomination/country combinations have numerous varieties.   It's probably the norm rather than exception for many or most to be at least somewhat scarce, even excluding very high mintage more recent coinage.  There are probably at least tens of thousands of varieties eligible for a Sheldon or Judd R-5 with 31-75.

In terms of justifying the price, no need to do it as it is your money. 

I have an NGC MS-61 Mexico 2R which I purchased from the Trestamara collection through Spanish auction firm Calico in October 2014 for 750 Euros plus buyer's fee for a total of about $1100,  It was described as SC- which is a Spanish choice AU.  NGC graded it MS-61 probably due to a combination of light friction on the crown side and numerous pinpricks next to one of the columns on the pillar side.  The pillar side has a full rounded strike (might be typical of the date, don't know but still very unusual for the series) and the crown side has exception toning.  Still if and when I go to sell it, it will probably be worth more out of the holder than in it.  If I sell it myself, I'll almost certainly crack it out and consign it back to Calico rather than sell it here in the US.  Regardless that it looks much better than practically any other pillar 2R I have ever seen, US buyers will almost certainly penalize it financially because of the TPG grade.  

I paid strong money for it because it is better than the MS-62 and MS-63 coins I used to own and I didn't want to pay a big multiple for another one with an MS-64 or better grade which is only slightly better.  MS-64 or higher grade are the only ones I have seen that I consider better quality than this one.

[numisport]

18 hours ago, World Colonial said:

I mentioned eye appeal but in the context that it isn't an actual scarcity.  It's one of numerous extremely liberal standards where either a noticeable minority or even outright majority of the 250,000+ coins ever struck will qualify since it is so subjective. 

A few posts above here referenced die varieties.  Same principle though it's an actual scarcity, just another narrower one.  There is nothing unusual about scarcity as a die variety since most date/MM/denomination/country combinations have numerous varieties.   It's probably the norm rather than exception for many or most to be at least somewhat scarce, even excluding very high mintage more recent coinage.  There are probably at least tens of thousands of varieties eligible for a Sheldon or Judd R-5 with 31-75.

In terms of justifying the price, no need to do it as it is your money. 

I have an NGC MS-61 Mexico 2R which I purchased from the Trestamara collection through Spanish auction firm Calico in October 2014 for 750 Euros plus buyer's fee for a total of about $1100,  It was described as SC- which is a Spanish choice AU.  NGC graded it MS-61 probably due to a combination of light friction on the crown side and numerous pinpricks next to one of the columns on the pillar side.  The pillar side has a full rounded strike (might be typical of the date, don't know but still very unusual for the series) and the crown side has exception toning.  Still if and when I go to sell it, it will probably be worth more out of the holder than in it.  If I sell it myself, I'll almost certainly crack it out and consign it back to Calico rather than sell it here in the US.  Regardless that it looks much better than practically any other pillar 2R I have ever seen, US buyers will almost certainly penalize it financially because of the TPG grade.  

I paid strong money for it because it is better than the MS-62 and MS-63 coins I used to own and I didn't want to pay a big multiple for another one with an MS-64 or better grade which is only slightly better.  MS-64 or higher grade are the only ones I have seen that I consider better quality than this one.

I understand you are the real deal collector and let me relate to a recent purchase of mine. Bought real nice '36 Mercury Dime after looking at many other proofs with that typical dirty looking tone and shallow mirrors. My lucky purchase while only NGC Pf 65 is among the best I have seen short of a 2500 dollar Pf 67 coin. It is a lovely deep mirror gem with only one small white speck struck into surface on obverse. NCS looked at it and decided conservation would remove original skin with nice orange gold tone. I'm glad they left it alone because its a keeper.

[World Colonial]

8 minutes ago, numisport said:

I understand you are the real deal collector and let me relate to a recent purchase of mine. Bought real nice '36 Mercury Dime after looking at many other proofs with that typical dirty looking tone and shallow mirrors. My lucky purchase while only NGC Pf 65 is among the best I have seen short of a 2500 dollar Pf 67 coin. It is a lovely deep mirror gem with only one small white speck struck into surface on obverse. NCS looked at it and decided conservation would remove original skin with nice orange gold tone. I'm glad they left it alone because its a keeper.

In the past, I have mentioned I have looked at Mercury Cameo proofs in the Heritage archives.  This was initially before the populations increased noticeably.  I have never inspected one in person but suspect based upon your post that the cameo contrast isn't that noticeable.  I hold the same opinion for the SA cameos I own.  Those designated CAM don't look it to me and those designated DCAM/UCAM I describe as CAM.  Conversely, a coin I own without it (1957 NGC PR-67 RD SA penny) has the strongest contrast of any coin I have ever seen on the obverse, even in the holder which dilutes the contrast somewhat or a lot.  It must have been the reverse.

"Gradeflation" doesn't seem to be limited to the grade but also applies to cameo proofs.  I equally don't consider most "red" copper or bronze to merit the designation either and would never pay a strong premium for most of the coins I have seen due to the color.

[numisport]

1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

In the past, I have mentioned I have looked at Mercury Cameo proofs in the Heritage archives.  This was initially before the populations increased noticeably.  I have never inspected one in person but suspect based upon your post that the cameo contrast isn't that noticeable.  I hold the same opinion for the SA cameos I own.  Those designated CAM don't look it to me and those designated DCAM/UCAM I describe as CAM.  Conversely, a coin I own without it (1957 NGC PR-67 RD SA penny) has the strongest contrast of any coin I have ever seen on the obverse, even in the holder which dilutes the contrast somewhat or a lot.  It must have been the reverse.

"Gradeflation" doesn't seem to be limited to the grade but also applies to cameo proofs.  I equally don't consider most "red" copper or bronze to merit the designation either and would never pay a strong premium for most of the coins I have seen due to the color.

Here is a "brown" copper with superb color rarely seen and coin is also deep mirrored gem with cameo look. I think I posted this once before but this coins stands on its merits as a gem.

[World Colonial]

4 hours ago, numisport said:

Here is a "brown" copper with superb color rarely seen and coin is also deep mirrored gem with cameo look. I think I posted this once before but this coins stands on its merits as a gem.

You have a nice coin.

And by the way, the 1764 Mexico 2R I own, my comments aren't just for a this one date.  This particular coin is among the best I have ever seen for the entire series covering all mints, over 80 combinations.  The NGC 1764 plate coin looks better than mine except for color but I have never seen it in person.