MS70's & PF70s Are A Dime A Dozen Now 1 1

[EagleRJO]

I would definitely like to know where I get 12 coins (any) graded MS70 for a dime! 

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

I determine rarity by the number of examples that exist for the variety.  It has nothing to do with condition for me.  "Conditional" rarities are a different story.  I have seen some fine early copper coins, but never in MS70, so the "dime-a-dozen" comment really doesn't apply to me or my collecting at all.  

I have nothing against ultra-modern, proof coin collecting... but it's a different (and frankly easier) game all together.  That said, circulation pieces in MS70 are quite rare, to non-existent - even in ultra modern.  I do expect more to appear as technology and mint packaging continues to improve.  This is pretty evident by the coins of 2022 - those sets are arguably the highest grade sets (out of the box) than previous years - and the prices for MS67-68 Women's Quarters directly reflect how common high grade pieces have become.  Still - true MS70 coins are all but non-existent.

Proofs and "collector" pieces have been widely available in MS/PF70 for some time... and not a new phenomenon at all.  A "dime-a-dozen" is still overstating a bit.

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/3/2022 at 5:24 PM, VKurtB said:

I feel unrestricted by a past owner’s decisions. His needs are not my needs. I wouldn’t expect anyone else to keep my slabbed coins that way if it didn’t suit their purpose. 

I can't say this would ever apply to me but I would imagine the strength of one's good looks, at times, would not suffice for formal authentication and certification.  The last thing I need is to walk into a reputable firm with an electrum from Lydia in hand and have to submit to a cross-examination administered by a clerk:  "So where'd'ja get this from?  Got paperwork?  ID?  Uh huh." Slabs eliminate extended void dires.  

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 4:45 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

I can't say this would ever apply to me but I would imagine the strength of one's good looks, at times, would not suffice for formal authentication and certification.  The last thing I need is to walk into a reputable firm with an electrum from Lydia in hand and have to submit to a cross-examination administered by a clerk:  "So where'd'ja get this from?  Got paperwork?  ID?  Uh huh." Slabs eliminate extended void dires.  

Do they really? I can’t say that’s been my experience. But actual voir dire? I never get picked for a jury. 

[World Colonial]

On 12/3/2022 at 5:43 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

I determine rarity by the number of examples that exist for the variety.  It has nothing to do with condition for me.  "Conditional" rarities are a different story.  

The numbers are what they are, but that's not where the real difference of opinion exists.

It's perception of significance.

Traditionally, collectors (everywhere) used the absolute number of survivors which is usually estimated and not known, even now.  Before the TPG populations "matured" (overwhelming majority is not even close to complete, even in higher grades) and especially the internet made most coins available on demand or short notice, collectors generally used the mintage as a proxy, even though survival rates differ widely.  This meant that many more common coins were believed or considered to be scarcer, which is my primary explanation for the inflated prices on actually common US key dates. 

The primary reasons for different perceptions in quality were twofold:

First, the price differences between what are now proximate TPG grades were almost entirely immaterial.  No one would have paid anywhere near current premiums because there was no market for it due to the far less affluent collector base and limited financially motivated buying.

Second, the internet and more recent communication has made acquiring most coins so easy, it's my inference collectors adopted new practices to create a challenge that otherwise does not exist.  This includes (near) condition census coins, strike designations, toning preference, and "low ball" collecting.

Die variety and error collecting long preceded TPG, though I equally believe that both are more popular now due to the inflated price level which makes a higher proportion of US type coinage beyond the reach of the (vast) majority of the collector base.

What I describe, it's still apparent in collecting outside the US, at least where the local market doesn't have a similar preference for TPG.  

Me personally, I use number of survivors in "collectible quality".  Yes, I know that every coin is in theory owned by someone and therefore "collected", but it's evident that coins in equivalent quality from two different series (world or US) are viewed differently by those who actually buy it.  Coins in one series are highly sought after (like EAC collecting) are viewed as "dreck" or essentially unmarketable in another one (like my series, pillars).

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

On 12/3/2022 at 6:38 PM, World Colonial said:

Coins in one series are highly sought after (like EAC collecting) are viewed as "dreck" or essentially unmarketable in another one (like my series, pillars).

Curious - what do you define as "collectible quality" vs "dreck" in EAC coins?  I don't know world coins at all, and really the only series where I consider myself knowledgeable is US Half Cents.  I agree that some collect very low grade, damaged examples (and for some varieties, "ugly" is as good as it gets).  However, one can collect these coins in mid grade with a healthy budget.  Condition census coins can get prohibitively expensive, for sure.

My personal goals are a date set with "major varieties":

• 1793 - VF20-25
• 1794-1797 - XF40 (with the 1796 omitted, but would love to have one in VG8 - but not likely to happen)
• 1800-1808 in AU53-MS63 (the 1802/0 C-2, and 1808/7 C-1 in VF20-25)
• 1809-1835 in MS62-63 (with 1811 in XF40-45)
• 1849-1857 in MS63-64 (all in RB but 1849, 1950, and 1853)

These grades are not "top pop" and certainly not worthy of any awards, but I don't think they are "dreck" either.  I refuse to buy "problem" coins, but I do understand that many EAC collectors do.  Does that mean that you consider the problem coins "dreck" (which I get), or are you also thinking that the lower grade examples of the tougher varieties are "dreck"?

Obviously, to a person that is "PF70UCAM or bust", everything I collect is "dreck"... but where is that line for collectors who collect a classic series? This varies by the collector, but how do you define it?  What are the target grades for the World Colonial market that you collect?  Are the comparable to straight-graded EAC coins?  I really know nothing about it at all.

Sorry to the group that this is a divergence from MS/PF70 conversation, but I am super curious. 

Edited December 4, 2022 by The Neophyte Numismatist

[gmarguli]

On 12/3/2022 at 1:55 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Presently, NGC boasts 1.2 million coins featured in 150,000 registered sets by 17,000+ members from around the world.

PCGS boasts 130,829 U.S. coin sets and 156,725 registered sets overall.

I bet the number of sets drops by 50% if you removed sets that have less than 10% complete and also removed overlapping sets. Some popular series you can fit into numerous different sets. 

[Errorists]

On 12/3/2022 at 7:46 PM, gmarguli said:

I bet the number of sets drops by 50% if you removed sets that have less than 10% complete and also removed overlapping sets. Some popular series you can fit into numerous different sets. 

You have anymore PMM'S? LOL.

[zadok]

On 12/3/2022 at 6:38 PM, World Colonial said:

The numbers are what they are, but that's not where the real difference of opinion exists.

It's perception of significance.

Traditionally, collectors (everywhere) used the absolute number of survivors which is usually estimated and not known, even now.  Before the TPG populations "matured" (overwhelming majority is not even close to complete, even in higher grades) and especially the internet made most coins available on demand or short notice, collectors generally used the mintage as a proxy, even though survival rates differ widely.  This meant that many more common coins were believed or considered to be scarcer, which is my primary explanation for the inflated prices on actually common US key dates. 

The primary reasons for different perceptions in quality were twofold:

First, the price differences between what are now proximate TPG grades were almost entirely immaterial.  No one would have paid anywhere near current premiums because there was no market for it due to the far less affluent collector base and limited financially motivated buying.

Second, the internet and more recent communication has made acquiring most coins so easy, it's my inference collectors adopted new practices to create a challenge that otherwise does not exist.  This includes (near) condition census coins, strike designations, toning preference, and "low ball" collecting.

Die variety and error collecting long preceded TPG, though I equally believe that both are more popular now due to the inflated price level which makes a higher proportion of US type coinage beyond the reach of the (vast) majority of the collector base.

What I describe, it's still apparent in collecting outside the US, at least where the local market doesn't have a similar preference for TPG.  

Me personally, I use number of survivors in "collectible quality".  Yes, I know that every coin is in theory owned by someone and therefore "collected", but it's evident that coins in equivalent quality from two different series (world or US) are viewed differently by those who actually buy it.  Coins in one series are highly sought after (like EAC collecting) are viewed as "dreck" or essentially unmarketable in another one (like my series, pillars).

mostly valid points at least for discussion...but doesnt consider that there r collectors out there that have sought n paid premiums for census coins for 50 years or more because they wanted the best they could acquire regardless of whether there was a market for those coins or not....

[World Colonial]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:46 PM, zadok said:

mostly valid points at least for discussion...but doesnt consider that there r collectors out there that have sought n paid premiums for census coins for 50 years or more because they wanted the best they could acquire regardless of whether there was a market for those coins or not....

I'm aware of that.  To support my points, I don't need to disprove that somehow, somewhere in the world, someone might act differently than I write, I just need to provide better evidence and reasoning than those who disagree with me.

[World Colonial]

On 12/3/2022 at 7:50 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Curious - what do you define as "collectible quality" vs "dreck" in EAC coins?

I think you missed my point.  I was stating that coin quality which is "dreck" in my series (pillars) is or might be desirable in another, like EAC.  Someone owns both but the difference is that US collectors will pay "good" or "decent" prices for EAC coins with different issues whereas collectors of pillar coinage with a similar one almost never do.

On 12/3/2022 at 7:50 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

My personal goals are a date set with "major varieties":

• 1793 - VF20-25
• 1794-1797 - XF40 (with the 1796 omitted, but would love to have one in VG8 - but not likely to happen)
• 1800-1808 in AU53-MS63 (the 1802/0 C-2, and 1808/7 C-1 in VF20-25)
• 1809-1835 in MS62-63 (with 1811 in XF40-45)
• 1849-1857 in MS63-64 (all in RB but 1849, 1950, and 1853)

None in that quality is even close to "dreck", though it's my understanding that coins with issues (like minor corrosion) still end up in numerically graded TPG holders while coins in other series do not.  This makes perfect sense, because EAC are the primary buyers and what others think who do not buy it should be irrelevant.

On 12/3/2022 at 7:50 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Obviously, to a person that is "PF70UCAM or bust", everything I collect is "dreck"... but where is that line for collectors who collect a classic series? This varies by the collector, but how do you define it?  What are the target grades for the World Colonial market that you collect?  Are the comparable to straight-graded EAC coins?  I really know nothing about it at all.

IMO, there isn't one, but I think we can get an idea from the prices collectors pay for different coins or different series.

As another example, I personally consider 16-D Mercury dimes in low grades "dreck".  I don't care that it's a key date.  It's very common and available in volume any day of the week, even excluding the numerous fakes.  I don't remember seeing one I like (of any date) but in G-4, it's a $1200 coin.  Considering the price, it's obvious my opinion is a distinct minority.

For the coins I collect, there are a very low number of higher quality coins and for some but nowhere near most, reasonable availability but it's dreck by any sensible definition: holed (often), damaged (often), corroded (sometimes), and cleaned noticeably (almost always).  There are virtually no comparable "collector" grades as with early US silver denominations (the best comparison).  With US flowing hair and draped bust coinage, you can buy coins all the way down to AG-3 that still look decent, the coins have strong demand, and the prices reflect it.  This does not exist with my primary series.  There is very little and often nothing to buy.

[zadok]

On 12/4/2022 at 8:18 AM, World Colonial said:

I'm aware of that.  To support my points, I don't need to disprove that somehow, somewhere in the world, someone might act differently than I write, I just need to provide better evidence and reasoning than those who disagree with me.

...true, if u just want to support ur points, im just saying that u can expand ur points to include that fringe exception of collectors that dont care about the market n that go for the "premium" coins regardless of the market...its not a right or wrong issue but if i dont take some exception of what u say it makes it seem like im in total agreement, but thats just me n its a trivia point anyway.....

[zadok]

On 12/4/2022 at 8:42 AM, World Colonial said:

I think you missed my point.  I was stating that coin quality which is "dreck" in my series (pillars) is or might be desirable in another, like EAC.  Someone owns both but the difference is that US collectors will pay "good" or "decent" prices for EAC coins with different issues whereas collectors of pillar coinage with a similar one almost never do.

None in that quality is even close to "dreck", though it's my understanding that coins with issues (like minor corrosion) still end up in numerically graded TPG holders while coins in other series do not.  This makes perfect sense, because EAC are the primary buyers and what others think who do not buy it should be irrelevant.

IMO, there isn't one, but I think we can get an idea from the prices collectors pay for different coins or different series.

As another example, I personally consider 16-D Mercury dimes in low grades "dreck".  I don't care that it's a key date.  It's very common and available in volume any day of the week, even excluding the numerous fakes.  I don't remember seeing one I like (of any date) but in G-4, it's a $1200 coin.  Considering the price, it's obvious my opinion is a distinct minority.

For the coins I collect, there are a very low number of higher quality coins and for some but nowhere near most, reasonable availability but it's dreck by any sensible definition: holed (often), damaged (often), corroded (sometimes), and cleaned noticeably (almost always).  There are virtually no comparable "collector" grades as with early US silver denominations (the best comparison).  With US flowing hair and draped bust coinage, you can buy coins all the way down to AG-3 that still look decent, the coins have strong demand, and the prices reflect it.  This does not exist with my primary series.  There is very little and often nothing to buy.

...agree, ur point on 16-D mercs definitely accurate ditto 09-SVDB lincs...dealers want 95% of price guide because they r key dates but if u want to sell them a lower grade one u r lucky if they will give u 45% of price guide...sort of indicates the true commonality of these key dates....

[World Colonial]

On 12/4/2022 at 9:18 AM, zadok said:

...true, if u just want to support ur points, im just saying that u can expand ur points to include that fringe exception of collectors that dont care about the market n that go for the "premium" coins regardless of the market...its not a right or wrong issue but if i dont take some exception of what u say it makes it seem like im in total agreement, but thats just me n its a trivia point anyway.....

I understand but it's also a matter of proportionality.

You are familiar with that Franklin half which sold for around $150K, right?  Or those common late date Mercury dimes which sold for six figures?

In the early 70's before coins were widely bought as "investments, those are maybe $10 to $20, somewhat more at most, right?  

If a buyer paid a "large" premium, it was nothing close to the same multiple paid more recently.  If I did happen, I'll qualify my prior comments.

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

@World Colonial Thanks for the clarification.

[GoldFinger1969]

I think the conditions we talk about in this thread are different for all different coins:  Moderns, Commemoratives, Gold, Silver, and Small Denomination U.S. coins, esp. pre-1960.

I have both Saints and Morgans and without even going into condition the rarity for some years/mints would vary greatly from the stated mintage for that year pre-TPG and pre-Internet.

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 5:38 PM, World Colonial said:

What I describe, it's still apparent in collecting outside the US, at least where the local market doesn't have a similar preference for TPG. 

It’s still apparent in most of South Central Pennsylvania, one of the LEAST “slab happy” places in the U.S.

[World Colonial]

On 12/4/2022 at 11:06 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think the conditions we talk about in this thread are different for all different coins:  Moderns, Commemoratives, Gold, Silver, and Small Denomination U.S. coins, esp. pre-1960.

There are different grading standards for different series if that's what you mean.  Part of it was how it came "off the press" and part of it is how someone preserved it subsequently.

On 12/4/2022 at 11:06 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I have both Saints and Morgans and without even going into condition the rarity for some years/mints would vary greatly from the stated mintage for that year pre-TPG and pre-Internet.

The rarity for these two series almost certainly has not changed noticeably from pre-1986.  It's the perception.

Traditionally, collectors must have mostly used the mintage records but with Saints and Morgans, many turned out to be hoard coins.  These were scarcer in the sense that the coins were not generally available to collectors prior to the discovery.

[VKurtB]

On 12/4/2022 at 10:29 AM, World Colonial said:

There are different grading standards for different series if that's what you mean.  Part of it was how it came "off the press" and part of it is how someone preserved it subsequently.

The rarity for these two series almost certainly has not changed noticeably from pre-1986.  It's the perception.

Traditionally, collectors must have mostly used the mintage records but with Saints and Morgans, many turned out to be hoard coins.  These were scarcer in the sense that the coins were not generally available to collectors prior to the discovery.

“Hoard” coins, or “whored” coins? Of course I kid, or do I?

It’s just that GF69’s favorite series to think about and write about are my least favorite. My preference is for issues the actually did participate in commerce, OUTSIDE of canvas bags. 

Edited December 4, 2022 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/4/2022 at 11:29 AM, World Colonial said:

There are different grading standards for different series if that's what you mean.  Part of it was how it came "off the press" and part of it is how someone preserved it subsequently.

Sort of.....for "softer" metals there's always been an understanding that things like bag marks will be present.

On 12/4/2022 at 11:29 AM, World Colonial said:

The rarity for these two series almost certainly has not changed noticeably from pre-1986.  It's the perception.

Traditionally, collectors must have mostly used the mintage records but with Saints and Morgans, many turned out to be hoard coins.  These were scarcer in the sense that the coins were not generally available to collectors prior to the discovery.

True....but pre-Internet more so than pre-TPG we just didn't have accurate counts.  The totals for commons and semi-rare Saints listed in Bower's 2004 Red Book differ by a large amount for some coins vs. Roger's 2015 Saints DE book.  Imagine a book like the Red Book or some other source from the 1990's.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/4/2022 at 11:34 AM, VKurtB said:

It’s just that GF69’s favorite series to think about and write about are my least favorite. My preference is for issues the actually did participate in commerce, OUTSIDE of canvas bags. 

If you don't like gold coins, same thing applies to silver coins.  Just less impact from overseas hoards because they weren't really used there.

[VKurtB]

On 12/4/2022 at 10:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If you don't like gold coins, same thing applies to silver coins.  Just less impact from overseas hoards because they weren't really used there.

Oh I know it does. I’m not into the “romance” of Morgan dollars either. Think of series where many if not most of the remaining pieces are worn FLAT. Now think of the delicious counter examples to that. There, that’s what gets my collector’s juices flowing, not coins that nobody really used in actual day to day commerce. 

Edited December 4, 2022 by VKurtB

[World Colonial]

On 12/4/2022 at 11:38 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

True....but pre-Internet more so than pre-TPG we just didn't have accurate counts.  The totals for commons and semi-rare Saints listed in Bower's 2004 Red Book differ by a large amount for some coins vs. Roger's 2015 Saints DE book.  Imagine a book like the Red Book or some other source from the 1990's.

Not sure that's really different than most other series, even from US coinage.  There are clubs like EAC which I understand tracked this data but it's the exception to my knowledge.

Coins not being available prior to hoard discovery is one thing.  It means the supply probably wasn't available.

Lack of knowledge for the available population is another entirely.  There also isn't much point to tracking supply of known very common coins, unless you are referring to above a specific TPG number.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/4/2022 at 12:13 PM, World Colonial said:

Coins not being available prior to hoard discovery is one thing.  It means the supply probably wasn't available. Lack of knowledge for the available population is another entirely.  There also isn't much point to tracking supply of known very common coins, unless you are referring to above a specific TPG number.

I think it's more the case that the semi-rare coins are impacted by trickles of new coins coming in from around the world.  The ultra-rares it's highly unlikely we find any new ones (possible, but VERY unlikely).  And like you said, when you already have tens of thousands of a coin more coming doesn't impact things.

It's the coins with a few dozen to a few hundred and even a few thousand that get impacted.

[VKurtB]

On 12/4/2022 at 11:16 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think it's more the case that the semi-rare coins are impacted by trickles of new coins coming in from around the world.  The ultra-rares it's highly unlikely we find any new ones (possible, but VERY unlikely).  And like you said, when you already have tens of thousands of a coin more coming doesn't impact things.

It's the coins with a few dozen to a few hundred and even a few thousand that get impacted.

It seems logical (although I’ll wait for further scholarship on this) that the proofs were at all times immune from 1930’s confiscation rules. They may not have largely “vacationed in Europe”.

[VKurtB]

On 12/4/2022 at 7:18 AM, World Colonial said:

I'm aware of that.  To support my points, I don't need to disprove that somehow, somewhere in the world, someone might act differently than I write, I just need to provide better evidence and reasoning than those who disagree with me.

It’s not a contest, is it?

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 6:50 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Curious - what do you define as "collectible quality" vs "dreck" in EAC coins?  I don't know world coins at all, and really the only series where I consider myself knowledgeable is US Half Cents.  I agree that some collect very low grade, damaged examples (and for some varieties, "ugly" is as good as it gets).  However, one can collect these coins in mid grade with a healthy budget.  Condition census coins can get prohibitively expensive, for sure.

My personal goals are a date set with "major varieties":

• 1793 - VF20-25
• 1794-1797 - XF40 (with the 1796 omitted, but would love to have one in VG8 - but not likely to happen)
• 1800-1808 in AU53-MS63 (the 1802/0 C-2, and 1808/7 C-1 in VF20-25)
• 1809-1835 in MS62-63 (with 1811 in XF40-45)
• 1849-1857 in MS63-64 (all in RB but 1849, 1950, and 1853)

These grades are not "top pop" and certainly not worthy of any awards, but I don't think they are "dreck" either.  I refuse to buy "problem" coins, but I do understand that many EAC collectors do.  Does that mean that you consider the problem coins "dreck" (which I get), or are you also thinking that the lower grade examples of the tougher varieties are "dreck"?

Obviously, to a person that is "PF70UCAM or bust", everything I collect is "dreck"... but where is that line for collectors who collect a classic series? This varies by the collector, but how do you define it?  What are the target grades for the World Colonial market that you collect?  Are the comparable to straight-graded EAC coins?  I really know nothing about it at all.

Sorry to the group that this is a divergence from MS/PF70 conversation, but I am super curious. 

Those are some wonderful grade goals for those coins - possible yet not trivially easy. 

[World Colonial]

On 12/4/2022 at 3:13 PM, VKurtB said:

It’s not a contest, is it?

No, I intended that quote to mean the preponderance of the evidence.  Exceptions are exactly that, an exception to how collectors usually act.

Edited December 4, 2022 by World Colonial

[zadok]

On 12/4/2022 at 9:44 AM, World Colonial said:

I understand but it's also a matter of proportionality.

You are familiar with that Franklin half which sold for around $150K, right?  Or those common late date Mercury dimes which sold for six figures?

In the early 70's before coins were widely bought as "investments, those are maybe $10 to $20, somewhat more at most, right?  

If a buyer paid a "large" premium, it was nothing close to the same multiple paid more recently.  If I did happen, I'll qualify my prior comments.

...yep...i was mostly speaking to maybe 30% premiums over price lists back in the '70-'90s n in some instances maybe 100% premium for census condition varieties the last 20 years but nothing like those insufficiently_thoughtful_person premiums u mention...id hate to be the owner of that franklin n have to find a buyer...another frenzy im glad i skipped was the super high prices for census commemoratives  several years back....

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 4:10 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

I tell you, you've got to admire the rugged individualism of someone who regards an encapsulated coin as a superfluous impediment to viewing a coin up close and personally, in hand.  

… or under a non-digital stereo optical microscope of unbelievably low power, WITH a third optical tube for a camera.