what are the undervalued "sleeper" early commems??

[michael]

??

 

any thoughts?

 

michael

[BillJones]

I’d be very careful about labeling any of the early commemoratives as “underrated.” The reason is that fairly to very large numbers of these coins have survived from the original mintages. And at least for the later years, there are many choice and gem Mint State pieces available. Some big dealers have promoted these coins as “investments” and have manipulated the market for these coins in the past, much to the sorror of some collectors and investors. Just ask anyone who was buying these coins at the then current market prices in the late 1980s. Many of those guys lost their shirts.

 

Having said that I would say that there are two pieces, the Missouri half dollar and the Panama-Pacific, which are harder to find in attractive mint condition than some of the other issues. The Pan-Pac coins were struck will dull luster and lot of them have been dipped to make them look better. They often came out of dip looking worse.

 

A great many of the “plain” Missouri half dollars were sold at the state fair where farmers immediately jammed them into their pockets with other items and turned them into AUs almost instantly. The “2X4” variety was struck BEFORE the plan ones, and they were issued by a bank, which improved their chances for proper preservation. The fact that the dies were fresher also helped to improve the appearance of the 2X4 coins. For these reasons the 2X4 is about equally rare as the plain variety despite the fact that the net mintage for the plain pieces was four times as high.

 

This is NOT an endorsement of these coins as a great investment. It’s just some advice that as a collector, you will have a harder time finding nice Mint State examples of these coins than you will have for some other pieces in the early commemorative set.

 

[TomB]

Any coin with lots of eye appeal and is at least solid for the grade that is not considered a monster by the community.

[RobertB]

All of the following is MY often debated opinion on this subject:

 

My main collecting specialty and objectives lie in this very set, and as mentioned above I would not say any are underrated. I truly believe acquiring early commems as investments is a disaster waiting to happen. There are many mint state examples of just about all the early commems.

 

Rarity in this field usually comes down to adjectives. Such as white, toned, etc..... Some types are hard to find MS white, while others are damn near impossible to find toned.

 

My personal goal, as well as others, is a complete MS64/65 type set. I believe one completing a type set or complete set should be to whom these coins are best acquired. Or, for some personal signifigance, such as, you live in York County , Maine, so you get a York commem. Or, you like a few of the designs, commonly: Texas, Oregon Trail, Hawaii.

 

There is another option to this series which I believe is investment safe, with or without completing a set. This would to be to purchase each coin in the grade state just before the big price jump, such as the Lexinton-Concord half it goes from $100 at MS60, 125/MS63, 200/MS64, and then to a whopping 700 at MS65, (all retail prices). Therefore I would buy it at MS64. So many will be wanting an MS65, but could not afford it, like it myself, and therefore get the MS64. This will eventually drive up that price, ot at least keep it from going down. Please note this is my belief and not a guarantee. There are no financial guarantees any time, coins or otherwise.

 

Another note, I'd much rather have a 80 year old commem with a 25,000 mintage for 100 bucks in mint state than a modern commem half or dollar for 30-50$ with a mintage of 100,000 to 500,000.....except that beautiful Buffalo dollar we all have.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Just won this one. An example of my personal cost tier policy, (next level, MS65 is like 200-250).

http://apps.heritagecoin.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=23095&Lot_No=11928&sid=AA444F3044398690E3DAA078D58BCE44

[Cam41-migration]

Has anyone else heard that quote by Breen, about commems being `numismatic trash` ?. Ugh.

 

All I can say is, I guess everyone can`t be right all the time.

 

They like other coin issues will have their ups and downs but

for the long haul I think commems,especially early commems,

have a very bright future.

JMO

 

 

[EZ_E]

If Breen did make that statement, then it is important to know when he made it before one passes judgement.

 

David Hall, in his 1987 book A Mercenary's Guide to the Rare Coin Market , also made a similar statement. He flatly stated that they were a very poor investment.

 

In 1987, that was true. All modern commems up until that point depreciated greatly from the original mint issue price. They were a very bad investment at that time unless they were bought on the secondary market. The earlier issues still have not seen much appreciation since then.

 

One of my numismatic goals is to eventually own all modern silver dollar commems in the original gvt packaging vs. slabbed. I feel that they have tremendous potential for appreciation in the years to come.

 

Point is: if derogatory statement about commems were made in the eighties, then it was probably an accurate accessment at that time. IMO

[ArtR]

David Hall, in his 1987 book A Mercenary's Guide to the Rare Coin Market , also made a similar statement. He flatly stated that they were a very poor investment.

 

He also said in this time frame that any Morgan Dollar in MS65 was a good investment!!!!!!

 

So much for predictions.

 

 

[BillJones]

Has anyone else heard that quote by Breen, about commems being `numismatic trash` ?. Ugh.

 

Breen did label some commemoratives as "collector trash" in his work, “United States Half Dimes: A Supplement.” At the time, 1958, some of those coins were indeed "trash" in the eyes of many collectors.

 

The most recent coins Breen had in mind were the Booker T. Washington and Washington-Carver half dollars. Commemorating the achievements of Black Americans was laudable at a time when racism was an accepted government policy (mid ‘40s to the mid ‘50s) BUT the promoters who were selling and benefiting from the sale of these coins were ripping collectors off. There was no justification for continuing to issue these coins with new dates and mint marks year after year after year. Finally Congress had had enough of it, and they ended the commemorative coin programs for a period of 28 years (1954 to 1982).

 

There were other “old” commemoratives that fell into the “trashy” category if one could not call the coins themselves “trash.” These included the Arkansas, Boone, Oregon Trail and Texas commemoratives, which were issued for no good reason other than greed for many years. During this period, favored dealers or groups would get their hands on the new coins and change high prices for them by controlling the market. The situation was not unlike that of modern commemoratives that the government has sold at premium prices only to have them sell for far less in the secondary market for many years. The difference back then was that the profits went into private hands, not a cause or charity.

 

And, yes, there are the Cincinnati commemorative half dollars, which are still trash IMO. Those coins commemorated NOTHING except the greed of a collector named Thomas Mellish. There was no event, no celebration or anniversary of an event that this half dollar COULD commemorate. Mellish got control of the entire mintage and sold the coins at premium prices for his own benefit. I own a Cincinnati because it fills the hole in my 50 piece type set, but I have little respect for that coin. It should never have been struck.

 

A commemorative should be issued to coincide with a major current event or to mark a notable person or anniversary. It should also be distributed fairly to interested collectors and others at what could be called “fair” prices, not monopoly prices. Private citizens and corporations should not be allowed to acquire a controlling interest in the coins from the government at cheep prices and then be able to charge monopoly prices for them. AND the coins should be issued for a specific period of time or a limited mintage and then NEVER be minted again. It is for those reasons that Breen and others called some commemoratives “trash” with justification IMO.

 

[braddick]

Well "trash" is paper waste and coins are made of metal so I'm confused too.

 

('Garbage' is food waste so that wouldn't work either. How about simply "junk"? Breen could have used 'junk' and made sense.)

[BillJones]

 

Split hairs if you like, but Breen's point was valid.

[291fifth]

I recently started collecting commemoratives, both early and modern, because there are so many interesting design types. My goal for the early half dollars is to put together a type set of ORIGINAL coins in MS64-66 with all of the coins slabbed by NGC, PCGS or ANACS. As types, only a few can be considered scarce. When originality is factored in the hunt becomes much more challenging. A very high percentage of these coins have been cleaned or over-dipped.

[C.Urch]

I don't know about undervalued but I recently sold my #6 Modern Commemorative Registry Set and am assembling a Classic Commemorative Set in album form. I'm buying low grade MS coins (slabbed PCGS, NGC or ANACS) MS60 to 64 and cracking them into the album. I'm having a great time doing so! I have a whole bunch of Modern Commemoratives still laying around in their government packaging which I will get around to putting in albums also. Great fun!!!