If anyone wants to discuss anything related to moderns...

[cladking]

...or the future of the hobby, then I'll be back. Maybe by then these problems will be fixed.

[truthteller]

What ever was that "clanking" on the Captain Truthteller thread of the Starship Hegemony about 6 months ago. Did I ever find out?

 

TRUTH

[cladking]

Just testing?

 

I think it was Q in a separate time line, but never wrote that far due to extreme lack of interest by the forum.

[TomB]

What problems? This entire thread so far is confusing me.

[gmarguli]

Me too. I'm not sure if you're announcing you're leaving the forums or you're having problems using the forums or something else.

[EVillageProwler]

Clad,

 

Please post more truly numismatic threads that pertain to moderns (especially clads). I'm willing to bet that the folks here mostly just want a great thread about numismatics, even if it's in an area in which they have limited knowledge.

 

Speaking for myself, I love to learn more about all types of coins...

 

EVP

 

[msmhappy]

Clad,

 

Please post more truly numismatic threads that pertain to moderns (especially clads). I'm willing to bet that the folks here mostly just want a great thread about numismatics, even if it's in an area in which they have limited knowledge.

 

Speaking for myself, I love to learn more about all types of coins...

 

EVP

 

dito!!! I will, if I'm here!!!!!

 

mike

 

---------------------

 

dont forget! collect proof sets!!!!!!!!!!

[coinman1794]

Many people do not appreciate modern coins (post 1964). I think this is because they are perceived as too modern and too familiar because many of the designs are still being made. Many people also see them as too generic and too common in high grades. While that is true for many of the recent proofs etc., there are numerous modern coins, particularly business strikes, which are very hard to find in high grades. This is partially because relatively few were saved. For the last 40 years, few people where interested in them. Now that interest has developed (due to the new coin designs and registry sets etc.), collectors are slowly finding that many dates have become quite scarce in high grades. Most post 1964 MS66 or better Washington Quarters, for instance, are of mint set origin because few regular business strikes were saved. Another reason why they are hard to find is - because interest is just beginning, few have been certified. However, this doesn’t mean that no moderns are legitimately scarce.

 

OK, what am I getting at? Well, I’m making the point that modern coins can be legitimately scarce and there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking them, collecting them, or selling them. I think it is ridiculous to pay thousands of dollars for some pop top coins because of registry issues etc., but that is my opinion. If someone is willing to bid that high, I won’t complain. I don’t see why it’s any business of mine! They freely chose to pay that price. If some people place that much emphasis on registry sets etc, let them.

 

There is a modern coin conversation for ya !

 

[cladking]

There is also nothing wrong with not liking moderns or believing that they are over-priced and about to crash. It would be nice to my eyes though that if someone must "dis" moderns to do it in a rational way or to state it as an opinion. This doesn't mean a rash of "moderns s u [!@#%^&^]" threads are going to be fun, just that it's hard to have dialog when threads are exploding or your statements are ignored.

 

I apologize for the confusing start to this thread. It was started as a tantrum and sidetracked early when it was obvious it would be ignored anyway.

 

I love talking about moderns and will usually use any excuse.

[GDJMSP]

OK clad - here's an opportunity

 

Would you please tell us in your opinion - in MS66 or better - what are the five toughest years to find for the clad dimes, quarters & halves ?

[TomB]

Okay, well, I'm still not certain what this thread is all about but I am glad that you are still here.

[currentcoin]

Do not talk about clad dimes that's my area of specialty are now.

Wait till I get them all.

 

But seriously

 

The hard dimes are as with most clads the 70's

Surprise the D mint dimes are the easier ones.

There are some inconsistencies in some years where P are better.

But in 1981 a design change made Full Bands a lot easier to find.

Still not every one has bands ,but most will from then on.

 

Glen

 

[cladking]

OK clad - here's an opportunity

 

Would you please tell us in your opinion - in MS66 or better - what are the five toughest years to find for the clad dimes, quarters & halves ?

 

This is an extremely tricky question because each date varies in many ways. For instance a 72-D quarter is considered very easy in MS-65/6 to collectors who search for them in mint sets, but this coin is nearly impossible to find in rolls in top grades. The mint set coins are likely available up to MS-68, but you can't find it with 100% strike in any grade. All of the mint set examples will have at least a small part of the "2" in the date that isn't full. It would be misleading to include it on the list or to omit it. The 83-P quarter was typically made for a Philly coin of the era, perhaps a little better than some. There are no regular mint sets and rolls and singles can be hard to find. Gems are quite scarce. Indeed they're so scarce that an accurate assessment is difficult. Are they included? Probably, but it clouds the fact that the 82-P is likely much tougher in gem. There are a few more of these available but many are sliders and on the whole they were made worse. All of the type "d" reverse quarters are scarce, rare or non existent in high grade except the 81-P(maybe the 82-D). About 18,000 of the 81-P went into mint sets. These are typically MS-60's with a smattering of MS-63's, though they do appear as high as MS-66. I've seen only three or four gems of all fifteen of the type "d" coins combined. The '71 coin may belong on such a list. It comes extremely choice but only very rarely and there are not many just misses. Rolls of this date are pretty scarce and quality in rolls tends very poor. The 89-D probably belongs on it too. The mint set coins are almost invariably marked up and finding any quantities of the late date sets is extraordinarily difficult. The coin comes with stunning luster (often burnished), and razor sharp strikes from new dies, and scratches. Perhaps about one coin in 250 mint sets will go choice gem, which may not seem particularly tough until you try to find 250 '89 sets.Each of these coins has to be graded or compared to others of the same date. This is what makes the selection so difficult. A gem '69 doesn't look the same as a gem '84-P. They have much different strike characteristics and they were handled much differently. The '84 coin has very low rims which allows it to pick up marks very easily. The surfaces appear different on gems of the two dates. It wouldn't be too difficult to make an argument for many more of these dates, but these 21 coins are among my favorites.

[EVillageProwler]

Cool post. Much info. Thanks. I wish I knew more about this stuff...

 

EVP

 

[cladking]

... I wish I knew more about this stuff...

 

Some of the easiest gems to find are among my favorites also. The 69-D was saved a little bit in rolls and gems are available from this source. Mint set coins can be stunning, often they are blast white with incredibly deep luster. Strike quality varies a little but nice sharply struck gems are fairly available. Unfortunately the last five or ten years have been pretty hard on the coins still in original packaging and many have tarnished. It remains a fairly easy gem. The '68 is another that can be extraordinarily stunning in high grade. Again, it's not particularly tough in the sets and a somewhat more substantial number of rolls were set aside. The Bicentennial issue is the one exception to the rule. Large numbers of these were saved in rolls and gems are occasionally found from this source. Still it's likely that the very best coins went into the mint sets and in this case it's mostly the '76 set. There are very few superb gems of the bicentennial issue in the '75 set, but they do appear. While these are not rare or scarce because of the multiple sources for the coins, this design just seems more striking to me in gem than the other quarters. This especially applies to the reverse where nice clean lines and the strings of the drum make a gem seem almost like a different coin than the typical strike. While the coin may well have been widely hoarded, there is no evidence that the coin was searched out much for collections. The incidence of gems in mint sets has changed very little over the years. If more than a few people were searching these coins out then they would be getting harder to find in sets. They are not! The 80-D issue is another which comes real nice. Some rolls of this coin were set aside but gems are quite rare in rolls of this era. The mint set coins are fairly common in gem and come highly proof like sometimes. Many of the post '85 coins can go on either list, too. Significant numbers of coins which appear burnished began showing up. Mint standards for all strike characteristics improved a little especially for mint set coins. Unfortunately the number of scratches actually increased a little and worse, they seemed to affect a larger percentage of coins.

 

 

 

 

[EVillageProwler]

One concern I have with the increased publicity of the clad material is the potential for serious decline in superb original specimens.

 

At LB, Tony Terranova lamented how 10+ years ago the coins were so much nicer. He was referring to classics, and meaning that so much of that stuff have been messed with since then.

 

It seems to me that moderns are a new frontier yet to be raped by human greed.

 

EVP

 

[cladking]

One concern I have with the increased publicity of the clad material is the potential for serious decline in superb original specimens.

 

At LB, Tony Terranova lamented how 10+ years ago the coins were so much nicer. He was referring to classics, and meaning that so much of that stuff have been messed with since then.

 

It seems to me that moderns are a new frontier yet to be raped by human greed.

 

 

Certainly this is coming. There will be charlatans and coin doctors and even counterfeiters moving into these coins as the yearts go by.

 

There are already a few early warning signs, but this really is to be expected anywhere people see an opportunity to make a buck. Right now these risks are relatively small and the greatest risk is just overpaying.

 

There are steps that can be taken to minimize one's risk and these are pretty similar to what they are in all other collectible areas. Know what the original is supposed to look like and know how much you should get for your money. Right now the education is available pretty cheap in that many raw coins are still available. As time goes on the only cheap education will be the coins in circulation. Here too though, These coins are fast losing their detail. Not merely the high points of the coins being rubbed off, but the exodus of the few coins which retain much of their detail. These coins are flowing out of circulation now and into collections. Also as people search the circulating coins they are disturbing them in more subtle ways by picking out the better strikes and causing their rejects to "bunch up". It will be several years before the circulating coins are the same homogenous mush that was so prevalent in the years leading up to 1965.

 

It should also be pointed out that doctoring should be at least a little less of a problem with these coins since they haven't had as many decades to pick up problems.

[jom]

I suppose there will always be coins doctors but as long as people are paying huge premiums for small differences in grade there will be even more people doctoring to max out the slab. I don't care if it's a modern or a classic. In the last two years alone I've seen more toned (AT) Kennedy's and Jefferson's than I saw the previous 10.

 

jom

[CONSERVATIVE]

Here is a nice modern coin.

 

 

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=195507

 

KINGKOIN KING OF KOINS

[GDJMSP]

Not bad clad - a good discussion on the quarters & moderns in general.

 

Now if you will just carry on in the same manner with the dimes & halves - please

[cladking]

My knowledge of the dimes and halves is relatively limited. I save the gems I find while searching for the quarters but have never really studied them or organized them into a collecion. There are some specific comments which would likely be true, but will try to stick with more general ones. The availability of the early clad dimes in rolls is much greater for the dimes than the quarters, probably on he ratio of about 4:1. The quality of these coins tends to be much higher since their smaller size allows more coins to be struck before the dies begin to show a lot of wear. This small size also means they have less momentum in collisions so damage is less. While many more rolls are available quantities are still very spotty with few of some dates and large numbers of others. Except for the earliest dates, none of these is really common. Mint set coins are also much better quality and dimes are far and away the easiest clad to find in gem. Many of these gems will be very prooflike especially those from 1976 to date. Some dates like the '78-D will range up over 1% gem PL. 85-D's can be spectacular and are even more common though not as PL. There are some interesting varieties in mint sets like the 69-D/D and the 70-DDR. There's a minor DDO in the SMS dates. One of the more difficult gems is the '71 due to poor strike. Many of these are low grade so even choice specimens are a little tougher.

 

If collecting high grade moderns ever gets popular then the dimes will be the biggest beneficiary since the coins are more available in all the better grades.

 

Half dollars tend to be much harder to find in gem than dimes and somewhat harder than quarters. Some dates are excrutiatingly tough in mint sets. The 80-D springs to mind due to it's numerous scrapes, scratches, and gouges. Apparently these were scraped by the equipment that fed them into the mint sets. The Bicentennial coin comes with beautiful surfaces and strike sometimes but is rare in high grade without some scratches. The better specimens are found in the '76 set. The best are available in either but far more likely in the '76. Most of the post '86 set coins are plagued by scratches. Really nice coins often have incidences under .25%, though nice gems are a little more common. Half dollars were saved by the roll and the bag and many of these coins still exist. In most cases they probably have little bearing on the availability of very high grade coins, but there are gems in these.

 

These three denominations and the dollars have a fairly uniform availability of gems in mint sets. Except for a handful of outliers the most common coin will tend to be no more than about ten times as common as the scarcer issues in high grade. The cents and nickels are highly erratic in their availability in gem. With some cent dates very high grade is actually typical.