What is the Boundary between Classic and Modern Coinage?

[TomB]

I'm serious. This is a legitimate question. There is a certain amount of writing on the boards about how modern coinage might be more high risk/high reward than classic coinage, however, I don't know of a satisfactory break between the two. Is it the advent of the steam press or the closed collar? Might it be the final removal of all precious metals from circulating coinage? The trend toward literal design interpretation vs allegory in coinage theme? The explosion in mintage figures? An historical cutoff or event? Something else?

 

For myself, I favor a mixture of three of the above. I think of this as a hybrid made up of literal design interpretations overtaking allegorical designs mixed with a somewhat arbitrary cutoff date of the beginning of WWII. The series that were current during WWII are still considered more classical to me until and if they underwent a change in metallic content or design change. How about anyone else?

[dragon]

This is what I classify as modern coinage:

 

All cents after 1943

 

All nickels after Buffs

 

All dimes after Mercs

 

All quarters after 1934

 

All halves after Walkers

 

All dollars After Peace dollars

 

Any other issue made after 1955

[msmhappy]

 

 

Modern coinage ( to me ) are coins with patterns that are currently being produced for circulation.

 

In other words... The boundry is the cut off of an old design and the beginning of a new design!!!!!

 

Does that make sense???

 

mike

 

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

 

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

 

 

[IrishMike]

Great question, not sure there is an answer that would please everyone. For me I prefer to keep it simple. For cents, it is the memorial design for delineation, for all other coinage except nickels and dimes, 1965 and up is modern, with the exception of SMS coinage. Roosies and Jeffs are moderns.

 

Let me emphasize just this is just a personal reference.

[andy007]

Being the ripe old age of 25 certainly has an impact on when I define modern coins, which I feel began with the reverse change to the Memorial cent, and disappearance of silver in coinage(what does that mean of the nickel then??)

 

However, when I think of modern coins, the Jefferson nickel(1938-present), Roosevelt dime(1946), Washington quarter(1932), and Franklin half dollar(1948) are not thought of as classic coins to me.

 

I'm not sure if you pointing out that there can be three methods of defining classic or modern coinage leads to this, but I will stipulate that I can also easily see three periods of U.S. coinage. (1) The early classic coins, from colonial pieces to Draped Bust, Flowing Hair, Capped Bust, Coronet, and Classic Head coinage. (2) late classics consisting of Seated, Barber, Walking Liberty, Standing Liberty, Winged Liberty, Morgan & Peace dollars, Wheat Lincoln, Flying Eagle(which could be debated as either early or modern classic), Indian cents, Shield, Liberty, and Buffalo nickels, and early commeratives. (3) moderns composed of the rest basically, including the memorial cent, Jefferson nickel, Roosevelt dime, Washington quarter, State quarters, Franklin half dollar, Kennedy half dollar, Eisenhower, SBA, & Sacajawea dollars.

 

Hmmm, maybe I'm just nuts.

[DonHeath]

Tom,

 

It is a question I have wrestled with for a long time. I think of the dividing line more in terms of a shoreline, with inlets and peninsulas (and the occasional sand bar! ). I guess in the end, my definition has more to do with the absolute value of the individual coin. I think for me a more meaningful definition is common / uncommon. I'm not so concerned with date. Some Morgans are quite common, and some SLQs are tough. I guess we all seek a definition that is useful to ourselves. If pressed for a formal definition, I guess I would choose 1951.

[bigd5]

Ditto Dragon, although I'd include ALL Washington Quarters as modern. I could never pin down a "cut-off", as far as a particular year. Depends on the series, and I'd put a gray area on the later date Walkers (the short set), buffalo nickels,Merc's etc..

[TomB]

I think we have had some excellent responses here and I'd like to expand upon something that andy007 has already mentioned and that is the idea of eras within the continuity. To me, there are several eras of coinage in this country-

 

Pre-Federal (aka Colonials)

Federal pre-closed collar (until about 1836)

Victorian closed collar (until the new issues inspired by Theodore Roosevelt's coinage overhaul)

Dynamic Allegorical & Americanism (this truly takes hold after WWI)

Modern Literal (after WWII)

 

I typically classify all coinage before Modern Literal as classic and then use a subset of the Modern Literal as classic, also.

[Leothelion]

EDS all the way, especially with moderns wherever you draw the line, that's the only way to go. I'll take an EDS MS64 coin over any MS67 coin that is not EDS any day. Unless that coin exhibits another interesting charactoristic such as toning, prooflike or lustrous fields but the coin must be mostly there in strike.

 

Leo

[keithdagen]

I personally consider the modern coins to be the those coins currently circulating, plus the SBA, Ike, and Franklin series.

 

So, for me, the modern era started in:

 

1959 for the cent with the Lincoln Memorial design

1938 for the nickel with the Jefferson design

1946 for the dime with the Roosevelt design

1932 for the quarter with the Washington design

1948 for the half with the Franklin design

1971 for the dollar with the Ike design

 

Although I could probably argue that there should be a level between classic and modern coins that would emcompass all the silver moderns and add Barber's designs, the Liberty nickel, Peace Dollar, Buffalo nickel and the designs of 1916.

[DonHeath]

Interestingly, almost all of the answers up to now relate only to circ strikes. Perhaps proofs are less relevant. I think the dividing line for proofs is 1951.

[MikeKing]

I would consider the Walkers (1916-1947) as modern coinage, historically speaking. They are post WWI, but were minted past WWII.

The Morgans, I would think, cover both 'classic' and modern era's, as they overlap into the modern era. Also, they were still circulating in the 1950's.

 

 

 

[GDJMSP]

I don't think there can be only two defining periods. There are just too many differences in style that have ocured over the years. But I think style should be the defining criteria for the older coins and the advent of clad coinage for moderns. And as such I think the following would be appropriate. There are of course a few series that would not fit entirely within these dates such as the Lincoln cent. But for the most part - it works.

 

1792 - 1855 - Classic

 

1856 - 1921 - Neo-Classic

 

1921 - 1964 - Post Classic or Pre-Modern ( don't have a good name for this time period )

 

1965 - Modern

[gmarguli]

I've always considered all 1965-present to be moderns. The older coins are broken down into semi-categories. To me a modern coin would have to be one where a good majority of people alive today would have seen circulate. That would have to include a lot of people who aren't collecting social security.

 

Lincoln cents 1909-1939 are neo-classics. 1940-1958 are semi-modern. 1959-present are modern. Indians are neo-classics.

 

Jeffersons 1938-1964 are semi-moderns. 1965-present are moderns. Buffalos are classics.

 

Silver Roosevelts and Washingtons are semi-moderns. Clad are moderns.

 

Later Walkers are neo-classics. Franklins are semi-moderns. Kennedys are moderns.

 

Having said that, I think it is wrong to stick all US coins from 1793-19xx as classics. We need lots of different periods. However, it's too big and explosive an area to ever get people to agree.

 

 

[DaveG]

Tom,

 

If I understand the "thrust" of your post, I think you're addressing an issue of pricing instability rather than the literal age of a coin, so I'd suggest the following:

 

For discussions of whether "Moderns" are more or less price-risky than "Classics", I'd define "Moderns" as whatever the services are slabbing the most of right now; that is, its pricing history is too new to be predictable.

 

For example, using this definition, toned coins might be considered "Moderns", as would very recent, high grade clad coinage, while Seated Liberty and Bust coinage would be "classic".

 

Or, a shorter definition would also be: "Whatever I collect that I think is going to go up in price is a "Classic", while whatever you collect that I think is going to go down in price is a "Modern".

 

This should leave lots of room for irrelevant, yet heated, arguments!

[mark]

I concur with Greg. I particularly think the cut-off between silver and clad makes total sense for the previously silver coins. I was collecting then and collectors at that time made a huge distinction between silver and clad coins. Prior to the switch, collecting recent coins by rolls was a common mode of collecting. For example, people would have try to have roll sets of dimes or quarters. After the changeover, no one (well, in truth, some but very few) collected rolls of clad coins. Collectors essentially sneered at the SMS sets and rejected clad coins as worthy of being collected. So I think for dimes, quarters, and halves, the switch from silver to clad is clearly the best boundary between modern and whatever came before modern coins.

 

Mark

[TomB]

To address something that DaveG has touched upon; I am actually not concerned with pricing stability or any market conditions with the classic vs modern distinction. It is true that discussions of these topics generated the idea for this thread, however, I have no concern with that here.

 

I am after what other people define a classic or a modern coin. That's it, there is no other agenda. Many of the discussions that talk about peripheral issues never define what era is classic or modern and I think there are many differences between eras.

 

What I have written in my breakdown of design era has to do with artisitic merit, motive or intent and has nothing to do with market analysis.

[msmhappy]

Interestingly, almost all of the answers up to now relate only to circ strikes. Perhaps proofs are less relevant. I think the dividing line for proofs is 1951.

 

This is a different subject ( Proofs ).

 

Lets save that for another thread!

 

mike

 

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

 

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

[DaveG]

Tom,

 

If you're serious, then I feel that "moderns" are anything I could have collected from circulation when I was a kid starting in the mid-60s - that would include Wheat cents, Jeffersons, Roosevelts, Washingtons, Franklins, Kennedys, Ikes, etc.

 

"Classics" would include the coins I couldn't find in circulation, including Mercuries (most of them, anyway), Walkers and earlier coins.

 

Obviously, then, "moderns" and "classics" would be a floating designation, depending on when you first started collecting as a kid.

 

For you youngsters (like you, Tom) anything with silver in it would be a "classic".

[TomB]

Hi Dave, of course I'm serious.

 

I'm not certain if you think there was a motivation to subliminally influence the board or to build a future case against an idea. My actions on the board are governed by a personal code of integrity that I would not want to compromise, especially over something so trivial as numismatics. I realize well that modern-bashing threads can be incendiary on a board, just as I realize toning-bashing threads can be incendiary. There have been many threads regarding toning where someone will intentionally say something in order to start a firestorm and will have no regard for any damage it might to do the relationships between board members or to the board itself. I don't do that. My motivation was curiosity since I believe that most of us will have slightly different ideas as to what might be considered classic or modern and I wanted to see how others thought it out and came to their conclusions.

 

My actions and posts on these boards are fairly straightforward and are governed by a few tenets. Among these are that I don't post if my post can only be harmful to the community; I try to treat others as I would want to be treated; my debates on issues are grounded on ideas that I believe to be consistent and rational; and I never write anything that I wouldn't feel comfortable saying to someone in person.

[Oldtrader3]

I would define modern as "Post-allegorical" theme specific. Those ending in:

1938 for the Nickel.

1945-for the Dime.

1931-for the Quarter.

1947-for the Half Dollar.

1935-for the Dollar.

1933-for the Gold-Pratt and St. Gaudens designs.

 

The Cent is in a different catagory, having been the first dead President. My preference on cents would be post shell casing (1945) cents as being modern, although 1958 could serve just as well. You could also make a case that the Indian Cents were the last Classical cent design.

 

I am a great fan of the Allegorical Coins and Currency. I quess that the artistic-romantic side of me would like to see these themes again on our money. They made our money almost art and certainly most interesting. Of course the Neo-Classical and Allegorical Art Era that spawned these coins is now dead. However, I like some of the post modern designs of the $5.00 Half Eagle Commens as well. The Eagle on the Constitution (see Scan) and Washington Commens are 2 that come to mind.

[TomB]

Yes, the Constitution eagle is quite cool, however, the Washington eagle is based upon the eagle from Laura Gardin Fraser's Commission of Fine Arts winning design for the Washington quarter so I don't think I can give any credit to the current Mint staff for that effort.

 

By the way, nice type set!

[cladking]

The mint doesn't really differentiate their production this way, only collectors. The biggest change for collectors occured in 1965 when the clads were introduced and people mostly stopped collecting the newer coins.

 

People started collecting them again with the advent of the state quarters so I'd propose 1965-1998 to be moderns and 1999-date to be ultra-moderns.

[Oldtrader3]

Thanks, Tom.

[classicalman-migration]

For me as one who grew up during the changeover from silver to clad, I can see where 'Classic' would end at the end of the "Silver Age". But for me, the dates listed by OldTrader would best define my "classic" era, and with that, I would include the Indian cent. Lincoln was the first of the "modern" era coins in my opinion, even though it started in 1909. The only reason it started then was because of his (Lincoln's) birthyear (1809) centennial. The designs of the older coins are, ..well...'classic'

 

[BillJones]

I'd say that most anything that was minted after the end of end of Great Depression, let's say after 1935 if you must be arbitrary about it, could be called modern. The reason that I say that is that the end of the Great Depression marked the start of a period when people could afford to put a lot of Mint State coins away in rolls and even bags. That created a pretty large supply of Mint State coins that could be available to collectors.

 

Coins that were minted prior to the Great Depression may have been put away in some quantities too, but a lot of them got killed in the early 1930s. People just not could afford set aside the cash. They had to eat and put a roof over their heads.

 

One can argue about the rarity of some of the modern coins in the very high grades, like MS-66 or better; but from the perspective of run-of-the-mill MS coins in MS-60 to 64, there are really plenty to go around for the usual date and mint sets.

[MikeKing]

That's a very interesting reply, Mr. Jones, I never thought of it that way. This actually opens up a whole new arena of interpretation. I wonder how Q. David Bowers would answer this question?

 

I think the responses to Tom's thread provide good grounds for a lot of thought, and I think it's only my lack of numismatic knowledge that prevents me from being able to fully appreciate what everyone has contributed to this fertile question.

 

Lot's to think about.

 

 

[Android]

The mint doesn't really differentiate their production this way, only collectors.

 

Not to take Clad's particular comment out of context, but I think there is an important idea here that may say more about us collectors than we think. As collectors, and human beings for that matter, we have a particularly strong desire, or need, to classify, categorize, justify, explain, and

label everything we do in order for the world to make sense to us.

 

I think using the terms "modern" and "classic" are only labels that I find little intrinsic value in adhering to. They are ALL coins. A nice coin is a nice coin whether it was minted yesterday afternoon, or 150 years ago. The thing that I see that transpires in most threads on the subject invariably ends up being based on peoples disagreements on the market value of coins - forgetting entirely that coins, whatever age, can be absolutely beautiful, and worthy of collecting, regardless of their value. Limiting our collecting by strict adherence to market value, classic or modern, or worse yet, buying into the classic or modern label is IMO, limiting our appreciation and enjoyment of spectacular coins. No, a new coin doesn't have the history that an old one has, but it can still be outstandingly beautiful in its "newness".

 

I am by no means "all there" with my thinking as I have stated above, it's rather utopian, but I am trying to move in this direction. That is, appreciating every coin that I buy for what it is, not what labeled category my natural inclinations would dictate that I put it in.

 

Sorry if this wandered off topic, as I didn't delineate a date range, but I guess that's my point!

 

Andy

[TomB]

Android, I think yours was an excellent, on topic and salient response in this thread! It is the type of post that should make people think. I believe it to be one of the best posts I have read in some time and admit that I am bipolar in this way in that I agree with you, yet I still break down coinage in my mind, likely as a way of distilling observation.

[Oldtrader3]

Maybe more precision is what is needed. "Classic" to me implies something prior to Neo-Classical, Impressionist or Allegorical. Maybe we should be more period precise as they are in the art world and catagorize by era (i.e. Post-modern, Allegorical, etc.). Maybe we should class-up-our-act with greater period precision (for the benefit of outside the hobby collector's as well).

 

These descriptors are certainly more precise than the sloppy 2-catagory system that we have now, which is very imprecise, in fact misleading. It also makes us look somewhat naive, to classify over 200 years of period coinage into only 2 classifications. Why shouldn't we line up with furniture and other collectible art periods? I am not trying to be a snob, just broaden the appeal and align the coin era relationships with those of the rest of the Collectibles and Art World.

 

We could have Federal Coinage (prior to 1837), Classical Coinage (Seated Lib.), Neo Classical (i.e Barbers and Morgans), Allegorical (i.e Buffalos, Merc's, St. Lib's, Walkers, Peace Dollars), Modern (dead Presidents) and Post-Modern (Gold Commems.).

 

This sounds pretty radical but it might attach some savoir faire to our hobby with other collector groups.