Trimes : Undervalued?

[noow]

Trimes- A series of low mintages, also the smallest federal silver coin. But are these coins undervalued? I think so. Let's take the last date of the MS trimes, the 1872. It has a mintage of 1,000, and a value of $385 in G-4 condition. Then compare that to the 1916-D mercury dime. It has a mintage of $264,000, and has a price of $1,000. A coin 250X more common also costs 2.7X more. Also, many trimes were melted, and only a small number of surivors could be saved. Explination? Thoughts?

 

So why do you think trimes, which are so rare in some dates, cost fractions of much more common coins?

 

 

[Bugmann1974]

Just as in series such as classic commems, you have to take demand into consideration.

[MarkFeld]

Just as in series such as classic commems, you have to take demand into consideration.

 

Yes, supply is only part of the equation. And the fact is, that due in large part to their small size, Trimes don't garner much demand. On the other hand, a number of "key date" coins aren't especially rare, but enjoy very strong demand, so sell for relatively high prices.

 

High Relief's are often readily available, yet sell for high prices, due to strong demand. That, no doubt, is based on the beauty of their design.

[messydesk]

Of those collectors that are looking for a nice trime, I would venture to guess most are looking for one for a type set, a few are looking for one of each subtype, and the guy putting together a date set may or may not have shown up that day.

 

I suspect that had they used the Seated Liberty design, they'd be more popular than they are, but still less popular than half dimes, due to their size.

[RGT]

I suspect that had they used the Seated Liberty design, they'd be more popular than they are, but still less popular than half dimes, due to their size.

 

I seem to like the oddball stuff that others don't. I collect both trimes and half dimes, as well as two cent pieces. I think part of the reason they appeal to me is that they are different but also that they are affordable. Few other classic series are available with similar price to rarity ratios.

 

When I first started buying trimes it was for type and I could get a type I or type III in MS64 in the $250 range. I became attracted to them and started buying more. Now similar MS64 coins are more in the $350 - $400 range. I have also gotten more picky about strike since these can be found with good details if you search.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Lack of Demand does not mean they are not undervalued.

 

Yes, they are.

 

Respectfully, John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

Lack of Demand does not mean they are not undervalued.

 

Yes, they are.

 

Respectfully, John Curlis

 

John, you are of course, correct, in stating that lack of demand does not mean they are not undervalued. However, the original post appeared to be focusing on the relatively low supply, while ignoring the issue of low demand. So, some of us thought the (low demand) subject should be raised.

 

But, (and there is sometimes a "but"), upon what do you base your "yes, they are" (undervalued)?

[World Colonial]

The correct response to your question is another question, undervalued relative to what else?

 

In the example you used, yes it is undervalued relative to the 1916-D dime. But then, based upon its availability and price, the 1916-D dime is one of the most overpriced coins in the world. It just happens to also be one of the most popular which is why it is so expensive. It is a "key" date from what I term a "perenial collector favorite" series.

 

At $385, I consider a G-4 to be an inferior value to the $8050 which was paid for two MS-66 sold by Heritage. Normally as a :"conditional" rarity, this is not true but the price distribution among scarcer coins like this one is very similar to others. Another example is the 1878-S half dollar which sells for a little over $30,000 in VG-8 while a PCGS MS-64 sold for $184,000. (This is over the last few years also on Heritage.)

 

In making these comparisons, I am attempting to consider how most collectors would be to choose between various alternatives given the relative numismatic merits. This is a big factor in how I buy my coins but to my knowledge, is not how most others do so.

[noow]

It seems like the most chosen choice so far is "Less collectors" - lower demand.

I used a G-4 specimen as an example (as opposed to a gem) because it would be understandable that the 1916-D Merc is a conditional rarity.

[BillJones]

The demand factor is FAR MORE important than supply. If very few collectors want something there is not much pressure to push up the price.

 

The thing about trimes is that there are many collectors who won’t touch them because they are too small, and another group who will buy them only if they are “cheap.” This keeps the prices down.

 

BTW I doubt that there are few if any 1872 trimes in Good-4. Very few, if any of those coins ever reached circulation. The price listing that appear in many of the popular guides, including the Red Book, are theoretical at best. Sometimes they list prices for coin in grades that do not exist.

 

[coinman_23885]

I agree with demand being the largest factor in the depressed pricing (compared to other series and denominations)...Now if trime collectors could only convince Congress to revive the series and draw increased attention to the older coins, then we would be in business. Too bad this will never happen.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Lack of Demand does not mean they are not undervalued.

 

Yes, they are.

 

Respectfully, John Curlis

 

John, you are of course, correct, in stating that lack of demand does not mean they are not undervalued. However, the original post appeared to be focusing on the relatively low supply, while ignoring the issue of low demand. So, some of us thought the (low demand) subject should be raised.

 

But, (and there is sometimes a "but"), upon what do you base your "yes, they are" (undervalued)?

 

Hi Mark,

 

I had missed your question, until someone emailed me, with the same question.

I apologize.

 

Your question is an excellent "peer" Review request.

 

My answer is somewhat actuarial, and is something I have done over the years when I wanted to reach a logical (to me) conclusion about a series of coins, as opposed to a certain date, mint mark, Grade, etc.

 

For all denominations minted from 1851-1873, we have the following quantities, inclusive of Proofs:

 

Large Cent: 30,428,926

 

Flying Eagle Cent: 42,052,000

 

Small Cents: Frankly, off the Charts-well in excess of 100,000,000.

 

3cs: 23,982,350

 

3cn: 28,935,060

 

Shield 5c: 106,850,435

 

1/2d: 64,519,661

 

Dimes: 57,006,021

 

Quarters: 73,658,852

 

1/2 $.: 74,142,741

 

SL $: 5,568,687

 

3cs ranks 2nd in total #s available.While not earthshaking, it is a very interesting exercise, and becomes more so, when the highest mintage year is deducted from each denomination total, and ranked, lowest to highest available:

 

1) SL $: 4,363,187

 

2) 3cs: 5,318,850

 

3) 3cn: 17,553,060

 

4) FE C: 17452,000

 

5) Large C: 20,539,219

 

6) Dimes: 44,928,011

 

7) SL 1/2D: 51,309,641

 

8) Quarters: 58,448,832

 

9) 1/2 $: 66,848,741

 

10) Shield 5c: 77,959,935

 

11) Small c: OTC

 

This type of analysis has always served me personally well, is logical, eliminates consideration of factors such as surviving pieces quesses, likes, dislikes, pretty or not pretty, etc.

 

I always buy 3cs. when I find pieces that are collectible, without regard to Grade. Frankly, I hope they stay low priced.

 

Certainly, in relation to all its brothers and sisters, the 3cs is undervalued as a collectible, by simple ORIGINAL availability #s.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

PS: The Typist rejects all claims and attacks for typos/arithmetic errors-yes, arithmetic, not math.

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Thanks John. I was quite confident that you had logical reasons for having made your "yes they are" comment.

[mailman1959]

I think most coins are UNDERVALUED when selling and OVERVALUED when buying.........

[physics-fan3.14]

This type of analysis has always served me personally well, is logical, eliminates consideration of factors such as surviving pieces quesses, likes, dislikes, pretty or not pretty, etc.

 

I always buy 3cs. when I find pieces that are collectible, without regard to Grade. Frankly, I hope they stay low priced.

 

Certainly, in relation to all its brothers and sisters, the 3cs is undervalued as a collectible, by simple ORIGINAL availability #s.

 

 

While I appreciate your arithmetic agility, the concept of value is defined by supply and demand. Your chart only accounts for supply. With no demand, you could have a hundred or a million widgets but they would be worthless. I would argue that the 3cs is neither overvalued nor undervalued, but priced exactly where the market determines they should be. Now, whether or not you think they should be higher or lower priced is another matter entirely.

[noow]

This is my definition of undervalued-

 

Undervalued: When a coin is valued lower compared to all other coins which seem to be rarer than the price shows.

 

"Undervalued" is basically a comparison in which a coin or series of coins seem to be valued lower than it should be judging by the values of coins other series. Technically, all prices for coins are "fair", but some just seem cheaper than others. In the case of trimes, the big influence on the value seems to be demand.

[World Colonial]

Since there is no absolute value for anything, the value of a coin (or anything) can only be compared to other coins. And yes, relative valuation must consider both supply and demand for the reason Physics gave.

 

The way I assess relative valuation is by using the attributes or factors that I believe are most important to collectors generally. I then make a subjective assessment using a combination of these attributes for one coin versus another considering their prices. This is how I determine, relative numismatic value which may or may not be different than future economic potential.

 

Like everyone else, I have my (subjective) preferences but I try to make the determination based upon what I believe most other collectors would prefer, especially those who DO NOT collect the coins being compared because those who do are likely to have greater bias than those who do not. (The popularity of the coin or series is one consideration I use, but I do not consider it more important than all others.)

 

I consider this as reasonable a criteria as any, though of course many collectors will have a different opinion. My opinion is that generally, the coins that are the most popular are frequently or usually the most overpriced given their numismatic merits.

 

By the standards of most collectors, the 3CS is not considered a particularly appealing series which is why it sells for less or much less and therefore, is "undervalued".

[shirohniichan]

I'll add my voice to the chorus that they are not undervalued.

 

When collecting any series of coin, you have to keep demand in mind. If scarcity were the main driver of price, then the British Honduras and Newfoundland silver I bought for my shilling equivalent collection would have been priced far higher than they were. The former has few survivors in any grade, while the latter has few mint state survivors. Even so, they are priced at a small fraction of easily available coins, such as the 1909-S Lincoln cents (VDB or no).

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

This type of analysis has always served me personally well, is logical, eliminates consideration of factors such as surviving pieces quesses, likes, dislikes, pretty or not pretty, etc.

 

I always buy 3cs. when I find pieces that are collectible, without regard to Grade. Frankly, I hope they stay low priced.

 

Certainly, in relation to all its brothers and sisters, the 3cs is undervalued as a collectible, by simple ORIGINAL availability #s.

 

 

While I appreciate your arithmetic agility, the concept of value is defined by supply and demand. Your chart only accounts for supply. With no demand, you could have a hundred or a million widgets but they would be worthless. I would argue that the 3cs is neither overvalued nor undervalued, but priced exactly where the market determines they should be. Now, whether or not you think they should be higher or lower priced is another matter entirely.

 

 

Thank You very much for your thoughts

 

They are no less valid than mine.

 

But (there is always a "but"), the Logic Posit is that lack of Demand does not mean a coin is not undervalued (relative to its cousins/brothers/sisters).

 

A posit flaw COULD be proffered, IF all unequal conditions were not removed from the equation.

 

The basis of the position is not supply and demand, but original availability.

 

Value is subjective. Value is also intrinsic worth.

 

Market Force is not argued-equality is.

 

I also appreciate your recognition of the arithmetic; however Arithmetic was used because no symbols were used to imply Math, which I am not really capable of understanding.

 

Is it possible that the true "value" lies in awareness?

 

Thank You for giving me the opportunity to think a little more about this.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[physics-fan3.14]

The basis of the position is not supply and demand, but original availability.

 

Value is subjective. Value is also intrinsic worth.

 

Market Force is not argued-equality is.

 

Original availability has absolutely nothing to do with value. 2 million Kennedy's were minted in 2006. 22 million Morgan dollars were minted in 1889. Yet one is far more expensive than the other - because demand is higher.

 

Same goes for the 3cs.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thank You.

 

We have a fundamental disagreement, based in part on the fact that I am proofing my logic posit based on a completely different concept than your equally valid position.

 

 

Original availability is in fact the basis of my position and has everything to do with my position. My position is not one of supply and demand.

 

It is indeed possible, even probable, that we are both correct relative to our individual positions.

 

While your example has validity, it is not for a same single year, is not the same series of years(s), i.e. the example used has 2 coins 100+ years apart, and your position is based on only a part of my posits-the posits that are directly in support of your thoughts, but are not supportive of a Demand position.

 

Respectfully, (always)

John Curlis

 

[BillJones]

The original mintage figures are mainly of historical interest. The far more important statistic is the number of coins that have survived from the original mintage.

 

One example is the Reduced Size Capped Bust $5 gold which was minted from 1829 to 1834. The mintage figures were actually pretty strong for pre 1834 gold coins running at well in excess of 100,000 coins a number of years. Yet for each year the number of survivors falls in the less than 100 coin category. Why? Almost the entire mintage was exported to Europe where the coins were melted in droves.

 

That small number of survivors next comes up against ownership. Many examples are in the collections that are owned by those with “strong hands.” These collectors are not looking to sell any time soon and are financially strong enough not to need the money. Therefore supply curve is quite steep.

 

Conversely the demand curve is limited to a few nuts, such as I, who are looking to complete type sets or a tiny number of even more dedicated collectors who are forming date and even variety sets. Many collectors are not even aware that this type exists. Hence the prices are high, but they would be much higher if there were collector interest equal to a much more common coin, like the 1856 Flying Eagle cent or the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter.

 

Here is my example of this coin. My piece, which is an 1834 plain 4, is perhaps the most common variety in the set. The estimated number of survivors is 35 to 40 pieces.