The Curious Case Of The 1904-O Morgan Silver Dollar 1 1

[GoldFinger1969]

Excellent article for beginners and intermediate collectors and Morgan fans:

https://coinweek.com/coins/coin-profiles/us-coins-coin-profiles/united-states-1904-o-morgan-silver-dollar/

The 1903-O actually took the bigger hit from the 1962 Treasury Hoard, but the 1904-O was also collateral damage.

 

[World Colonial]

Yes, previously "rare" coins which are now very common.  Price for both was very expensive considering incomes and the amount alternatives cost at the time.

[GoldFinger1969]

5 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

Yes, previously "rare" coins which are now very common.  Price for both was very expensive considering incomes and the amount alternatives cost at the time.

The 1903-0 was quoted at $1,500 or so for what we would call today MS65.  Maybe that was an "offer" to sell and maybe if you were a dealer you were buying it from the public at $500 or $750 or whatever so the "price" depended on who was buying and/or selling. 

But it was much much more than most common or even scarce Morgans.  And it got poleaxed by the late-1962 release.

I don't think the 1903-O has completly roundtripped in price and gained back all the losses, I'll have to check the price for an MS-65.

Edited May 7, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[World Colonial]

I read that one of these two dates reached $1100 as "UNC" at some point but do not remember the source.  The earliest Redbook I have is 1963 after the price crashed but do not have it with me.

This coin is somewhat of an example of what I believe is in store for common predominantly US coinage where the price is disconnected from it's actual (as opposed to perceived imaginary) collectible merits.  Anyone can get an idea of candidates form the TPG data and PCGS Coin Facts estimates.

These coins are already known to be common unlike these two which were believed to be scarce/rare, but the predominant if not only reason any carry the current price is because of the belief by most buyers that they can get their money back at resale.

If the price declines as this coinage continues to lose preference concurrently with economic adversity, it will never recover, though this will likely only apply measured by constant dollar purchasing power since longer term, there is likely to be a lot of inflation.

[GoldFinger1969]

2 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

I read that one of these two dates reached $1100 as "UNC" at some point but do not remember the source.  The earliest Redbook I have is 1963 after the price crashed but do not have it with me.

I have famed dealer B. Max Mehl's company price list a year or so after his passing, 1958 I believe........the 1903-O is listed as Rare and the prices are $95 VF and $500 UNC.  The 1904-O doesn't have "rare" in the line item but it's $15 VF and $75 UNC.

[World Colonial]

2 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I have famed dealer B. Max Mehl's company price list a year or so after his passing, 1958 I believe........the 1903-O is listed as Rare and the prices are $95 VF and $500 UNC.  The 1904-O doesn't have "rare" in the line item but it's $15 VF and $75 UNC.

PCGS Coin Facts quoting Bowers states the 03-O had an estimated UNC population of around 10.  It was believed to be scarcer than the 1893-S which is the #1 key in the series today.

It's hard to give anyone who is not familiar with prices of the time just how expensive the 1903-O was at the time.  At $1500 in 1962, it would have cost about one-third of the annual median US household income.  It was also far more expensive than numerous coins which are still out of reach of most collectors today.

[Coinbuf]

13 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

The 1903-0 was quoted at $1,500 or so for what we would call today MS65.  Maybe that was an "offer" to sell and maybe if you were a dealer you were buying it from the public at $500 or $750 or whatever so the "price" depended on who was buying and/or selling. 

But it was much much more than most common or even scarce Morgans.  And it got poleaxed by the late-1962 release.

I don't think the 1903-O has completly roundtripped in price and gained back all the losses, I'll have to check the price for an MS-65.

An 03-O in 65 crosses the auction block around $700-$750 today, roughly the equivalent of wholesale back then.   04-O's are a dime a dozen and sell around $150 right in line with all the common dates in the Morgan series in 65.   Curiously prices for lower level (BU to 65) Morgans have been rising now for a while, not sure if that is just a bubble tied to silver or if its just all the money that has been flowing into coins over the last year.

[GoldFinger1969]

2 hours ago, World Colonial said:

It's hard to give anyone who is not familiar with prices of the time just how expensive the 1903-O was at the time.  At $1500 in 1962, it would have cost about one-third of the annual median US household income.  It was also far more expensive than numerous coins which are still out of reach of most collectors today.

Not only that, WC, but you had VERY FEW coins sell for anywhere near that much to the best of my recollection.  A few of the Saints had traded for as high as $2,000 in the 1950's and maybe the Liberty Nickel and a few other pure numismatic key dates traded at that level -- but that's about all I can think of (veterans, chime in with any other expensive coins circa 1960).

I think the MCMVII UHR, 1927-D (once it became clear hoards overseas did not exist), and the 1933 (confiscated in the late-1940's) sold for anywhere near $1,500 - $2,000 OTTOMH.  Maybe a Superb Gem quality 1924 or 1925 mintmarked Saint, also.  But you're talking about prices paid by millionaire collectors, when being a millionaire was really being rich.  

Edited May 7, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[World Colonial]

2 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Not only that, WC, but you had VERY FEW coins sell for anywhere near that much to the best of my recollection.  A few of the Saints had traded for as high as $2,000 in the 1950's and maybe the Liberty Nickel and a few other pure numismatic key dates traded at that level -- but that's about all I can think of (veterans, chime in with any other expensive coins circa 1960).

Yes, this was the second point in my last post but  I do not have 1962 or 1958 prices available to me for comparison.

I have both the 1965 and 1963 Red Books where prices changed "noticeably" (higher from my limited sample).  There is also this site which was referenced in a prior thread but cannot confirm it's accuracy.

The study of coin values and past trends may predict future price movements for many U.S. coins. (us-coin-values-advisor.com)

My recollection is that more coins sold for higher prices compared to the 03-O, but I might be wrong about that.  (Examples should include the most prominent rarities, scarcer early type, and numerous early gold.)  But however many did, it's price was clearly in "nosebleed" territory.

[GoldFinger1969]

Before the TPGs.....did UNC refer to what we would call MS-65 or MS-63 quality ?

I think it's 63 but don't quote me.

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[World Colonial]

30 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Before the TPGs.....did UNC refer to what we would call MS-65 or MS-63 quality ?

I think it's 63 but don't quote me.

 

Someone else who was older at the time would know better, but my inference is that it was mostly equivalent to current MS-61-63 grades, given that 60 is hardly assigned.

It also might have been on occasion to what I have seen in foreign auctions.  In a Spanish auction, a coin they described as EBC+ (choice XF) later ended up in an NGC MS-65 holder.  It's a 17th century Spanish gold coin.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

It also might have been on occasion to what I have seen in foreign auctions.  In a Spanish auction, a coin they described as EBC+ (choice XF) later ended up in an NGC MS-65 holder.  It's a 17th century Spanish gold coin.

Maybe it had lots of bagmarks in less-noticeable areas which graders today are more forgiving of.

[World Colonial]

13 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Maybe it had lots of bagmarks in less-noticeable areas which graders today are more forgiving of.

I have not seen the coin in person but likely, it's just a difference in grading standards which I presume also applied here in the US prior to the TPG era and especially before the 70's.  It could be what is occasionally termed an AU-65 which is market graded MS-65.

[Grant Gerlinger]

7 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

but that's about all I can think of (veterans, chime in with any other expensive coins circa 1960).

I’m certainly not a veteran but most of my great grandfathers collection that have purchase dates and price tags are from the late 60s and very early 70s. It seems weird Double eagles with a price tag of $200 on them. 2.5 dollar Indian heads are only like $70 too. The most expensive coin with a price on it is an 1855 type II gold dollar he paid $345 for in I believe 1968. It’s a really nice coin that would probably grade MS. 

[GoldFinger1969]

33 minutes ago, Grant Gerlinger said:

I’m certainly not a veteran but most of my great grandfathers collection that have purchase dates and price tags are from the late 60s and very early 70s. It seems weird Double eagles with a price tag of $200 on them. 2.5 dollar Indian heads are only like $70 too. The most expensive coin with a price on it is an 1855 type II gold dollar he paid $345 for in I believe 1968. It’s a really nice coin that would probably grade MS. 

That's an Indian Head, right ?  I have Indian Head 1855's going for $275 in EF and $425 in UNC in my 1970 Red Book.

[RWB]

8 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Before the TPGs.....did UNC refer to what we would call MS-65 or MS-63 quality ?

I think it's 63 but don't quote me.

 

It was a coin that had no evident circulation, but could have a lot of marks, or almost none. Those differences were conveyed with adjectives such as choice, gem. superb, baggy, etc., and it was up to the buyer to figure out if the coin was what he/she wanted for the asking price.

By itself "uncirculated" was generally a modern MS62 or 63 coin, but much depended on the opinion of the grader. For example, an Unc graded by Jim Ruddy was likely AU, the same description of a coin by Dave Bowers was MS64 or better. In the late 1960s I bought several coins from Dave that were graded "Choice Unc." Years later, PCGS called the worset of them MS-66 and the best MS-68 (seated quarters).

[GoldFinger1969]

3 hours ago, RWB said:

For example, an Unc graded by Jim Ruddy was likely AU, the same description of a coin by Dave Bowers was MS64 or better. In the late 1960s I bought several coins from Dave that were graded "Choice Unc." Years later, PCGS called the worset of them MS-66 and the best MS-68 (seated quarters).

That's interesting, since they were partners for a time.  Was Ruddy a numismatist or maybe he handled the financials and wasn't as experienced as Bowers at grading.

[RWB]

11 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

That's interesting, since they were partners for a time.  Was Ruddy a numismatist or maybe he handled the financials and wasn't as experienced as Bowers at grading.

At the time I made most purchases, Bowers was in partnership with Terry Hathaway. When he and Ruddy formed their next partnership, I could immediately tell when Ruddy picked a coin vs Bowers. Ruddy also overlooked cleaning and other defects, that I never saw on a Bowers coin. I soon stopped buying or even looking at the Bowers and Ruddy coins. In one instance before B&R started, I'd saved almost $800 to buy one of several choice AU 1799 Eagles Bowers offered in his newsletter. The next month, when I finally had enough money, the price had gone up $200 or $300 -- and I was again out of luck. He also had "Gem proof" gold dollars for $325 (I think). Bowers' "choice AU" was the real thing -- and easily equal to any MS-63 in today's helium-charged holders.

Edited May 8, 2021 by RWB

[Henri Charriere]

Choice, Gem, Brilliant...

[ It is a shame I will never know whether the very first coin I bought, a 1909-S V.D.B. from Stack's in the mid-1960's, a brilliant uncirculated (BU) red cent, for $200. + tax, was a MS-63, -65 or 67.  The two things that stick in my mind all these years later is a). it took forever to appreciate in value, and b). the reason why may have had less to do with its limited mintage (less than a half-million) and more to do with its novelty, being first in the new series.  Many were simply squirreled away.  I believe the same thing will happen with the new Morgan and Peace dollars due out shortly.]

[World Colonial]

21 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Choice, Gem, Brilliant...

[ It is a shame I will never know whether the very first coin I bought, a 1909-S V.D.B. from Stack's in the mid-1960's, a brilliant uncirculated (BU) red cent, for $200. + tax, was a MS-63, -65 or 67.  The two things that stick in my mind all these years later is a). it took forever to appreciate in value, and b). the reason why may have had less to do with its limited mintage (less than a half-million) and more to do with its novelty, being first in the new series.  Many were simply squirreled away.  I believe the same thing will happen with the new Morgan and Peace dollars due out shortly.]

The likely reason it took a long time to appreciate is because it was already very expensive for its availability when you bought it.  It listed for $335 in my 1965 Red Book, though I do not know if the prices were actual retail.  In the 1960's it was already a very common coin just as it is now.

With the 2021 Morgan and Peace dollars, the survival rate will be about 100%  as struck for as long as it will matter to anyone reading my post.  If the mintage will be 175,000 as I read, it may sell for noticeably more than issue price upon release but is unlikely to move up noticeably from that.  It's also far too common.

[Henri Charriere]

4 hours ago, World Colonial said:

With the 2021 Morgan and Peace dollars, the survival rate will be about 100%  as struck for as long as it will matter to anyone reading my post.  If the mintage will be 175,000 as I read, it may sell for noticeably more than issue price upon release but is unlikely to move up noticeably from that.  It's also far too common.

[Pardon the tangent but...

I believe the phased releases of these coins, popular to those of us who grew up collecting silver coinage from change, may be as true an indicator as any, as to the state of the hobby today.

For example, the numbers of old vs new collectors, the nostalgia factor, the novelty of having the largest coin once in wide circulation from a number of branch mints (though some aspects of the original specifications have changed) and being an object of general popularity as expressed in demand.

I expect prices to surge, but if prices fall to $137. (my lucky number) and I was unable to order one in its initial release, I will buy one and, after a quick once-over, forward it to My Cousin Vinny in Alabama who, for reasons not entirely clear to me, remains the only person I do not know and never met, who dislikes them without elaboration. I hope, for my sake and his, it doesn't come toned.

[GoldFinger1969]

7 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I will buy one and, after a quick once-over, forward it to My Cousin Vinny in Alabama who, for reasons not entirely clear to me, remains the only person I do not know and never met, who dislikes them without elaboration.

Why not send it to the 2 utes instead ?