How do you view "key dates"?

[shirohniichan]

I was looking through one of my collections the other day and pondered how the one key date was worth as much as the rest of the 54 coins combined.

 

It all seemed very odd to me. The key date wasn't noticeably nicer than the others, and it lacked the "wow factor" I figured its relative cost should bring. I'm not a big fan of micrograding, but I love great eye-appeal. A coin with great eye-appeal does a lot more for me than a decent key date.

 

Do key dates inspire awe in you, or are they just "one of the boys"?

[bsshog40]

Some do, some don't.

[toyonakataro]

I somehow agree with you.

I have some common dates in GEM and a few semi-key dates in low MS.

Those semi-key dates cost me more than common dates and yet I look at common dates more often than semi-keys because of the eye appeal.

[moovyz]

I totally agree with you. I would much rather own an MS66 blazer than a VG Ket date that costs 5 times as much or more. As a general rule, I don't care for circulated coins at all. There are a few early XF-AU with original luster that I think are very pretty. But key date, lower grade coins just don't do it for me. Condition is everything and that relates to eye appeal. But that's just my HO.

[pendragon1998]

I view keys as a PITA

[Just Bob]

When trying to complete a set, as I am, the keys and semi-keys are, unfortunately, a fact of life, and if I want every coin in the series, I have to pay the price. Do they inspire awe? No, not really, but I am proud when I am able to acquire them - even if I do have to settle for a lower grade (at least until I can afford an upgrade).

To change the topic slightly: what really bothers me is "condition rarity". When one grade point can mean a ten-fold or greater increase in price, it really makes it tough to acquire the

coins that I would really like to own. I could rant and place the blame on TPGs, greedy dealers, census counts or Registry sets, but I have enough sense to know that these are not really to blame. It's simply the way of the free market - as long as there are people willing to pay whatever it takes, prices will reflect that demand. (I don't have to like it, though).

[Doogy]

I see the keys as rather boring, personally. Unless you want to spend a boatload of money for high-grade keys, and some do, many collectors have to make due with slabbed keys that are not all that pretty to look at. Couple that with the fact that the major TPGs love the 'net grade' the keys with slight problems like a wipe/cleaning just to get them into their census reports, and the collector is not getting a good deal IMHO. I'd really rather have some nice looking and fairly graded semi-keys or even really nice common dates than some crappy looking key date like the '16-D Mercurys that are commonly seen beat to , or the '93-S Morgans that look like they were run over by a passing westbound Wells Fargo stagecoach.

 

 

[MikeInFL]

In many cases, as overblown.

 

Just because a coin is rare compared to its typemates (i.e. a key date), that doesn't make it rare. However, it obviously makes it more in-demand and thus higher priced.

 

Key dates that are also truly rare are the ones that are of particular interest to me, unfortunately most are out of my reach as a collector.

 

It is worth noting that I haven't always felt this way...Mike

[michael]

How do you view "key dates"?

 

if the key date is a truly scarce to rare value opportunity coin with grest eye appeal and historical with some sexiness then i am all for it

 

especially so in series like

colonial coinage,

territorial gold coinage,

early 18th-19th century type--- silver and gold where many/all of the dates might truly be "key :cloud9:dates"

19th century type

great eye appealling larger superb gem proof silver 19th century type coins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jackson64]

let me think....30 high grade common date coins each valued at around $100...or...10 very nice MS63- $300 coins....or a 1916-D mercury (which isn't even rare) in beat up and worn F12 for $3000 ?...I guess you know where I stand..quality and quantity beat pseudo-rarities for me any day

[construct]

Some keys are nice and some keys aren't. 1931-S cents usually look pretty nice. (Is that a key?) 1885 nickels usually don't. (None of the coins I'm proudest to own are keys. I guess that tells you how I feel about keys.)

[PerryHall]

I view keys as being overhyped and overpriced.

[James_OldeTowne]

I was looking through one of my collections the other day and pondered how the one key date was worth as much as the rest of the 54 coins combined.

 

It all seemed very odd to me. The key date wasn't noticeably nicer than the others, and it lacked the "wow factor" I figured its relative cost should bring.

 

That's probably about as good a definition of "key date" as I've ever seen. A single coin so disproportionately valuable to that extent certainly must be a "key", whereas the term is overused and diluted most of the time. For example, a coin such as the 1899 Morgan is often called a "key". It's a bit more expensive, but by no means the the extent you've described.

 

Therefore, I'd have to say that true "key dates" do inspire awe in me. I'm missing a few, such as 1802 half-dime, 1794 dollar, 1901-S quarter - you get the picture!

[MTHead-migration]

Just a part of collecting a complete set of coins. The empty holes for the 1909S VDB and 1914D Lincolns are still there in my albums; the coins still in their slabs. The set is complete; just not together.

[rrantique]

High grade keys are just a dream for most collectors. Just give me a bunch of the "good ole common daters and i am happy".

[Dcoin]

I look at them as anticlimactic…

 

you pay all this $$ and it’s the one coin that stands out for all the wrong reasons. I usually take comfort in the fact that it’s the one coin that will go up in value over the long haul.

[jesbroken]

I think that key date coins(due to mintage numbers) are overblown in pricing as seldom was the majority of them placed into circulation. As soon as the mintage numbers appeared they were garnered and saved/sold, etc. If you go to Ebay today you will find 52 examples of the 1916D Mercury Dime, yet only 12 examples of the 1917D dime. 31 examples of the 1909 S VDB lincoln cent, yet less than 30 examples of the 1923 and 1924 S lincoln cent. This seems odd to me. I would have thought the common dates would have been available 10 to 1 over the key dates. To complete a set one must have the key date, and I do buy them at my convenience, that is why they are always last to be filled in my collections. I buy them on my terms or not at all. Takes a long time, but I'm happier about it. JMO

[Just Bob]

I think that key date coins(due to mintage numbers) are overblown in pricing as seldom was the majority of them placed into circulation. As soon as the mintage numbers appeared they were garnered and saved/sold, etc. If you go to Ebay today you will find 52 examples of the 1916D Mercury Dime, yet only 12 examples of the 1917D dime. 31 examples of the 1909 S VDB lincoln cent, yet less than 30 examples of the 1923 and 1924 S lincoln cent. This seems odd to me. I would have thought the common dates would have been available 10 to 1 over the key dates. To complete a set one must have the key date, and I do buy them at my convenience, that is why they are always last to be filled in my collections. I buy them on my terms or not at all. Takes a long time, but I'm happier about it. JMO

 

You have hit on something that I have noticed as well. I keep up with auction prices from several sources for the Roosevelt set that I am working on now. For the 1982-noP, considered a "key", I show 15 appearances at auction since mid-2006. For the 1982 with P, only 1, and for the 1982-D, zero. (I should mention that these are all slabbed coins - I don't keep up with raw ones.)

Go figure

 

[construct]

I think that key date coins(due to mintage numbers) are overblown in pricing as seldom was the majority of them placed into circulation. As soon as the mintage numbers appeared they were garnered and saved/sold, etc.

 

This is true for some of the keys, particularly recent low mintage coins like the 1931-S cent, the 1938-D half, and the 1950-D nickel. It is not true for the 1916-D dime.

 

One reason you don't see so many circulated common date Lincolns and Mercs at auction is that they are priced so low that auctioning is not worthwhile. If you're going to buy these individually, you almost have to buy them in person.

 

Another reason you see so many 09-S VDBs, 14-Ds, and 16-Ds is that all three dates are heavily faked. There are probably more 1916-Ds in existence today than there were in 1917!

 

I agree that the prices for keys have risen disproportionately, but keys are not as common as they might seem from comparing auction appearances of keys with commons.

[BillJones]

I view keys as being overhyped and overpriced.

 

Yes, I agree with that. There are a bunch of collectors and speculators who buy nothing but key date coins and varieites. They don't even bother with the rest of the coins in a given set. Some of the stuff they chase, like the 1937-D three legged Buffalo nickel, 1909-S-VDB cent and low grade 1916-D Mercury dimes are not all that scare, but they have driven the prices way up in recent years.

 

People laugh at me because I'm a type collector, but at least the "key dates" in my collection (e.g. most everything early) have some real scarcity. Given the way the market is for "key date" coins I'm glad my only interest in them is for resale to collectors. The game of collecting them is just too expensive for me, and I've spent 5 figures for a few coins this year.

[moovyz]

"I think that key date coins(due to mintage numbers) are overblown in pricing as seldom was the majority of them placed into circulation. As soon as the mintage numbers appeared they were garnered and saved/sold, etc. If you go to Ebay today you will find 52 examples of the 1916D Mercury Dime, yet only 12 examples of the 1917D dime. 31 examples of the 1909 S VDB lincoln cent, yet less than 30 examples of the 1923 and 1924 S lincoln cent. This seems odd to me. I would have thought the common dates would have been available 10 to 1 over the key dates. To complete a set one must have the key date, and I do buy them at my convenience, that is why they are always last to be filled in my collections. I buy them on my terms or not at all. Takes a long time, but I'm happier about it. JMO "

 

 

Great response! I've noticed that same thing as well. You seem to have no trouble finding "key" dates, just affording them. I also would like to add that I worry a great deal about the "value" of key dates. If we really ever have a hard recession or worse yet, a depression, I don't think these coins will hold their relative value. 200 ounces of silver looks more appealing to me than a $3,000 single coin, especially if not silver or gold!

[Arizonadesertrat]

When (not if) the next downturn in the coin market occurs, prices of everything will fall (if what happened in the past repeats itself). The better coins will disappear at low price levels (because sellers will simply hold onto them), however, leaving common ones for collectors to purchase. When the last crash occurred, it affected just about everything, including key dates and supergrade coins. However, the better coins came back faster than common ones. Look at the market today---generic Morgan dollars haven't really recovered, neither have other types of common coins (late-date Mercury dimes, late-date Buffalo nickels, common classic silver commemoratives, etc.). There is a reason to buy keys first, if your finances permit this---keys/semi-keys tend to ratchet up in value faster than common coins.

[physics-fan3.14]

If it's not a series that I collect or am familiar with, I don't even know a key date from a regular one. Thus, they don't impress me. However, if I am familiar with the series, I am usually impressed by the key dates, if they are something truly rare or special. Such as a well struck 1953-S Franklin - if I see one of those, I know it is something really rare and special, and I am impressed by it. If I see a 1955 double die Lincoln, I think it's kind of cool because it's worth alot and its a major error and there is so much hype about it, but I really don't see why. I have no interest in it at all.

[moovyz]

Another thing about key dates that never made sense to me...

 

In many cases, the rare key dates command huge prices because they are low mintages relative to others in the series. Yet the proofs are usually far, far lower mintages at lesser prices.

 

Look at a 1909-S Indian Cent... commands ultra high prices, especially in MS with a mintage of 309,000. Yet you can buy a Proof example of this series for far less and most of the mintages are less than 3,000. I know that there are still far more than 3,000 1909-S out there. Makes little sense.

[BillJones]

Some collectors don't like Proof coins. They much prefer the business strikes that were made for circulation. To them a Proof coin is like a medal. Business strike coins are the “plebeians” that were used in the economic trenches and therefore more desirable to some.

 

Comparing the total mintage of business strike coins to the Proof coins is not valid. The real comparison should be between the surviving business strike coins, perhaps limited the surviving Mint State coins, and the surviving Proof coins to make it fair. In that case the differences are narrowed considerably. In almost all cases the survival rates from Proof coins are far higher than they are for business strike pieces. This is especially true in the Mint State grades.

 

Still I agree with you that some business strike coins seem to be overpriced when their values are compared with Proof coins. Sometimes the Proof coins look bargains to me.

 

In recent years I’ve been going against the grain and have purchased Proof coins instead of Mint State pieces when the Proofs were available at reasonable prices. I like the fact that Proof coins with their bright surfaces and sharp detail showcase the artwork of the various types to their best advantage.

 

[MikeKing]

I can't stand key dates, primarily because I cannot afford them, the one's I'm interested in being totally over-priced. On the other hand, they're kind of intriguing.

 

Take the 1815 Bust Half. You see them all the time. How scarce can they be? But they cost an arm an a leg. I think mine is XF40 or something like that. Could I afford more? Not really. Not even that one! There are plenty of Busties that are far scarcer, in my opinion, a lot less available, and much less costly. I guess that's the beauty of collecting Bust Halves!

 

Perhaps the 'key dates' can put the rest of your collection into perspective, such as the one I mentioned.

 

 

[shirohniichan]

People laugh at me because I'm a type collector, but at least the "key dates" in my collection (e.g. most everything early) have some real scarcity.

 

While I do have some date sets, I am a type set collector at heart. I do get a special "WOW" from key types, even in lower grades. Having a 1794 half dime, 1796 quarter, chain cent, etc. would give me a thrill, even if they were in the "low grade" of G or VG (espcially TomB's 1796 quarter ). There's something exciting to me about having such a coin rather than a common coin in an uncommon grade.

[michael]

 

While I do have some date sets, I am a type set collector at heart. I do get a special "WOW" from key types, even in lower grades. Having a 1794 half dime, 1796 quarter, chain cent, etc. would give me a thrill, even if they were in the "low grade" of G or VG (espcially TomB's 1796 quarter ). There's something exciting to me about having such a coin rather than a common coin in an uncommon grade.

 

 

(thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u

 

 

[IGWT]

How do you view "key dates"?

With a loupe and a 60-watt bulb.

[shirohniichan]

Some collectors don't like Proof coins. They much prefer the business strikes that were made for circulation. To them a Proof coin is like a medal. Business strike coins are the “plebeians” that were used in the economic trenches and therefore more desirable to some.

 

I guess I'm one of those adherents to "people's coins" (although I didn't realize I had a communist streak in me). I like circulation strikes because they were actually used as money. NCLT coins just don't hold that interest for me.

 

HOWEVER, I am indeed interested in circulated proofs. I'm not talking about Stellas that were kept as pocket pieces, I'm thinking more along the lines of 19th century proofs released into circulation. For this reason I can see the draw of a circulated 1856 Flying Eagle, for example. I still kick myself for not bidding on a circulated 1877 double dime in a Bowers & Merena auction a few years back.