The joys and stupidity of buying modern coins

[Hoot]

The Stupidity...

 

Last night I watched as a 1990-D MS66FS (PCGS, pop 25/2 higher) Jefferson nickel sold on Teletrade for $1100!!! It made me kind of sick. Simultaneously, a 1990-P MS66FS (PCGS, pop 3/0 higher) sold for $45 (as it should). No pictures to accompany the brief description of Teletrade. No one can convince me that this was not insane.

 

I know it's been beat around the block, but the the crazy prices of modern coins can be astonishing, and they simply make no sense. In the face of collecting some of the most beautiful and rare classic coinage of this nation, paying mega prices for modern conditionally uncommon stuff demonstrates a lack of endeavor on the part of individual collectors. Collecting modern coinage can be quite fun, but there are insideous forces at work .

 

Here's what I think is happening:

 

1) Lack of personal education. There's a lot to learn about coins, yes even the modern stuff, from the mintage process to grading, to knowing what is and is not rare in a given series, etc., etc. Listening to folks come in and out of the local coin shop has me convinced that most know little or nothing about what they collect. Sales on QVC and HSN, as well as sales of canned [!@#%^&^] by Littleton support this contention.

 

2) For lack of a better word, laziness. In an age where you can hunt up many coin series in their entirety by sitting down at your computer for a while, it seems to me that many people are doing just that. Why do I think so? For one, we all hunt coins on our computers. Second, all it takes is a visit to the local coin shop to actually find some of the modern "conditional rarities." (I've done it now quite a few times, and if I can, anyone can). Third, and this ties to (1) above, it requires an effort to inform oneself well enough to go a-hunting. (By the way, it's a lot less expensive than buying slabbed modern coins, even with the failures involved). There seems to be a lack of willingness to go looking for oneself; it's just easier to spend the big bucks and have it delivered to your door.

 

3) Greed of competition. I'm not accusing everyone of this, mind you, as I think that there are many people here and over at PCGS who compete in the registries just for the sport of it. But I ask you, what motivates the buyers of David Hall's "pop top" baloney? Why pay, at times, two orders of magnitude difference in price for one point on a (somewhat subjective) grading scale? I'm guilty of liking some high grade coins, but I won't buy one simply for the grade. What's more, the more recently minted a coin is, the more I have difficulty with paying big bucks for conditionally challenged coins.

 

Okay, that's it. I'm sure a few of you have more to add to my list, so please do.

 

The Joys...

 

As for the joys of collecting modern coinage, there are many. Many of the modern issues form lengthy series that are full of twists and turns in terms of design, mistakes, conditions, etc. Moreover, many of these coins have great stories beginning with their inception, right through modern day. And these coins can be highly collectable. They are available "in the raw" at your local coin shops and they are everywhere. Seeking out such coins will hone your skills in grading, cherrypicking, and will probably cause you to study a bit about your series of interest and maybe even others. You will, in the process of hunting, be exposed to many other coins, modern and not-so-modern. (I started collecting EF/AU bust halves while out there looking for full step Jeffs and buffalo nickels )! What you will find will be many great pearles along the way. You will also have the opportunity to learn about problem coins, especially cleaned material. And, of course, learning to hunt up what you're looking for is a skill to derive in and of itself. (Dealers simply are not used to folks coming in to look at every mint set they have).

 

Much, much more, but I'll shut up now.

 

Hoot

[Oldtrader3]

I think this whole trend is very strange, considering that for $1100, you can buy a MS64 Barber Half or a MS65 Full-head Standing Liberty Quarter (that is scarce), with maybe 5 higher graded coins in existance. The Barber Halves and Standing Lib. Quarters will always be scarce, whereas much of this modern Conditional Rarity stuff will not hold up, as you stated.

 

I have some conditional rarity classical US coins in both silver and gold that are less expensive than these moderns. Makes sense to me, yeah right! It is pretty weird when you can buy 100 year old Conditional Rarity silver or gold coin for less than a '90-P Nickel. The world is a little upside down when Promoters can drive pricing to this extent. I do remember another time when MS65 1950-D nickels were over $100. This is a coin that now is worth about $15.

[keithdagen]

Rebuttal to MHooten

 

Mint quality has really only been present on clad coins in the last three or four years. Starting in 1999, the Mint began taking steps to better their output, and even then, the quality didn't really increase until the 2000 issues.

 

Because of this lack of quality, there are a lot of conditionally rare modern pieces within given series. Some issues were poorly struck, while others were not saved much, so many high-grade pieces are scarce. Although mintages may be huge, this is not an indicator of scarcity or lack therof in mint state grades. I liken it to the Barber Half dollar. Of approximately 140 major design types in US coinage history, there are about 110 design types that have lower mintages for the Type, but the coin is conditionally scarce and is the most expensive 20th Century silver coin in gem grades.

 

Caveat to Rebuttal

 

Most modern series do not have large followings yet, so even those series with conditional rarities may see populations explode as the coins are submitted. The best way to recognize the true rarities in your field of collecting is to seek the coins yourself raw, or compare notes with other serious collectors, before committing big bucks to a population rarity. I can cite several instances where I purchased a "none higher" coin for a Modern Type set and six months down the road, forty more examples were made when the initial population was under ten, or where that next higher grade was made after all.

 

Take a look at several examples of different grades of coins side by side. Make the determination for yourself whether a MS-66, 67, 68, or 69 is right for your collection. In many series, the premium for the highest grade is at least 10x the next lowest grade.

 

When collecting moderns, consider trying to liven up your collection by looking for unique coins. Looking for toned coins, or coins with die breaks, may add some character to the pieces, and create a way to differentiate your coin from the others out there.

[PQSeated]

This is a hard date for the Jeff nickel in MS65+. I made a 1990-D PCGS MS65 FS Jefferson Nickel a few months ago. I sold it for $50.

[Hoot]

Part of what I'm saying here is that there is an abundance of raw material out there that is relatively unsearched. Even material that is difficult to locate in mint sets - e.g. pre-1960 coinage - is still abundant in raw form, having either been taken out of the sets or having been extracted from rolls. This material is so volumous that a person can spend a great deal of time looking through it to great satisfaction.

 

I have had great success with my Jefferson nickel collection this way, and even some reasonable success with my buffalo nickels. Those are the coins that I primarily send to NGC or PCGS, but I've had a smattering of success with other coins that simply caught my eye along the way. It's because of this that I am having a hard time buying the "conditionally rare" argument in an absolute sense. What I mean by that is that there is still so much material yet to be searched, I do not believe that a good determination of conditional rarity can yet be made for many of the modern issues (especially the 1980s and 1990s). Granted, the Mint was sloppy during many years of production, making a lot of bad coins for every good one, and finding some stuff is quite tough, but the absolute measures of rarity are a long way off. These are determined, to a large degree, by what was preserved and is then available to collect, not by the proportion of good coins to bad. For this effort we owe our time and experience, and in a few decades, perhaps the jury will come in.

 

Hoot

[cladking]

It seems much of the reason for the stupidity is the joy.

 

Coin collecting among the masses is a relatively modern phenomena. It really started during the depression and virtually died in 1965. The embers still glowed but there was no fuel. By '95 even the embers were showing signs of faltering. The demand which had been inching up finally caught up with the supply and prices started up in '95. This led to the states issues which has effectively heaped huge mounds of fresh dry timber on the fire. This fuel hasn't had time to get hot enough to burn yet but everyone can see the smoke. This is driving many to the shops to look through mint and proof sets, and is putting great pressure on the supplies of these sets. It is driving many to seek the coins wherever they can be found. ...and it is driving a few to pay outlandish prices for slabbed coins which they believe will be worth far more in the future. There is an enormous pool of possible future collectors from those putting together obsolete type sets from circulation, to those whose collections ceased at 1964, to those who are collecting the states issues and even some of those who collect large cents and colonials.

 

If the shops start having any difficulty obtaining replacement sets for those going into collections then you will see the conflagration. The stupidity level may well go up, but the joys of moderns will long be available on the cheap in circulation.

[IrishMike]

Hoot, this is the part of the equation I find sad. I purchased an NGC slabbed 94 clad UC70 Washington for $61. The same coin in a PCGS slab costs $450. People are paying for that.

[nwcs]

Hey, I've got a PCGS 1989-P MS66FS nickel. I'll take $500 for it. It's a pop 15/0 last time I looked in the pop reports.

 

Anyway, I agree with you primarily on your third point on the down side. That the greed factor is responsible for much of the inflated price of moderns. Now I say this with some caution because I do think that the really outstanding modern coins are worth a premium. However, the premium currently found in the market is amazing. And I do think it'll eventually correct itself.

 

On the positive side of moderns, not all of them are ugly! Some are actually nice. A few of the olympic gold coins of the 80s are nice and I like some of the commemorative dollars of the 80s (except 87 and 88, ugh). And one of the benefits of them is that they are unlikely to have been toyed with by coin doctors and are available in very high grades without exhorbitant premiums. Of course, this isn't always true -- but should be. I personally cannot yet tell the difference between PF 68 and 69 and 70. So I'm happy with 68s when it comes to moderns. And currently those don't fetch any premium.

 

Neil

[Hoot]

I completely agree that modern coins can be quite fetching . I wouldn't collect them if I didn't ! And IrishMike is abosolutely correct about the nutty differences between what the different slabs are worth. I enjoy the chase for the raw coins and I like submitting to both NGC and PCGS, despite the associated frustrations and differences in service.

 

Hoot

[Hoot]

It seems much of the reason for the stupidity is the joy.

 

I genuinely hope this is true! I know that in my pursuits of modern coinage, I spend one heck of a lot of time and effort. I also think that I have spent my good share of funny money, I simply think that there is yet a lot to be discovered out there in the raw!

 

Hoot

[jtryka]

I wasn't sure how to respond to this, since this topic usually sets me off, but I'll try to remain calm. As far as what people spend on some of these coins, I think it's insane. But I think that roughly a quarter of GDP is spent on stupid things that don't interest me so if people want to spend their money on things like this, so be it. I just want them to know two things, first don't start whining in the event that the price levels collapse and suddenly you find your safe deposit box full of worthless plastic. Second, think of how your actions in participating or not participating in these particular segment of the market affects the overall hobby (will this bubble burst and damage numismatics as so many bubbles before it?).

 

As far as scarcity/grade rarity, Keith compared this to Barber halves, perhaps a fair comparison, but one thing to consider is the relative size of the mintage to the population as a whole. I know mintage is not a perfect indicator, but it can serve as a proxy. I don't know the population of the US in 1900, but for argument's sake, let's assume it was 50 million. The highest mintage Barber halves (about 5.5 million) meant that there was one Barber half for about every 9 people that might possible want one. The lowest mintage, 1915 with about 138 thousand meant there was one for every 362 people. Kennedys, with the current population of about 280 million, the highest mintage of 302 million for the 1971D was more than 1 for every man, woman and child in the country. Now on the other side, the lowest mintage regular issue was the 1999P (not sure of any past 2000), with 8.9 million, results in 1 for every 31 people. An order of magnitude difference. Now look at State quarters, the lowest mintage was the 2002 OH P with a mintage of 217.2 million, or about 3 for every 4 people. The highest was the 2000 VA D with a total of 943 million, or more than 3 for everone in the country! I am still getting unc rolls of D-mint VA quarters from the bank just to use in commerce. Of all these coins, how many do you suppose were released? How many do you suppose went from the mint to the basement of the Fed and are still sitting there? Everyone so far seems to be addressing the supply side of the equation, but what if demand drops off? In early 2000, everyone thought the stock market would go up forever, and look where we are today. And don't even try telling any of us that this is different, because just uttering those words confirms in my mind that it's exactly the same. These are the types of questions you should be asking before dropping the 1000% premium for that modern registry icon.

 

That's my 2 cents (that would be a nice 1872 in XF).

[cladking]

test

[GDJMSP]

A lot of good points being made here - and a very similar discussion that I have participated in many times in other forums. I'll make a few of the same points here. If you've already read them - forgive me - others have not.

 

First of all - like many I'm a collector of moderns. I am also a collector of coins that were old before the US was born. I just collect what I like. So I don't really have a particular side to take on the issue.

 

As to what Hoot is saying about unsearched coins - I did some checking on State Quarters for instance - a favorite target for many when this discussion comes up. Out of approx 150,000 SQ's that have been submitted to NGC & PCGS - 35 of them have been graded MS69. If you consider that 10% of the total mintage of all SQ's could be graded - that ratio will translate into 443,850 MS-69 State Quarters. That's a lot of MS69's. Must admit - I didn't like the outcome - but there it is. Cut the number in half - divide it by 5 or 10 if you like - that's still a lot.

 

Even if you get the number way down - there is still the argument of condition rarity. And that's the part that really bothers me. Because condition rarity not only applies to moderns - it applies to all coins old & new alike. Yes even the classics.

 

Look at the prices that have been recently realized by some Buffalo nickels ( not a classic - but not a modern either ) - a '26-S at $103,000 - a '23-S for $43,000 - a '25-S for $27,000 - the list can go on. And not just for Buffalo nickels - for many coins.

 

As part of an idea that jtryka had some time ago - I have been compiling information on coin populations. Have been working on Bust Halves so far. And I have found that out of the 93 million Bust Halves minted - NGC & PCGS alone have graded approx 46,000 of them - with almost 22,000 above AU50. That's a heck of a lot of Bust Halves - a coin that many people consider scarce or rare. Of course I am lumping all Bust Halves into one pot - and there are no doubt some very rare varieties - but even among the not so rare varieties with several hundred examples in a given grade - these coins bring some pretty high prices.

 

The point I am making is that condition rarities are out there for all coins. And many of them are bringing new record prices every day - some of them outrageous prices. So this bubble that we talk about - it does not only exist for modern coins - I am beginning to worry that it may exist for all coins.

 

 

[miko999]

good points...however you're missing a minor fact...how many bust halves and buffalos will be minted in the future versus how many zillions of Washington Quarters, Kennedies, Roosevelts, etc. will be minted in the forseeable future, say the next 5 to 10 years?

[cladking]

Sorry about the one word post earlier. I had computer trouble and ran out of time. There was one that got blown away that went something like this...

 

All bubbles from tulip bulbs to dot coms have always had one thing in common. By definition a bubble is widespread exuberance. While the modern markets are certainly exuberant it is hardly widespread. It is a handful of collectors who are pushing up the prices for these coins. Most observers and hobbyists have been warning for a long time that these markets aren't for real, that they'll soon come crashing down. Sure it's possible that the few collectors of these will decide that the coins are just junk and all decide to quit collecting them someday, but this is not the way the world usually works.

 

No one knows what the future holds, but the theory that modern prices are a bubble today just doesn't hold water.

[cladking]

GDJMSP: There is a similar discussion taking place on one of the other boards, but logic and facts are often unwanted there and may be deleted.

 

People have not submitted 150,000 random states quarters. These coins are not a sample of all the coins which have been minted. Most of these coins were cherrypicked from huge numbers of sets, bags, and rolls. The demand for high grade states coins is pretty large compared to the rest of the modern market so people have an incentive to check large numbers of coins to get the high grades. It is probable that significant percentages of these have come from mint sets. Rather than wasting any time worrying about the possible veracity of the original statement your time would be more productively spent in trying to determine the percentage of mint sets which have already been checked for these gems.

[miko999]

True, no one can predict the future, but one fact is certain. Everything goes in cycles, whether it is hard assets (real estate, collectibles, oil, precious metals, diamonds, etc.), or paper asssets (stocks, bonds, certificate of deposits), inflation, deflation, terrorism, and finally, even empires. Nothing goes up or down forever. What is hot today maybe cold tomorrow.

[nwcs]

As my professor in marketing told me, market research is like driving by looking only in your rear view mirror. You only see where you are going. The same can be said about moderns. No one knows what will happen so predictions are just that: predictions. Nothing definitive can be said about the modern market till it happens!

 

That said, comparing moderns to classics is not always a fair comparison. For example, statistics of inflation play a part. While todays mintages are in the billions, so too the population of the US is at an all time high. Compare the number of coins minted today per person verses classic coins (during non recession times) per person when they were minted. I don't think you'll find a tremendous disparity.

 

Condition rarities are true for all series. The one I'm most familiar with is the 1884S Morgan dollar. And I know there are such things in other series.

 

So, will this modern thing be a colossal bust? I doubt it. Because if that was true, then collecting would not be a living hobby. Because every coin was modern at some point. Will it face a price correction? Undoubtedly, just as every other coin has faced correction (like the common date MS65s in the 90s).

 

Neil

[keithdagen]

cladking,

 

I do not think that the modern market will experience tulip-mania as a whole, but rather in certain segments. Realistically, this is actually going to be a good thing. When the prices for a few issues crash, and only dampen the enthusiasm for other modern issues instead of crashing them, it will give some lefitimacy to the modern market.

 

Strictly my opinion, but areas to avoid --

 

PR-70DC coins -- PCGS has changed their standards too many times, and the populations are really creeping up quickly again.

 

Modern commems in MS-69 where there is a significant premium over the greysheet price for raw. Simple fact, with the exception of the 82-D Washington half, you're more likely to find a MS-69 than not when looking at raw. Make these yourself instead of buying them.

 

State quarters -- in 1999, we were told that MS-67 was going to be the grade that separated the men from the boys, in 2000, it was MS-68. At this point, MS-69 is that grade and MS-68 coins can be had for many issues under $75.

 

Zinc Lincoln cents in MS-68RD -- I've been looking at one of these for Type purposes lately and have been amazed at how many seem to be being made and coming on the market. This series may be hot with collectors, but the dealers are trying to make these coins to outdo one another so fast that I think you'll see a glut of them in the future.

 

Again, strictly my opinion, but areas with value --

 

$5 gold commems from 1986 through 1992. Some nice designs, and most can be had for under $125 in MS-69. Mintages can be steep in some cases, but the coins have a lot of intrinsic value compared to the current market prices.

 

Clad coins from the late 60's to 1975. For most series, the coins are poorly struck in this time frame, and are difficult to find in higher grades.

 

Clad bicentennial dated coins, especially the Kennedy half dollar -- coins are required for series as well as Type sets, and the populations are very low in the highest grades.

[Hoot]

$5 gold commems from 1986 through 1992. Some nice designs, and most can be had for under $125 in MS-69. Mintages can be steep in some cases, but the coins have a lot of intrinsic value compared to the current market prices.

 

Clad coins from the late 60's to 1975. For most series, the coins are poorly struck in this time frame, and are difficult to find in higher grades.

 

Clad bicentennial dated coins, especially the Kennedy half dollar -- coins are required for series as well as Type sets, and the populations are very low in the highest grades.

 

Keith - I think that you are right about what to look for here. I also think it is worthwhile looking at the 82-D Washington commem in the raw and $5 gold up through the 1999 Washington (an excellent design - but, of course, designed in the early 1930s!!!! !)

 

I would expand your time frame for looking for excellent clad material. I would push the upper date through 1991. After 1991, the relief is so shallow and the designs were so conformant for single-strike minting, I think it's tough to find a coin in years 1992-present that is not well struck. On the other hand, handling of the mass-produced coins has been abhorrent for decades, and it's damn tough to find clad that is not beaten to heck, especially 1992-present. For each issue, there is a cutoff point for "value" in terms of, "Is it worth submitting this coin for grading?" For Jefferson nickels, it's MS65FS in the dates 1970-present. (Prior to 1970, it's fairly variable year by year, and even for the 1970 issues, particularly Philly, anything with FS is tough). I truly do not know what it is for other series, but I'd guess that reasonable cutoffs for submission to PCGS/NGC (1970-present business strikes) are MS68 for cents, MS68 for dimes, MS67 for quarters, MS66 for Kennedy halfs, MS65 for Ikes, MS68 for SBAs and Sacs. Anything below those grades will end up being very common in the long-run. Waddaya think?

 

Hoot

[keithdagen]

Keith - I think that you are right about what to look for here. I also think it is worthwhile looking at the 82-D Washington commem in the raw and $5 gold up through the 1999 Washington (an excellent design - but, of course, designed in the early 1930s!!!! !)

 

I'm not a fan of the mid to late 1990's $5 commems because the current asking prices are not in line with the mintages and availabilities. This is especially true of the Olympic coins from 1995 and 1996.

 

I would expand your time frame for looking for excellent clad material. I would push the upper date through 1991.

 

May need to be looked at on a series by series basis. Lincoln cents improved a little when the composition was changed, and Kennedy half dollars of the '80's are more abundant in high grade than the 70's.

 

I truly do not know what it is for other series, but I'd guess that reasonable cutoffs for submission to PCGS/NGC

 

I cutoff at 68RD for zinc cents, 67RD for bronze cents, 66FS for nickels, 68 for dimes, 67 for Washington quarters, 68 for state quarters, and 67 for half dollars. I refuse to submit Sacs and SBA's because I have never found a decent one, and my tolerance is pretty low on Jefferson's. Last 10 mint sets I got had one Jefferson that would 65FS, nothing better. Sacs were consistently 65 or 66 quality.

[Oldtrader3]

Actually I have one each of the Sac'ss and SBA's that are nice clean specimens (they are in my Registry Type Sets). They are a MS67 & a MS68. I agree that in general, they are poor quality and not worth collecting. I have raw mint sets of each, because they were cheap.

 

Also, I wonder if the SAC's are long for this world? They do not seem to circulate any better than the SBA's. Seignorage must be a problem for SAC's, as it is for SBA's.

[Hoot]

The reason I include the 1990s gold commems is that some of the designs are good. I personally won't have anything to do with the Olympic coins for philosophical reasons - the Mint simply makes too many of them and should commemorate other things (and the 100 year set is an outrageous number of coins).

 

As for Jeffersons, yes, your tolerance is low. The reason i put my cutoff at MS65FS is because of the reason you stated - Last 10 mint sets I got had one Jefferson that would 65FS, nothing better. 65s are tough and anything higher gets tougher. Worthy collector material, even tough I still think there are a lot of them out there (post-1982 especially) just waiting to be found!

 

Hoot

[jtryka]

By definition a bubble is widespread exuberance. While the modern markets are certainly exuberant it is hardly widespread. It is a handful of collectors who are pushing up the prices for these coins.

 

I agree somewhat, though by your definition, I would call a bubble with few participants market manipulation, which could be the case on some of these issues, though by and large I liken modern dealers to dot com employees who exercised options and sold at or near the top.

 

Like every market, there are areas of value and areas of excess. There are loads of overpriced classics, but they just don't get the attention of the media (if I get one more stupid e-mail from PCGS on how hot the market for moderns/registry coins is, I am going to scream!). In the same way, there are many areas of value in moderns. Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with those whe list modern commems as a place to look, I think there are some wonderful designs and they can be purchased for very reasonable prices. I especially like the lower mintage gold coins of the 1990s, and of course I buy all of these raw (though I have submitted a Washington half and NCS dollar). I think some of the earlier clad coins are a source of value mainly because there has been 30+ years to work through the system.

 

There is also the difference in scale. I view this like inflation, today we wouldn't work for $1 an hour, but in 1900 that was the salary a very well off person. In the same way, most classic collectors are happy with nice MS-63s or MS-65s, and even on some series a nice VF will do. But on moderns there seems to be a rush for the highest grade an anything! I pursue my modern sets like many of my classic sets, and I am well pleased with any coin in the MS-63 to MS-65 range. I suppose this is a positive in one sense in that it's more democratic (traditionally the highest grade classics were for the most elite of collecors). But I am just not sure it's sustainable.

 

As far as Neil's comment on population relative to mintage, I heartily disagree! In 2001, the mint produced enough cents for everyone of our 280 million people to have 10 sets! I can't believe that there are any similar coin issues in history that comes close, though it might be fun to find out. Here are the population figures, multiply by 10 and see if there are any issue in that decade that meet that mintage:

 

1790 3.9 million

1800 5.3 million

1810 7.2 million

1820 9.6 million

1830 12.9 million

1840 17.1 million

1850 23.2 million

1860 31.4 million

1870 38.6 million

1880 50.2 million

1890 63.0 million

1900 74.6 million

1910 92.0 million

1920 105.7 million

1930 122.8 million

1940 131.7 million

1950 151.3 million

1960 179.3 million

1970 203.3 million

1980 226.5 million

1990 248.7 million

2000 281.4 million

 

I don't have my Red Book with me for mintages, but just looking at US Mint production figures for 2001-2002, the cents from both mints met the 10-1 criteria both years, and only one coin, the 2002-P Ohio quarter was less than 1-1 for population (excluding Kennedys and Sacagaweas). I will try to add more later, though anyone with quick access to the historical mintage figures feel free to add.

[coinman1794]

I agree with what you are saying. However, the only reason we dont collect classics in high grades like MS67+ is because they practically don't exist. So, I do think classic collectors are buying the best possible grade. Another factor is the prohibitively expensive prices on classic coins in grades above MS65.

[keithdagen]

The reason I include the 1990s gold commems is that some of the designs are good. I personally won't have anything to do with the Olympic coins for philosophical reasons - the Mint simply makes too many of them and should commemorate other things (and the 100 year set is an outrageous number of coins).

 

I agree that the 1990's coins are numismatically more appealing, but my post was what I considered to be coins with monetary value for the current price levels. The 1997 FDR is one of my favorite gold commems, but based on its current market price, has no additional value to it. Same with the 1999 Washington (my first commem).

 

As for Jeffersons, yes, your tolerance is low. The reason i put my cutoff at MS65FS is because of the reason you stated

 

Most of the sets I hit are the last three or four years, so a 65FS won't cut it when you see 66 and 67's pretty frequently. If the mint sets I buy are prior to 1999, I check the populations to see what my target grade is. In fact, I pulled a 1997 mint set and found a stunning Washington quarter that I have high hopes for. There was a nice Jefferson nickel in the set too, and the populations were low enough to try and submit it as well.

 

[cladking]

There are segments of the modern markets which are dramatically overvalued relative to other segments of the modern market. I always hesitate to say that any specific coin is overvalued because these prices are set by supply and demand. When demand is exploding in a segment of the market it can be difficult for supply to be accessed on a sufficiently timely basis to prevent the price from moving up and if later on the supply comes out then there would certainly be a decrease in price proportional to the amount of exuberance. It is extremely important to "do your homework" if collecting any modern coins. The first published price guide has finally appeared, but it's a virtual certainty that many of the coins listed do not have prices which accurately reflect their supply or demand. While it's an excellent resource these markets are still in their infancy and it is extremely difficult to rate them when supply is in a high state of flux and demand wanders from segment to segment.

 

I agree with you about the bicentennial coins. It is astounding that these interesting one year type coins could be almost completely ignored in high grade for decades as hobby leaders exhort collectors to buy the best they can afford.

[cladking]

I've actually spent a little time examining this exact question. Certainly there are far more coins made for each American today than there was in the past, but with a few fudge factors they can come out quite closely. Primarily remember that due to inflation a quarter has about the purchasing power of a cent from the early 1800's so you should be comparing quarter production to cent production. Also remember that coins are used much differently today than they were at that time. Many coins now spend long periods sitting in vending machines. Coins were held as cash reserves to a much greater extent in the old days. (largely because there was somewhat less inflation, they were handy, interest rates were lower, and the coins had more intrinsic value). When allowances are made for these differences, mintages today seem to be very much in line with those from most of our history.

[nwcs]

Jeff, I appreciate your response. However, I didn't articulate fully what I was meaning when I wrote. So that is my fault. There are two factors I was getting at, the increase in population as well as the increase of wealth in the nation. And I think those factors need to be considered when doing an analysis of coins per person.

 

I think another factor to consider here is more widespread than merely collecting habits. The way this nation looks at money, the avenues of spending, and entertainment has drastically changed and I think the money system reflects that somewhat.

 

Neil

[jtryka]

Here's what I found:

 

1790 3.9 million

1800 5.3 million

1810 7.2 million

1820 9.6 million

1830 12.9 million

1840 17.1 million

1850 23.2 million 1858 FE cent, First time exceeded population!

1860 31.4 million

1870 38.6 million

1880 50.2 million

1890 63.0 million

1900 74.6 million

1910 92.0 million

1920 105.7 million

1930 122.8 million

1940 131.7 million 1944 (10X!),

1950 151.3 million

 

The 1858 FE cent was the first time any mintage exceeded total population, the 1944 Lincoln Cent was the first time it exceeded 10x population. Now, the only reason there is one issue that didn't exceed population was the quarters are divided among five designs. There are many very ubiquitous and well collected series that never had a mintage greater than population throughout the series, like Buffalo nickels and Morgan Dollars!

 

You raise an interesting argument about the value of coins and inflation affecting these numbers, but I would counter than in other times, people would actually spend the coins and they would circulate more! The least circulated coin today, the cent. Most are tossed out, or into a jar never to see the light of day again. The appears to suggest that the lower the value of a coin the LESS is circulates! The exception being larger denominations historically, as gold rarely circulated. For a person, collector or not to put away a BU roll of half cents in 1810 was a real feat. Today it's about 1 days pay to put away a roll of every denomination and mint mark in BU! What does this tell you? Heck, today the mint sells full bags of uncirculated coins to collectors! Now as far as mint quality, I couldn't agree with you more, but I can't get over the absolute numbers. If just 1/10 of 1% of state quarters minted in 2002 are MS-66 and above, that's 3.3 million coins!!!