I didn't even plan on doing the post on points, but once again I was looking to add a coin that I have owned for over a year, and again found that another here still thinks they own it a year later. Then I saw the multiple sets of coins in the modern era that this person owned, so the ownership, the ranking and the points were all thrown into my face all at once. And then in the confusing aftermath I feel that a side bar note in a previous post was taken out of context, which really doesn't bother me as much as the other things mentioned. Soooooo...

One last time guys,

I did a post a year or two ago on this points thing and I did my homework and I had the facts and the figures and the pops on several of the key dates in the Walker series to back up 110% of what I said. I then compared the dates to dates in the Franklin series as far as total mintage, populations at both NGC & PCGS and the point I was trying to make, actually it made itself. Now when it comes to the Walker series, this so called guru knows about 1/100th of what someone like Jackson or Gilmore knows. In fact I would surmise that Jackson has read and studied and forgot more than the vast majority of collectors of Walker halves will ever know. The date 1941 from San Fransisco is pretty much known as the key date for the short set. When I mentioned this date, I was vaguely remembering that the dates I looked at much more closely a year or two ago had much higher pops. (I forgot the dates of the Walkers I used but the 1938-D was one that comes to mind and I think I had all three coins from 1921 and a few others too) I'm not gonna get into a back and forth about my last couple posts but I would like to think the bottom line of my thoughts were understood and would not be taken out of context.

The Walker half is by far the more popular of the two half dollar sets in question. It use to be by far, my favorite coin series. It still is in my top five of favorites of all coin series. Actually in my top two of half dollar coin series. I don't portray myself as an expert on anything. Some coins I know more about than others but I'm still a novice when it comes to the Walker series, but I would like to think I know a little more about them than many here. But still there are others that have vastly superior knowledge and Jackson is maybe the top one I know.

Now I have said before I love an argument (of the friendly sort) as long as it's based on facts. I'm not prepared with the facts right now but I will try and find the time to do the research I did before and give the examples why I think that for the most part, when comparing just the two coins, the Walker & the Franklin. There are numerous examples where a Walker half will have populations in the census of the big two, along with the points assessed to that particular date, that when compared to the dates I had spoken of before in a long ago journal, there was a great degree of difference as to (1) how many were minted, (2) how many exist according to the census of the top two grading services (and I'm very aware of the counts being off due to crack outs and resubmissions from those looking to get the jump from 66 to 67) and lastly (3) the points given out for that perspective coin in that perspective grade. What I found was that there was a huge difference between the Franklin & the Walker half. With the Walker being given higher dollar values, much higher point totals on coins that were not even close in comparison in the rarity dept. I'm not stupid and I do know a coin is worth "X" because of several big reasons. How many survive period, out of a mintage of "X". And in what condition. The collector base of any coin series is huge when calculating value and there are few coins that have the sizable collector base that the Walking Liberty Half has. Now in my last couple posts, I had no data in front of me when I just named the 41-S Walker. It just came to mind because of it being one of the main keys to the short set. I need to go back and re-read that last post just to see how much my "off the cuff" comment was taken out of context concerning that key date in the Walker short set. I will say that the vast majority of the entire Franklin series is by far the rarer coin series between the two half dollar sets.

What I will do is give a number of examples where coin after coin in the Franklin series have to begin with: (1) lower overall mintage figures. (2) Very few total coins graded compared to the mintage. (3) And of these coins graded, very, very few coins that grade north of MS-65. Bell lines or not taken into consideration, fewer coins across the board in all areas mean just one thing to me, and please tell me I'm not being naive in my thinking here. This spells rarity pure and simple. But for example if there are only 5 collectors and there are six coins, you don't have rarity. There is sufficient coin examples for all. Maybe scarcity, but not true rarity. But collector base aside there is really no comparison as to which series in the rarer of the two, if you want to talk just plain simple census numbers.

Just so there is no question as to how I think and what is my feelings toward all that has been written about lately. I think every collector should collect exactly what they want to collect. I own hundreds of slabbed modern coins. I own hundreds more that are raw. I use to think differently about the whole modern spectrum. Now I am of the mindset that I wasted a pile of money getting all these mint sets and proof sets and commemorative coins. Am I going to throw them away? Absolutely not. Am I gonna buy more? Well unless they are minted from silver or gold, the answer is "absolutely not" again. My reasons for this mindset have been very clear and I digested many facts on this subject before I came to the conclusion I've come to. The whole point thing is a mute point to me really because I don't care or give a flying flip about how many points I have or don't have. My problem with the whole thing is how far whop-sided the way the points are assessed. That was it. Bottom line. I think Jackson (I think it was Jackson) hit the nail right on the head when he made mention that a great fair way to do the whole point thing, that is for the ones who give a s--- about the points, is to do a point for every dollar in value. The value already has the rarity thing down pat. And to assign points this way is one way that I don't see how it could be improved upon. This way definitely has my vote to do it that way.

So to summarize: (1) I dislike modern coins. I don't dislike modern coin collectors. I have just come to the realization I have no room for them in my collections. (2) I think the whole point thing is about as screwed up as any one thing can be. (3) IMO the Franklin half dollar in mint state is a far rarer coin than the Walker half series in mint state. (4) We all are collectors here. Some maybe for somewhat different reasons than others. And I have untold amounts of respect for each and every collector here or at the ANA, PNG or anywhere a collector of coins happens to be. I don't hold myself or anyone above anyone else and have always shown respect to a collector of any stripes ranked at the top, or one that is ranked at the bottom. All the same in my book. (5) As I have said before I'll discuss/argue facts with anyone anytime anywhere when challenged. (6) And lastly I don't ever want to be perceived as some high and mighty guru because that I'm definitely not and have never even hinted that I was, EVER. (7) The thing that bothers me the most here at the Collectors Society is those that have coins in their sets they don't own now and may have never owned in the past. Liars & thieves. Not sure which one I dislike more, but those of you that have coins in your sets that you don't own, well, a liar & a thief is exactly what you are. (8) And lastly for the record, silver is still a screaming buy!

Happy Collecting!

WKF