What is your definition of a modern coin? 1 1

[Henri Charriere]

In the past hour, a much esteemed member posted a Topic, entitled:  "Why some day Moderns will be Hot."  If I'd've had my druthers, I'd've phrased that topic differently:  Why some Moderns will be Hot someday. Big difference, but either way both beg the question, what constitutes a modern coin?  My definition, which I express privately, is: if you can find it in change, it's modern.  True, oddballs pop-up now and again, but exceptions can be found in all fields of human endeavor. My question is, What is your definition of a modern coin?

[ldhair]

On 4/11/2024 at 3:54 PM, Henri Charriere said:

if you can find it in change, it's modern.

I agree with that. 

[cladking]

On 4/11/2024 at 3:54 PM, Henri Charriere said:

if you can find it in change, it's modern.

I like your definition for US coins.

I believe a better definition is "modern coins" are any coin from any country introduced after the withdrawal of silver from circulation.  After WW II one country after another quit producing silver coins.  The US was one of the last to do it in 1964.   

Other than low denominations in no country were the "moderns" saved in significant quantities by collectors.  

Edited April 12 by cladking

[GoldFinger1969]

On 4/12/2024 at 8:16 AM, ldhair said:

I agree with that. 

Also, if it is still being minted today.  Nickels and Quarters are modern; Double Eagles and Silver/Ike Dollars are not. 

[olympicsos]

The definition of moderns will likely change over time. Before 1934 was the dividing line, then it became 1964. I bet when new compositions for circulating coins are issued, that will be yet another dividing line.

[VKurtB]

The American Numismatic Association has a definition, to which I subscribe. Their exhibit rules (I am a member of the Exhibiting Committee) for Class 4 - Modern Coins and Medals, the John Esbach Award, endowed by the Red Rose Coin Club of Lancaster, PA (of which I am a past President) states that the line of demarcation is 1960, not any other date. It applies to ALL countries, not just the U.S. 

By the way, Britain went off .925 silver in 1920, and off 50% silver in 1947. 1964 is just soooo Amerocentric thinking 

Edited April 12 by VKurtB

[World Colonial]

On 4/12/2024 at 9:26 AM, cladking said:

I believe a better definition is "modern coins" are any coin from any country introduced after the withdrawal of silver from circulation.  After WW II one country after another quit producing silver coins.  The US was one of the last to do it in 1964.   

Other than low denominations in no country were the "moderns" saved in significant quantities by collectors.  

"Modern" in the context of non-US collecting is a US centric term. There is no such thing as world "moderns" and it has zero relevance to how most collectors collect.  US collectors don't even make that distinction either, except maybe in the context of "bargain bin" B&M inventory which isn't necessarily tied to the metal content.  I've never heard a single person use this term or make this distinction other than you.

It's not used outside the US that I know and if it is, they got it from here, not locally.  It's meaningless in Europe or Asia with up to thousands of years to collect.  In Europe, "modern" is anything after 1500.  In Latin America, the native population never struck their own coinage and in most of it, there is limited if any organized collecting.  In Africa, same thing but not what US collectors would consider organized collecting except in South Africa, where I know as fact their collector base had never heard of the US definition until I mentioned it.

Maybe a very few countries have coinage that can legitimately be considered to have a distinct separation between series to meet the US definition of "modern" but it's no more than that.  The primary one is Canada, and I can see China PRC as a second.  I can't think of a single other one.

[World Colonial]

On 4/12/2024 at 4:47 PM, VKurtB said:

The American Numismatic Association has a definition, to which I subscribe. Their exhibit rules (I am a member of the Exhibiting Committee) for Class 4 - Modern Coins and Medals, the John Esbach Award, endowed by the Red Rose Coin Club of Lancaster, PA (of which I am a past President) states that the line of demarcation is 1960, not any other date. It applies to ALL countries, not just the U.S. 

By the way, Britain went off .925 silver in 1920, and off 50% silver in 1947. 1964 is just soooo Amerocentric thinking 

Using the metal content as the defining factor is nonsensical.

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/13/2024 at 8:44 PM, World Colonial said:

"Modern" in the context of non-US collecting is a US centric term....

There is no such thing as world "moderns" and it has zero relevance . 

....I've never heard a single person use this term or make this distinction other than you.

I am truly sorry you compromised your integrity to acknowledge the likes of me.  I do not wish to jeopardize your station on this Forum by sacrificing your reputation and credibility for me.

What you say is true. To me, U.S. coinage ceased to exist after 1964.  Gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands over "flaws," visible to the unaided eye, back then, was unheard of. The '43 "copper" penny and '55 DDO "variety" were well known. 

I did not use the term obsolete because the term has lost its utility. Those coins have attained numismatic value. I do not believe any such coin (or currency for that matter) would be refused by a merchant unless proffered as face value. 

Your point is well taken. I shall no longer use the term Modern anymore.  One last thing... how will you refer to "any coin from any country introduced after the withdrawal of silver from circulation."

 

[World Colonial]

On 4/13/2024 at 9:41 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I am truly sorry you compromised your integrity to acknowledge the likes of me.  I do not wish to jeopardize your station on this Forum by sacrificing your reputation and credibility for me.

What you say is true. To me, U.S. coinage ceased to exist after 1964.  Gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands over "flaws," visible to the unaided eye, back then, was unheard of. The '43 "copper" penny and '55 DDO "variety" were well known. 

I did not use the term obsolete because the term has lost its utility. Those coins have attained numismatic value. I do not believe any such coin (or currency for that matter) would be refused by a merchant unless proffered as face value. 

Your point is well taken. I shall no longer use the term Modern anymore.  One last thing... how will you refer to "any coin from any country introduced after the withdrawal of silver from circulation."

 

Modern applies to US coinage because it's distinctly part of the collecting culture.

It doesn't apply in anything close to the same context elsewhere.

[VKurtB]

On 4/13/2024 at 8:41 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I am truly sorry you compromised your integrity to acknowledge the likes of me.  I do not wish to jeopardize your station on this Forum by sacrificing your reputation and credibility for me.

What you say is true. To me, U.S. coinage ceased to exist after 1964.  Gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands over "flaws," visible to the unaided eye, back then, was unheard of. The '43 "copper" penny and '55 DDO "variety" were well known. 

I did not use the term obsolete because the term has lost its utility. Those coins have attained numismatic value. I do not believe any such coin (or currency for that matter) would be refused by a merchant unless proffered as face value. 

Your point is well taken. I shall no longer use the term Modern anymore.  One last thing... how will you refer to "any coin from any country introduced after the withdrawal of silver from circulation."

 

The beginning of sanity. 

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

I rank them as:

• Classic: 1793-1933
• Classic/Modern: 1934-1964
• Modern Clad: 1965-Present

(Note:  This is nothing "official" with any org, it's just the way I bucket them in my head)

Edited April 15 by The Neophyte Numismatist

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/15/2024 at 5:35 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

I rank them as:

• Classic: 1793-1933
• Classic/Modern: 1934-1964
• Modern Clad: 

Splendid..  Now @World Colonial can no longer claim, as he had upthread a few posts, and I quote:   "I've never heard a single person use this term [Modern] or make this distinction other than you (meaning, me.)"

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/15/2024 at 5:51 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Splendid..  Now @World Colonial can no longer claim, as he had upthread a few posts, and I quote:   "I've never heard a single person use this term [Modern] or make this distinction other than you (meaning, me.)"

(See post dated Saturday, 8:44 p.m. responding to a post by fellow combatant, @cladking and, by extension, me.)

[cladking]

On 4/13/2024 at 9:07 PM, World Colonial said:

Modern applies to US coinage because it's distinctly part of the collecting culture.

It doesn't apply in anything close to the same context elsewhere.

In almost all countries (at least major countries) between the Bretton Woods agreement and 1968 silver was discontinued and the coins were replaced by base metals, usually cu/ni.   Referring to the debased coinage as "modern" makes sense because its introduction in every case marked the beginning of the cessation of collecting new coinage.  In a few case copper coins that were unaffected by the debasement continued to be collected but in most (such as the US) all coin collecting of new coin ceased.   This happened in this country in 1965 but in most countries it was earlier and in a few it was later.  

The definition of "modern" hence is "new debased coinage that was not collected and usually still isn't".  

Whether or not this ball was set in motion in Bretton Woods is a question that won't be answered for years yet.  I strongly suspect it was.  

Mebbe the bankers wanted all the precious metals so they could sell the same bar to numerous individuals.  

[World Colonial]

On 4/15/2024 at 6:07 PM, cladking said:

Referring to the debased coinage as "modern" makes sense because its introduction in every case marked the beginning of the cessation of collecting new coinage.  In a few case copper coins that were unaffected by the debasement continued to be collected but in most (such as the US) all coin collecting of new coin ceased.   This happened in this country in 1965 but in most countries it was earlier and in a few it was later.  

You’re making a generalization which doesn’t describe how most collectors collect non-US coinage.  Collectors don't generally make an arbitrary distinction using the metal content. 

What you describe is an arbitrary “coin dump” you’ve invented, numbering maybe 50,000 in the 70's to over 100,000 now, using an inconsistent and arbitrary cut-off date.  You’re thinking in the context of how you collect as a US based collector, from your local dealers ‘bargain bin” which doesn’t reflect most collecting of non-US coinage, either in the US or elsewhere.

You're making this distinction because you exaggerate meaningless price differences.  The price differences between the vast majority of the world coinage you call “modern” and the vast majority of the immediately preceding “classics” are almost always immaterial.  It’s material to you because you're measuring what is actually an alternate low budget consumption expense using percentages.  The relative price is the best indication of collector perception, not an arbitrary definition from the metal content. 

As an example, I just bought one roll each of 60’s Canadian silver dollars, halves and quarters at $4.75, $9.25, and $18 per coin.  It’s maybe 2X to 3X an earlier dated base metal coin in comparable quality.  That’s a trivial difference and not unusual.

On 4/15/2024 at 6:07 PM, cladking said:

Referring to the debased coinage as "modern" makes sense because its introduction in every case marked the beginning of the cessation of collecting new coinage.  In a few case copper coins that were unaffected by the debasement continued to be collected but in most (such as the US) all coin collecting of new coin ceased.   This happened in this country in 1965 but in most countries it was earlier and in a few it was later.  

Your claim is demonstrably wrong.  What you're describing is collectors refusing to pay the price you think this coinage should be worth.  That's the real disagreement underlying all our differences of opinion.  I've told you this before. You think this coinage should have a higher preference than it does, collectors should assign it higher prices, and since you dislike collective perception, you claim it "wasn't collected", just as you do for US moderns which is equally wrong.

National mints sales, eBay, Franklin Mint "Coin Sets of all Nations", and thousands of B&M dealers worldwide factually prove you wrong.

Edited April 16 by World Colonial

[cladking]

On 4/15/2024 at 5:58 PM, World Colonial said:

Your claim is demonstrably wrong.  What you're describing is collectors refusing to pay the price you think this coinage should be worth.

No.  what I am describing is collectors refusing to pay much less for scarcer coins because they are base metal.  There's a simple reason they won't pay a lower prices for scarcer coins: They don't collect them because they are believed to be common debased junk.  Part of the reason they are considered such is that mintages are higher and quality is lower on average.  

I can find handfuls of nice chBU, XF, and VF British sterling for every "common" mid-'20's .500 fine debased junk.   Then I can find handfuls of high grade .500 fine for the '50's era cu/ ni coins in BU.  

It's this way in "every" country.  

[VKurtB]

On 4/15/2024 at 8:04 PM, cladking said:

No.  what I am describing is collectors refusing to pay much less for scarcer coins because they are base metal.  There's a simple reason they won't pay a lower prices for scarcer coins: They don't collect them because they are believed to be common debased junk.  Part of the reason they are considered such is that mintages are higher and quality is lower on average.  

I can find handfuls of nice chBU, XF, and VF British sterling for every "common" mid-'20's .500 fine debased junk.   Then I can find handfuls of high grade .500 fine for the '50's era cu/ ni coins in BU.  

It's this way in "every" country.  

As an ardent collector of British shillings, I can confirm that finding high quality British CuNi pieces is taking some time and checking lots of stock boxes. Luckily there is no shortage of dealers at the bigger shows to check. I filled a lot of holes with a single bulk lot at auction. I am enjoying the hunt for the balance. 

[cladking]

On 4/16/2024 at 3:50 PM, VKurtB said:

As an ardent collector of British shillings, I can confirm that finding high quality British CuNi pieces is taking some time and checking lots of stock boxes. Luckily there is no shortage of dealers at the bigger shows to check. I filled a lot of holes with a single bulk lot at auction. I am enjoying the hunt for the balance. 

Imagine how hard these would be to find if there were lots of collectors and lots of collections!  

20 years ago most of them were just a dollar or two each and I always picked them up but rarely saw them.  Now they are five or ten dollars and you still don't see them.  These come nice but Gems are not easy.  A lot of them are tarnished and these don't clean up as readily as clad.  There are lots of sliders and AU's also.  

[cladking]

On 4/16/2024 at 3:50 PM, VKurtB said:

As an ardent collector of British shillings, I can confirm that finding high quality British CuNi pieces is taking some time and checking lots of stock boxes. Luckily there is no shortage of dealers at the bigger shows to check. I filled a lot of holes with a single bulk lot at auction. I am enjoying the hunt for the balance. 

I had a chance to buy a few hundred of the scarce 1959 Scottish 1S back in 1995 but would have to take them all at ~40c each.  I passed.  They were almost all XF and AU with a few VF's and sliders.  

I doubt many of the cu/ ni coins are tough in XF except maybe the early ones.  I see a lot in poundage and they tend to be F.   

Moderns are funny.  It seems most are either more common or less common than one would expect.  

[World Colonial]

On 4/15/2024 at 9:04 PM, cladking said:

No.  what I am describing is collectors refusing to pay much less for scarcer coins because they are base metal.  There's a simple reason they won't pay a lower prices for scarcer coins: 

There is no practical difference to most collectors between the scarcity of this coinage.  I've told you this before, but you won't accept it.

On 4/15/2024 at 9:04 PM, cladking said:

They don't collect them because they are believed to be common debased junk.  Part of the reason they are considered such is that mintages are higher and quality is lower on average.  

So, eBay sales are imaginary?  So are world mint sales?  Sales at however many B&M sell it?  Franklin Mint didn't sell the hundreds of thousands to millions of "Coin Sets of All Nations"?

On 4/15/2024 at 9:04 PM, cladking said:

I can find handfuls of nice chBU, XF, and VF British sterling for every "common" mid-'20's .500 fine debased junk.   Then I can find handfuls of high grade .500 fine for the '50's era cu/ ni coins in BU.  

It's this way in "every" country.  

The scarcity difference is of no relevance to most collectors.  It's only relevant to a tiny fraction like you, and you won't even pay the prices you think it should be worth.  That's behind your claim that it "isn't collected".

Edited April 16 by World Colonial

[World Colonial]

On 4/16/2024 at 4:50 PM, VKurtB said:

As an ardent collector of British shillings, I can confirm that finding high quality British CuNi pieces is taking some time and checking lots of stock boxes. Luckily there is no shortage of dealers at the bigger shows to check. I filled a lot of holes with a single bulk lot at auction. I am enjoying the hunt for the balance. 

Where are you looking?  Is it mostly at coin shows?

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/13/2024 at 8:44 PM, World Colonial said:

"Modern" in the context of non-US collecting is a US centric term. There is no such thing as world "moderns" and it has zero relevance to how most collectors collect.  US collectors don't even make that distinction either, except maybe in the context of "bargain bin" B&M inventory which isn't necessarily tied to the metal content.  I've never heard a single person use this term or make this distinction other than you.

It's not used outside the US that I know and if it is, they got it from here, not locally.  It's meaningless in Europe or Asia with up to thousands of years to collect.  In Europe, "modern" is anything after 1500.  In Latin America, the native population never struck their own coinage and in most of it, there is limited if any organized collecting.  In Africa, same thing but not what US collectors would consider organized collecting except in South Africa, where I know as fact their collector base had never heard of the US definition until I mentioned it.

Maybe 

Nota bene:  Begging the OPs indulgence, I believe I would be remiss in my duty to broaden the hobby's "body of knowledge" if I failed to bring to the ardent reader's attention, a reference to the content of a comment posted by our own @World Colonial while seemingly anecdotal, resounds with the ring of unassailable truth -- before this thread proceeds further.  

[cladking]

On 4/16/2024 at 6:47 PM, World Colonial said:

There is no practical difference to most collectors between the scarcity of this coinage.  I've told you this before, but you won't accept it.

Repeating things that aren't true has no effect on anything.  You can find fistfuls of Unc and gemmy British silver for every 500 fine coin you can find yet the sterling sells for more.   Then you can find a lot more of the 500 fine than cu can the cu/ ni yet the 500 sells for more.  

 

On 4/16/2024 at 6:47 PM, World Colonial said:

So are world mint sales? 

Mintage and sales are irrelevant.  The only things that count are how many survive and how many want one.  

 

On 4/16/2024 at 6:47 PM, World Colonial said:

The scarcity difference is of no relevance to most collectors.  It's only relevant to a tiny fraction like you, and you won't even pay the prices you think it should be worth. 

I'm selling.   Not because I have as much profit as possible but because of my age.  

[VKurtB]

On 4/16/2024 at 6:49 PM, World Colonial said:

Where are you looking?  Is it mostly at coin shows?

Yes, there, plus local shows, auctions, and the odd online auction. The last category is mostly larger lots of coins. I have a healthy sized hoard of replaced upgraded stuff. I am pretty sure that Allen Berman can pretty well wipe out my later shilling “holes” if I send him a need list prior to the next show we both are in attendance. I have bought many of my better pieces from him.

I tend to opt for better examples, very few of which come inexpensive, regardless of alloy. From my experience, the toughest era to find in really nice shape is anything from the beginning of WW2 until the earlier 1950’s.  Almost magically, when Elizabeth II ascended the throne, more shillings tended to be saved. 

Edited April 17 by VKurtB

[World Colonial]

On 4/16/2024 at 8:23 PM, cladking said:

Repeating things that aren't true has no effect on anything.  You can find fistfuls of Unc and gemmy British silver for every 500 fine coin you can find yet the sterling sells for more.   Then you can find a lot more of the 500 fine than cu can the cu/ ni yet the 500 sells for more.  

A collector only needs one and most of them don't care if it's UNC either where they will pay meaningful premiums for it.

I've also told you most of the price differences are trivial.  You're exaggerating trivial price differences which virtually no one cares about, other than you.  Price variances from less than a dollar on tow end to somewhat more than nominal low-cost purchases, approaching 95% to 99% of the time.

On 4/16/2024 at 8:23 PM, cladking said:

Mintage and sales are irrelevant.  The only things that count are how many survive and how many want one.  

I wasn't referring to mintages or survivors.  The sources I listed prove that your claim of this coinage not being collected is wrong, again. 

On 4/16/2024 at 8:23 PM, cladking said:

I'm selling.   Not because I have as much profit as possible but because of my age.  

Then why are you exaggerating such immaterial price differences?  

That's the underlying source of every disagreement I have with you on these topics, the price.  There is no market significance to the scarcity difference with the coinage we discuss, seldom any market significance with quality differences which you exaggerate even more than US collecting generally, and I don't disagree with your assessment of current demand, only your unrealistic future claims.

[World Colonial]

On 4/16/2024 at 9:33 PM, VKurtB said:

Yes, there, plus local shows, auctions, and the odd online auction. The last category is mostly larger lots of coins. I have a healthy sized hoard of replaced upgraded stuff. I am pretty sure that Allen Berman can pretty well wipe out my later shilling “holes” if I send him a need list prior to the next show we both are in attendance. I have bought many of my better pieces from him.

I tend to opt for better examples, very few of which come inexpensive, regardless of alloy. From my experience, the toughest era to find in really nice shape is anything from the beginning of WW2 until the earlier 1950’s.  Almost magically, when Elizabeth II ascended the throne, more shillings tended to be saved. 

What price range applies here?  Is your quality criteria "gem", a better UNC, or something else?

With your comparison of the George VI and QEII portraits, some of it is presumably the mintage but mostly I think it's collector preference for the Gillick portrait which resulted in a higher survival rate too.  The Gillick portrait is one of my 20th century favorites.  I find KGVI rather ordinary.

Edited April 19 by World Colonial

[cladking]

On 4/18/2024 at 6:05 PM, World Colonial said:

I wasn't referring to mintages or survivors.  The sources I listed prove that your claim of this coinage not being collected is wrong, again. 

Even though debased coinage is USUALLY scarcer and often much scarcer than the coins they replace they usually sell for a small fraction of the price.  

Why would you think this is?  

[VKurtB]

On 4/18/2024 at 6:14 PM, World Colonial said:

What price range applies here?  Is your quality criteria "gem", a better UNC, or something else?

With your comparison of the George VI and QEII portraits, some of it is presumably the mintage but mostly I think it's collector preference for the Gillick portrait which resulted in a higher survival rate too.  The Gillick portrait is one of my 20th century favorites.  I find KGVI rather ordinary.

Because it is NOT in my plan to get ANY of my shillings handled by a TPGS (heck, I’ve DE-slabbed three), I am not working on gemmy coins, but rather coins as I prefer them, which is long on detail and luster, while tolerating a nick or three. See? My disdain for “technical grading” is complete and utter. 

[powermad5000]

Back to the question at hand and topic of this thread, I will throw out a different tack. I put this back at 1960. By 1960, the cent had firmly established mintage numbers in the billions and combined P and D nickels, dimes, and quarters were all in the hundreds of millions. Even the Franklin half was in the tens of millions combined P and D. To me this puts numbers so high that basically anyone could have a great specimen of each denomination and obtained at face value, thus where I think I would call it the beginning of the era of moderns.