cladking

I don't doubt it but in modern times there aren't many cases where the reverse die wasn't swapped out at the beginning of the year. I'd guess they changed this policy at some point. There are numerous mismatched dies in clad quarters and some could have been caused by this process in 1965 but after this it is at the very least uncommon. There would be dozens of mules and hundreds of thousand, millions of coins. There are just repeated changes to reverses. While most of these changes are very subtle from year to year there are also several quite dramatic changes. Back in the day I could tell the date and mint mark from the reverse with a better than 60% accuracy. Very very few coins stood out as real anomalies.

The mint might not have hated us as much as the federal government but there was certainly animosity. Collectors were blamed for the coin shortage and were being punished with a series of laws and procedural changes. These laws crashed the coin hobby in 1965 and drove millions away from coin collecting. Then the direct fallout of lack of valuable coins or silver in circulation drove millions more from the hobby. There was even a bill (Bible bill) before Congress that would effectively illegalize all coin collecting other than valuable old US coins and foreign coins.

I don't have time now to address everyone's points but; It always comes full circle; you start and stop by saying all moderns are common and were saved in large numbers. Neither statement is true. Even if either were true in point of fact quality tends to be horrendous so high grades would still be elusive. You believe moderns are unimportant and insignificant but you don't speak for every coin buyer. Many people find some or all moderns to be exciting and significant. If I were a young man I'd be buying instead of selling. If my heirs knew how to liquidate them I'd leave the coins for them. It's a far better time to buy than sell. Such is life.

Back in the day if you didn't find these reverses within a few years of issue it was extremely difficult to locate nice examples. Herb Hicks had a few articles published in the coin papers but I missed the most important one since it was before I was a regular subscriber. I wager there will be a few more found over the years. I believe mint personnel were not fastidious about changing the reverse dies at the beginning of the year. If it was in good shape they either chose not to change it or overlooked changing it and there are several pretty big reverse die changes over the years. I found a lot of the ones I had set aside and didn't find anything important but I still have a bunch of undisturbed safety deposit boxes I'm emptying for sale.

Moderns are doing pretty well in several countries including the US. Modern collectors are still rare but they outnumber many of the coins.

You and tens of millions of other collectors stepped out when clads were introduced. The mint and federal government hated coin collectors and did everything possible to discourage it. They didn't really need the date freezes and other contrivances because just debasing the currency was sufficient for most collectors. Millions got out and the ones who didn't had no interest in setting aside rolls of clad coinage. This is one of the things World colonial simply can't grasp. In his defense he believes that if there are more than a few hundred of a coin then it is "insignificant" and will never be collected and there are a lot more of most moderns than this. And to cap off this belief he also believes that varieties and high grade coins don't count even if they are scarce. I take no offence because I probably hated clad as much as anyone. It wasn't just how it wrecked collecting from change "forever" but the metal itself was junk and was supposed to keep the same date forever and not even a mintmark to tell them apart. I suppose it might be a small part of the reason I sold my buffalo nickel collection in 1968 but the principle reason was I needed the cash. I didn't return to collecting until the coins in circulation were starting to get interesting again in 1972 and I had read an article in the paper that said the FED was going to start rotating their coin stocks. Before this it was quite common to get rolls of clad all the way back to 1965 so there was no point in collecting moderns. Now there are hundreds of different issues in circulation (thousands if you count varieties) and most of them are actually tough in high grade because the FED keeps all the coins in circulation all the time and have for half a century next year. But there still aren't large numbers of BU rolls as WC continues to intimate. There are lots of moderns which are probably wholly non-existent in BU rolls because they are very scarce and there are so few rolls.

Certainly there are still 65 million 1969 quarters in circulation but most are culls and the rest are VG/ F.

What part of "virtually no original rolls" are you missing? This doesn't matter so much for '69 quarters but rolls of '71-D are fairly elusive as well and these are the only source for the type "h". I just don't understand why you believe all moderns are common except in high grade and why you consider condition scarcity to not matter. You are apparently wrong across the board or moderns wouldn't be doing so well.

And you still can't come up with an original roll of 1969 quarters in any condition at all. Most moderns were very lightly saved in BU rolls and the '69 25c is the posterchild. The coins were poorly made, ugly, and perceived to be extremely common so they were not saved. 1938-D nickels were saved.

This is true but highly misleading. Millions of '55-D dimes and '50-D nickels were saved in rolls but virtually no 1969 quarters at all. Very few moderns were saved except cents and most nickels.

Way cool! How do you differentiate between the the 1980 RDV-11's and 12's? I have noticed a lower relief but I've seen no pick up points. Are there any other pick up points than you list above? Is either tough? I might add that in almost every single case that only one of the reverses shows up in mint sets and since almost all clads originated in mint sets this means the other reverses will be very scarce in high grade no matter the mintage. The only exception that I know of is the 1981-P appears as the RDV-11 and type "d" in mint sets. About 1 in 175 mint sets has the type "d".

Many collectors who are interested in moderns think it's a numismatic sin to bust up mint and proof sets. Of course there also exists demand for each coin in these sets that has nothing to do with owners or potential owners of sets. There are other reasons that people avoid busting up sets such as some of them require skill or knowledge to open and a different set of skill to dispose of the unwanted coins in them. People generally aren't aware that there will be a few coins in these sets that EACH sell for more than the cost of the set. These factors lead to a massive wholesale market for singles. All through the modern age this market has existed and countless millions of sets have been destroyed to supply it. Many coins in these sets are substandard and can't be used by the wholesaler and most will wind up in circulation. Then to really complicate matters large percentages of the coins and sets are tarnishing. Coins like PR 1985 half dollars are often discolored. 1975 UNC dollars were substandard more than a thirds of the time and now the majority of the few survivors in mint sets are tarnished. This coin wholesales for $4 now and isn't often seen for sale. But you can buy a mint set containing the coin for $4. It's likely 60% of the old PR sets and 90% of the old mint sets are gone now. 20% of the proof coins surviving in sets are tarnished and 80% of (some date) mint sets are tarnished. Some people will also buy sets to simply acquire better coins. How many tarnished 1968 half dollars will someone look at in mint sets before he just buys one. It's a simple $5 coin so why run around looking?

The hobby is more vibrant than I've seen it since the first crash in 1964. There were actually two crashes for the coin market in the transition to clad. The first was the BU roll/ mint set/ proof set/ modern coin market in early 1964. This crash was severe but was mostly contained to speculative coins "investments" and was caused by the announcement that a transition to base metal was coming because of the coin shortage. The second was more drawn out and encompassed much more of the hobby. It was brutal, drawn out, and disheartening. It began with the announcement of the date freeze and worsened as new bad news came out culminating with the Bible Bill that would have outlawed all modern coin collecting. Modern coin collecting proved so uniquely unpopular that the bill was deemed unnecessary and then the mint spent two years unsuccessfully trying to get people to collect clads. The number of collectors simply began to shrink in 1964 and only returned to that level in ~2015 and now far surpasses even the number in 1963. The population hit it's lowest point in 1998 when states coins went into production. The funny thing about the future is no one sees it coming and don't even notice when it gets here since it comes in in tiny bounds and leaps. We don't notice changes until they accumulate. Well, the new collectors have accumulated. We shaped this future over the last twenty years by our posts and our actions. 13 year olds don't want to be mauled and they don't need condescension which is why they generally prefer to hang out with one another and they are scarcer here. The markets are going to continue to evolve to reflect the desires of those who are ACTIVE in them. Much of this activity will be net selling by older collectors and net buying by younger collectors. Nothing will prevent this because it is analogous to the tide coming in. Like most all of history there are patterns and cycles that are highly predictable even where details of the present are not always clear. The demand from new collectors is also highly predictable though the exact way it unfolds is to remain unknown and be caused by events that haven't happened yet. They will be acquiring more expensive coins and more will collect $6000 quarters. I believe the future is bright for all coins for at least the next quarter century. There will be ups and downs and unexpected twists but the demand from this generation and the next is likely to be more eclectic and widely based. Even the most obscure coins, tokens, and medals are likely to enjoy a market. Coins that are more popular (like US coins) will have very strong and spirited interest,. I would predict that these markets will develop over the next 20 years and those who are around to see it won't even see it coming because it's going to sneak up on them.

Many sites have the ability to respond to any specific post and then the thread is displayed as a tree when you open it up. This is difficult for some posters to get accustomed to but it's the best thing since sliced bread when it works. Sometimes it works less well or even poorly because seeing detail of the tree gets difficult as they grow longer and it won't help much against off topic posts. Interestingly few threads make it past five or six consecutive posts without branching. The software here is, no doubt, incompatible. I've always thought this would work well for most threads on coin sites.

The list is heavily weighted to living people. Big names of the past like RS Yeoman or John J Pittman are omitted. There are a few great writers and researchers who could be on it. Even a few people who post here and online (or did in the past) should be included. There are some interesting and well thought out selections as well as a few who might not be especially "influential".

Does this apply to copper? I don't see much '20's era copper even in BU.

Moderns are not popular. Clad is almost anti-popular: People run away if you bring up the subject. Good luck! Moderns are my favorite coins and clad quarters are my favorite modern. I'm told you can find a few collectors on facebook and the like but never checked it out. As an old fogie I just don't want to sign up.

"Yes, this is how you once told me that there is no "shortage" of coins where collectors will endlessly go down the "food chain" to buy what they can still afford. Supposedly, if collectors can't afford to buy what they do now or in the past, they will buy something with a much lower preference as a replacement." You've misunderstood. If a Indian cent collector can't afford an AU/ XF collection he might collect in VF rather than switch to Morgan dollars. Nobody is going to decide he can't afford BU clad quarters and switch to bust half dollars in low grade. Not many bust half collectors will switch to circulated zincolns but this will happen. "The only reason you hold this view is because you don't understand collector motivation at all." Every collector is different and every collector has unique motivation. If you can't understand this then you can never really understand a collection of people. The only real measure of understanding of anything is the ability to predict. It is irrelevant that the only thing that can't be predicted is the future because insights are possible. I would read Mark Salzberg's words very carefully because I believe he has some real insights and a keen understanding of current conditions.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the pricing of moderns and other coins I like. It has everything to do with the opportunity to collect great coins and learn about money, circulation, and the nature of real coins for little or no cost. Many people have the idea that coins which aren't worth hundreds or thousands of dollars are "not significant" as though that is sufficient reason to not collect them and not get started in the greatest hobby on earth. I believe the real "opportunity" with moderns are the fun and social contacts one might enjoy. It's simply irrelevant that if many people began enjoying these that prices would have to explode even more than they have. There are billions of coins in circulation and tens of millions that are scarce and getting scarcer every day. They are getting scarcer because few are collecting them or preventing their destruction and degradation. This isn't really of any concern to me either except to the degree that future collectors might be put off by the unavailability of the coins. I like all coins. I even like modern NCLT and old classic varieties in VF condition (or even lower). I don't know why a whole generation of collectors hate moderns except that they hate base metal. But younger collectors who are and will be taking over the hobby do not hate base metal at all. It simply remains to be seen if US and world collectors will find these popular. But the fact is the coins are fun to collect and in many countries they are already gaining enough interest to increase many fold.

There's no wishful thinking involved. Perhaps Mark Salzberg is merely ahead of the curve here.

I think people may be missing the fact that there are many perspectives of everything. Every dealer depends on the robust health of coin collecting but is only naturally going to see the passion of coin collecting from the perspective of opportunity and profit. I don't believe ANY collector is being pushed to the fringes and if mainstream collectors had embraced new coin collectors in 1999 rather than excluded them this wouldn't be an issue in all probability.

I'm a big fan of Finland and Finnish coins. I've never really collected them in an organized way so can't really help much except to say that I have the sense that most of these are very difficult in Unc or Gem or even in higher circulated grades. Some "seem" to even be difficult in typical condition but there are lots of typical coins in poundage for most of their series. This is an excellent choice for a collecting area since demand and supply are both low. You get first chance to acquire scarce coins at very favorable prices. A few of the post-1955 issues can be found in bulk and this especially applies to the low denomination coins but pristine and Gem specimens even among these can be quite scarce. Good luck. It's great to see you!

Most "existing collectors" see the regular parade of new quarter designs as gilding the pig. This has nothing to do with the concept or the designs and everything to do with the simple fact that they are "clad" and they are never going to collect clad coins. But there are millions of new collectors who started because they found these coins interesting, available, and many of them attractive. The hobby will be saved by these new mostly younger collectors despite efforts of "existing collectors". It really matters little whether any specific coin is made for commerce, to spur interest in collecting, or as a means to exchange bullion as money because in the long run collectors have always found all of these coins. Even in 1999 it was apparent a ten year program might be a little long for most people, but it was probably the change in the way the new coins were distributed and the extension of the series to include territories and DC that turned off the most people.

This is an exceedingly good site but the lack of traffic keeps people away. I've always figured it would eventually get a lot more posting.

The number of serious coin collectors Imploded between mid-'64 and mid-'65 and the number of casual collectors continued to implode in slow motion for five years as the old coins disappeared. The number of casual collectors continued to erode until the states quarters were begun. The velocity of coins in circulation has continued to drop in the last few years and more dimes are lost than worn out however the FED has apparently begun removing heavily worn clad finally. Old silver coins are often seen very heavily worn though in other countries they were sometimes circulated until they became unrecognizable.