This will be right up Roger's alley and possibly others as well

[wdrob]

I am going to focus on two specific coins in the Liberty Seated Quarter series, both of the same year, yet different mint marks.

 

1847 is the year, and the two mint productions is question, of course are Philadelphia, and New Orleans.

 

The stated mintage are as follows:

 

Philadelphia - 734,000

New Orleans - 366,000

 

Now the census data. (combined total of NGC and PCGS)

 

Philadelphia total graded: 157 out of which only 60 were in UNC grades

New Orleans total graded: 116 out of which only 10 (questionable crossing) were in UNC grades.

 

So the New Orleans minted coin is a R-7 in UNC and the Philadelphia minted coin is actually a R-4

 

In 1991 (23 years ago mind you) Briggs assigned a R-6 rating on the 1847-P in UNC condition therefore now being commonly referred to as a conditional rarity from the Philadelphia mint. It would seem as though 23 years had reduced that rating in the UNC grades to an R-4. The New Orleans remains at the same R-7 in UNC.

 

The New Orleans branch only churned out roughly half the reported number of Philadelphia yet combined they delivered 1.1 million coins. Why there are not more in UNC condition has more to do with the booming economic times, relative to the previous Panic of 1837 and the subsequent years of hoarding coins and hard economic times which forced the introduction of 'Hard Times Tokens' to cover the shortage of money. By 1846 the country had recovered and one could say business was booming. Hence there was little or no need to hoard the silver.

 

Now I get to point in which clarification, other than skewed census reports by crossovers, is needed. By looking at what census data is available here and ATS, it would seem that the 1847-O and the 1847-P both share the same overall rarity rating of R-4 and I have to wonder why when the Philadelphia mint produced twice as many coins?

 

I ask these questions in the context of what I think may be a perceived or a possibly exaggerated higher rarity rating on the New Orleans minted coin, in all conditions, since I routinely see people forking over big bucks for a VG08 or F12 New Orleans mint coin even while being in a details holder.

 

 

So what y'all got?

 

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Change the date in the second sentence to 1847....you are causing a numismatic trivia implode event...

[KeyMan64]

Change the date in the second sentence to 1847....you are causing a numismatic trivia implode event...

+1 ...and later in the post 1946 is mentioned.

 

Besides that, good post. It will be interesting to see what others might share.

[wdrob]

 

That 9 is just positioned so oddly next to the 8.....it happens all the time.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

That 9 is just positioned so oddly next to the 8.....it happens all the time.

 

 

Yes, it happened in 1847..

But by 1946 things starting falling in place, and 1947 went well, century anniversary speaking...

[brg5658]

The fallacy is the assumption that all coins in UNC are graded by NGC or PCGS. You have accounted for at most 273 of the 1.1 million coins minted that year. Granted, many are likely lost or heavily worn -- but I'm not convinced that only the 273 coins graded by the top 2 TPGs are representative of the examples that survive.

 

For clarification of discussion, can you please define the limits of the rarity scale you are using in your R-4, R-6, and R-7. I know of at least 3-4 different rarity scales floating around, and an R-4 in one isn't equivalent to an R-4 in another. For example, the Fuld Rarity scale used for civil war tokens is:

 

 

For comparison, PCGS uses an "in house" rarity scale for their rating...that is VERY different from the Fuld scale:

 

 

Interesting topic...

[wdrob]

Sure.

 

I was using essentially the Sheldon Scale since that is what Coin Explorer references here seems to rely on, or at least Bowers reference to the rarity of a given coin seems to be in line with the Sheldon Scale.

 

R1: Over 2000 estimated (common)

R2: 601 – 2000 estimated (somewhat common)

R3: 201 – 600 estimated (somewhat scarce)

R4: 76 – 200 estimated (scarce)

R5: 31 – 75 estimated (quite scarce)

R6: 13 – 30 estimated (somewhat rare)

R7: 4 – 12 estimated (rare)

R8: 2 – 3 estimated (nearly unique)

R9: 1 estimated (unique)

 

 

I agree, and duly noted that I was only taking a census from the two major TPG's and, in that use of exclusion, the numbers are bound to be skewed yet I think it is representative enough to question the actual rarity of the 1847-O.

 

I see the vast differences in the rarity scales that you posted as compared to the Sheldon I used, however I believe this was the scale that Briggs was using in 1991 when he assigned a R-6 rating to UNC grades in the 1847-P.

 

I routinely check eBay, DLRC, GC, Heritage, and wherever else I can think of looking for good examples of the 1847-P and they are just not around to be so abundant. The majority of what I see come up for auction is in fact details graded coins.

 

Now I routinely see as well, the 1847-O in auctions for nearly $1k on up for less than a XF. I think the realized auction figures reinforce this theory as well.

 

 

 

I will add the numbers I found as well since my math is equivalent to that of a 3rd grade graduate.

 

 

 

 

[yonico]

 

Now I get to point in which clarification, other than skewed census reports by crossovers, is needed. By looking at what census data is available here and ATS, it would seem that the 1847-O and the 1847-P both share the same overall rarity rating of R-4 and I have to wonder why when the Philadelphia mint produced twice as many coins.

 

 

i would think the rarity rating would be determined mainly by estimating the number of coins survived (in a certain grade), not by how many were produced..

 

for example, if you look at mintage numbers for morgan dollars, 350,000 1889-CC dollars were minted (PCGS calls it R9.6 in MS65 or better), when there were only

238,000 1885-CC but still it is (R-2.8) in MS65 or bette

296,000 1881-CC and it is (R-2.7) in MS65 or better

 

 

[wdrob]

 

 

Estimation of actual production numbers is beyond the scope since I have to have a baseline. There are printed records of production numbers, and I believe unless Roger or someone else has proven those numbers to be wrong, then we have to assume that they are right.

 

I could also be wrong in considering your comparison of the Morgan dollar to the Liberty Seated Quarter dollar; apples and oranges.

 

I say this because I am not aware of The Treasury Department or Banks having hoards of quarters later released in the public that altered the perceived scarcity in the same manner that Morgan Dollars have. I also do not know if there was any legislation at the time that was similar in nature to the Pittman Act that ordered for x amount of Quarters to be melted.

 

These are all questions that I have.

 

My theory would be that possibly the Philadelphia minted coins saw much greater circulation based on demographics. I would imagine that the Northeast had a much greater population than the south (not counting slaves) and it is known to be a time of massive immigration and employment.

 

Is it possible that, although the Philadelphia mint produced twice as many quarter dollars, they were in fact used in commerce more often and wore out quicker than the southern counterpart?

 

I just do not know. I am sure someone will enlighten us on whether what I am seeing in the auction offerings is mere coincidence or if possibly the two are actually closer in circulated condition census than thought.

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

"Now I get to point in which clarification, other than skewed census reports by crossovers, is needed. By looking at what census data is available here and ATS, it would seem that the 1847-O and the 1847-P both share the same overall rarity rating of R-4 and I have to wonder why when the Philadelphia mint produced twice as many coins?"

 

Aside from the excellent points made above, there were a couple of factors at work in the late 1840s.

 

1) Most of the US population was in the mid-Atlantic and New England region, as was most of American business. Philadelphia made coins primarily for this market.

 

2) New Orleans was a recieving port from the Mississippi basin, the Gulf of Mexico, and Mexican and Texas regions. Much of the smuggled silver from Mexico and South America ended up in New Orleans. (See "From Mine to Mint" about gold and silver sources. DaveG has also researched this subject.) The NO Mint made coins to circulate north along the Mississippi and into the Southern cotton states. This was a much more limited market than the North East, but it was one where coins stayed in cirulation a long time - due in part to the limited supply.

 

3) Spanish fractions played an important role in filling local coin shortages: badly worn silver was preferred to barter.

 

 

[wdrob]

Roger you filled in a couple of the blanks there and I believe somewhat solidified my theory. I have been sidetracked from MTM or I might have had been able to add more originally.

 

If one pulls all realized auction figures on NGC for all coins graded from PrAg to 58+, it is interesting to note that both have essentially the same amount of auction appearances.

 

1847-P Auction Statistics

 

1847-O Auction Statistics

 

They both have exactly two pages worth of auction results. I don't think that is coincidental. I think that the 1847-P is actually just as rare in AU and below as the 1847-O.

 

 

[yonico]

Of course these quarters cannot be compared to Morgans.

I was just saying that some coins can have a montage a lot higher or even double this of other coins, and still be a lot rarer, in certain grades. But, obviously the mintage IS also a factor. As to the WHY on the 1847 quarters, I don't know. But RWB's answer makes sense

[wdrob]

Jonny, sorry if I came off wrong in that last response. It was not my intention and I appreciated the input.

 

I agree with what you are saying above and this could in fact be one of those times when mintage figures are not reflective of the actually available population.

 

Interesting none the less. Maybe Roger will research this further and include it in a future issue of the JNR.

 

 

[DaveG]

As yonico has suggested, a researcher does have a basis to compare the current rarity of Pre-1921 Morgan dollars, US gold coins and pre-1853 Liberty Seated coins, without much regard to original mintage, because . . .

 

each suffered from substantial melting during their "lifetimes."

 

 

As we all should know, substantial numbers of Morgan dollars were melted under the Pittman Act of 1918 (and on other occasions) and huge numbers of US gold coins were melted at various times (especially old tenor gold, Type I double eagles and pretty much all US gold coins post-1933).

 

In the case of Liberty Seated coins, the discovery of huge amounts of gold in California in 1848 sent the price of gold down in relation to silver (or sent the price of silver up in relation to gold). As a result, silver coins disappeared from circulation as they were hoarded and/or exported - especially the relatively recent (and therefore more likely to be of full weight) Liberty Seated coins.

 

This is why the weight of US silver coins was reduced in 1853 and why pre-1853 Liberty Seated coins are relatively less common than their mintages would suggest.

 

Please refer to the excellent book Fractional Money by Neil Carothers for a more full discussion of this subject.

 

 

It is certainly possible that coins minted in Philadelphia were relatively more available to bullion merchants in New York than coins minted in New Orleans and, therefore, were more subject to export, which would account for the New Orleans coins being relatively more available.

 

Also, it is likely that any contemporary coin collectors would have saved Uncirculated examples of Philly coins, since, at the time there were relatively few coin collectors, who were concentrated in major cities and who weren't sensitive to mintmarks.

 

It is also currently believed by numismatists that the reason Bust halves are relatively more common than might be expected is that they were sequestered in bank vaults, acting as specie bank reserves, and, therefore, not available to be exported at the time.

 

 

edited to provide additional comments about uncirculated coins

[yonico]

Jonny, sorry if I came off wrong in that last response. It was not my intention and I appreciated the input.

 

I agree with what you are saying above and this could in fact be one of those times when mintage figures are not reflective of the actually available population.

 

Interesting none the less. Maybe Roger will research this further and include it in a future issue of the JNR.

 

 

Not at all! I was not clear in my first comment. Thank you.

Very interesting thread!

 

 

[wdrob]

 

I have learned quite a great amount from the responses and confirmed some of what I believe to be the case in as far as the 1847 Liberty Seated Quarter is concerned from both mints. I did not just pick the coin randomly to question the mintage disparity as I have held on to a 1847-P for about a year in raw form, that I knew would be relegated to a details holder, and recently I did submit the coin and get it into a slab.

 

I was going to sell it, however I have been watching closely the availability of the 1847-P in comparison to the 1847-O for quite some time and today I finally decided to try and find out what was going on with the population and the prices. In the process, I was very surprised to what I found and I took the coin off the market and I don't think it will go anywhere. I believe, that in time the rarity of that coin, even in circulated grades, will be recognized. As for today - the value just seems to be based on mintage without any regard to collateral losses.

 

But far more interesting is the period in American History that this coin is lucky to have seen.

 

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

If you like the coin and enjoy understanding its economic place in history, then will the money you get for it be any better?

[wdrob]

 

No. Not at all.

 

I am kind of glad that no one really buys much of anything from me. I don't need to sell anything. I really don't know why I feel the need to sell anything other than those coins of which I have multiples of (moderns).

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

To amplify DaveG's excellent comments a little --

 

Population density had a considerable influence on specie circulation. In the south and Mississippi region, any coins that entered circulation tended to remain there. This operated in spite of pressures caused by decreasing gold value relative to silver. The basic reasons were that villages were isolated and specie circulated within the community. Further, plantations were largely self-sufficient and only had outside contact at planting and cotton delivery time. The plantation owner was the banker for all of the workers and slaves and virtually all money flowed from him to the rest. With limited spending options, plantation workers simply kept their specie using it on the rare occasions when they could go to a village or port city.

 

Thus, these areas served by the New Orleans Mint, had a very slow circulation of specie and a built-in retention mechanism.

 

These were not present in the populous Atlantic states, where specie changed hands often and a vibrant cash economy consumed coinage. The response to reduced gold value was to export silver for profit – it was readily available in American and Spanish coins – thus removing it from the economy quickly and very efficiently.

 

[Conder101]

Mostcollectors were also on the east coast and would most likely have saved 1847 P coins (no one really cared about mintmarks at the time) and that could explain the greater percentage of P mint Unc coins. Secondly even though both coins seem to have roughly the same TPG rarity and auction appearances, is it possible that the 47-O is submitted more often or auctioned more often because it is scarcer and more valuable than the 47-P? Possibly the 47-O goes to auction more because it brings a higher price while the 47-P is usually sold privately. That would skew the auction appearances to make the 47-O appear to be more common than it really is.

[wdrob]

Mostcollectors were also on the east coast and would most likely have saved 1847 P coins (no one really cared about mintmarks at the time) and that could explain the greater percentage of P mint Unc coins.

 

But the numbers seem to show less than a 20% difference in appearances. And if one were to suggest that the 1847-O has been re-submitted many more times than the Philadelphia counterpart, in hopes of a bump (which sounds logical) then that would only increase that gap eventually previously mentioned and not narrow it. Edited to qualify; At some point it would turn tables. In other words the TPG's have been grading for quite some time now. If the resubmitting was happening at the rate some suggest then the numbers would show even or the O mm possibly even higher than the P mm. Maybe that is what is actually happening and it takes longer than I would think.

 

Secondly even though both coins seem to have roughly the same TPG rarity and auction appearances, is it possible that the 47-O is submitted more often or auctioned more often because it is scarcer and more valuable than the 47-P? Possibly the 47-O goes to auction more because it brings a higher price while the 47-P is usually sold privately. That would skew the auction appearances to make the 47-O appear to be more common than it really is.

 

Conder, that is a very good point about the auction appearances. I could see that applying to the auction houses such as Stack, Heritage, etc.. Not so much ebay though, where many would sell their Grandmother, one piece at a time, if eBay were to drop their unreasonable policy of no body parts being sold.

 

And while I don't have any records to back up the assertion, I do see 1847-P and 1847-O coins being offered through Great Collections and David Lawrence RC, as well as eBay at about the fairly same rate.

 

A point I was making was that even though there are 1847-P coins offered, they seem to be either raw details problem coins that have been submitted, came back details, and then cracked out and attempts to sell them raw are then tried that way or possibly in a details holder.

 

That 1847-P in a details holder will generate quite a bit of interest though. Even raw 1847-P coins that are clearly cleaned will generate a good amount of interest from collectors. I know this from experience as I had listed a 1847-P once, that I identified in the listing that it had been cleaned, yet I was met with question after question from collectors wanting to know just how bad the cleaning was on it. One buyer was so avid in this coin, and the questions continued to the rate where I pulled the coin since I wanted to avoid any problems down the road from my offering an opinion as to the level of cleaning.

 

So with that I have to ask; why so much interest in a cleaned coin that is not supposed to be as scarce as the New Orleans mint counterpart?

 

Once again, I think that the 1847-P is not as abundant as previously thought. I would love for someone to show me some information that would prove otherwise. From what I know, there is no way for a collector to search the registries of NGC and PCGS for the appearance of a certain coin. But I will be willing to chance that the companies themselves could either do that now or implement that ability with relative ease on their side privately.

 

NGC; hint, hint, hint.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wdrob]

I should have woke up completely from my nap prior to responding above.

 

What makes up scarcity? Is it not availability as well as existence?

 

Right now just a quick search through some auction houses and I find:

 

eBay

9- 1847-P

14 - 1847-O

1 - Proof which does not count

 

David Lawrence

1 - 1847-O

 

Great Collections

1- 1847-P

1-1847-O

 

Heritage

Could not find any for auction/sale

 

Can't think of any other houses right now. But that makes 16 - 1847-O coins available for sell and 10 - 1847-P coins available for sell.

 

If anyone frequents other auction houses or dealers that I am not aware of then tell me where a the 1847-P's are please.

 

 

 

 

[DaveG]

wdrob,

 

It seems like you've got two or three questions all swirling around each other.

 

I think we've addressed a reason why the 1847-O quarter has a higher survival rate than the 1847-P quarter - .032% versus .021% - but we really haven't addressed the relative rarity of the two coins.

 

Given the surviving population you've cited: 1847-P - total of 157 coins (97 circ and 60 Unc.) and 1847-O - total of 116 coins (106 circ and 10 Unc): I would say that while the O-mint coin is scarcer overall and scarcer in Unc, it is more common in circ condition.

 

Now, assuming that the unslabbed population mirrors the slabbed population (a big assumption, I know), this would suggest a reason for the enthusiasm with which a cleaned P-mint coin is met.

 

To verify my hypothesis, one would also want to look at prices and demand for the Unc. coins, which I have not done.

 

If you have a more serious interest in the two coins, I'd suggest consulting the Liberty Seated Collectors Club. There have been several censuses of the various Seated denominations and they might well have a better handle on the surviving populations of the two coins than the TPG, since I'm pretty sure they include unslabbed coins in their census.

 

Roger,

 

I suggest that you're probably over-emphasizing the role of population density in specie circulation, since the reading I've done on the rural antebellum southern economy suggests that very little cash money circulated among the plantations and farms and that there was only one time of the year that any money was available in that economy - at the time the crops were sold.

 

Now, I haven't read the two books on the southern country store that I have on my reading list, but I have read King Cotton and his Retainers by Harold Woodman, which provides an excellent overview of the southern economy in the 19th century, as well as another book that focused on some of the antebellum Louisiana merchants who financed the plantation holders and later became plantation owners themselves (when they collected on pre-War debts after the end of the Civil War).

 

Both books emphasize that the southern planters generally lived beyond their means and used the proceeds of their crop sales to repay their commission merchants for the debts they had accumulated during the year; and, that country merchants (who served plantation owners, small farmers and laborers) generally sold goods on credit or a barter basis throughout the year, until they, too, were repaid at harvest time.

 

It seems to me that, then as now, consumers only spent cash when they had to (for lunch or a beer or at a poker game or on a trip) and otherwise had revolving charge accounts at their regular merchants, which they settled on a quarterly or monthly basis.

[wdrob]

 

If you have a more serious interest in the two coins, I'd suggest consulting the Liberty Seated Collectors Club.

 

Thanks Dave and I am on their website right now. It looks to have a huge amount of information that I will find useful.

 

Yes I have way to many things swimming around in my head for sure. I am on a historical web page for the county I live in and am learning quite a bit of history on it as well. Formed in 1811 and there was a military fort not even 1/4 mile from my house that I never even knew existed.

 

Our Original Courthouse Still Standing

 

 

 

 

 

[DaveG]

You might also be interested in subscribing to the E-Gobrecht, the LSCC's free monthly e-mail newsletter.

 

If you're interested, you could write to the editor of the E-Gobrecht and ask about any census of LS quarters that has been done. He can point you to the issued of The Gobrecht Journal in which it was published and you can probably buy that back issue.

[RWB]

"I suggest that you're probably over-emphasizing the role of population density in specie circulation, since the reading I've done on the rural antebellum southern economy suggests that very little cash money circulated among the plantations and farms and that there was only one time of the year that any money was available in that economy - at the time the crops were sold."

 

Actually, that's just point I was trying to make. Specie did not curculate witht he velocity of the north due to low population density - lack of large trading centers - and the annual cotton cycle.