Featured Numismatic Rarity vs Coin Value, my simple analysis

I'd imagine that BN IHCs suffer from bigger-better-faster syndrome. Small cents, on average, can be found in large enough quantities and for a wide enough range of dates that those able to earn the RD or RB designations from the TPGs are considered the default choice among many MS set builders. Obviously, this is not true for all set builders and is not true for all dates, but the easier to obtain dates in RD and RB will put downward price pressure on their BN brethren. We see something similar with FB Mercs and FBL Franklins.

The 1907 IHC is truly generic up to gem and if the TPGs have a low pop in MS65 for BN examples it likely has more to do with the relatively low numbers of coins submitted that are brown instead of the overall rarity of the issue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm just the opposite I see a coin if I like it and the price I buy it main thing it's gotta appeal to me especially as I buy for eye appeal especially color surface and well struck

 

All the posts about rarity are spot on. But the reality many times is that is simple economics folks - supply and demand. Even back as far as ancient coins! And that supply/demand curve shifts from year to year.

 

Seeing your 1907 Indian Head listed as the rarest reminded me of an old coin buddy who was trying to build an NGC MS-64 Date & MM set of Washington Quarters. He figured being just under MS-65 would give him good looking coins at a price that was affordable. The 1940's dates filled in immediately, 1930's too with a little more cash. The 1950's, no problem! But he started to notice a road block....The 1970's, 80's, 90's junk that you still find in your pocket today are impossible to buy slabbed in a low grade of MS-64. He would've gladly paid an MS-69 price for these newer ones just to maintain continuity, but TPG certified versions just don't exist in most cases because there is so much supply and no other demand. And if one did exist it would have been someones blooper submission.....but it's a good way to own a "pop 1" coin LOL

 

Demand can be a more powerful influence on price than supply.

Imagine a rare US coin from 1789 with an arbitrary image, perhaps an eagle or something on it? What would you pay?
Imagine another rare coin, everything exactly the same about it except it had George Washington on it instead... Would you pay more? Alot more?

 

I think an excellent example is the 1997-P matte proof Jefferson Nickel from the Botanic Garden set.

The coin has a mintage of only 25,000 and so by most standards is rare. It is from a popular series, but it is not a popular coin.

It sells for under $200.

 

I agree with your definition, Doug. But people continue to make "rare" a relative term. By standards of Jefferson Nickels, it is by far the lowest mintage, but I agree, if you can find 5 or 10 for sale on eBay at any given time, the coin is really not rare, nor is it even scarce.

I thought it was a good example in comparison to any of the coins in the OPs list as it's mintage is lower than any of those, and those were the basis of the conversation.

 

I think you are completely correct. Take the 1909-S VDB Lincoln Cent. That coin can be found in nearly every coin shop in the country, it is very easy to find. But the demand is so high it keeps the price very high.

 

classic case in point my 1850 seated dollar in xf 40 the total original mintage is less then the slabbed population ofany and all Morgan dollar without the proof only 1895 yet the price is far less then much more common dates in the same grade check prices on a 93-s or 89-cc for example

 

Rarity and popularity, rarity and popularity, now where have I heard terms similar to that in my formal Economics training? Oh yeah... Could it be SUPPLY AND DEMAND??? I do believe it is!

I know that many in numismatics view popularity/demand as essentially a fixed factor that changes not all that much over time. If you are talking about one person's collecting lifetime, that is more or less true. Tastes do vary but slowly. I know people like Matt Dinger and Doug (by observing the total body of their work here and for Matt on Coin Show Radio) think more highly of a quasi-fixed level of popularity/demand certainly than I do. I expect truly MASSIVE changes in collecting tastes to strike (befall?) this hobby relatively soon. I wrote long ago here that my son's generation are "mutants". They take my generation's views, and those of our predecessors, NOT IN THE LEAST!

They don't care AT ALL about precious metals, even less than I do, and that's saying something! Classic coins bore them to tears; they don't "connect" with them. I expect a GIHUGEOUS increase in demand/popularity for what we call "modern junk". As their generation becomes the market norm, we're going to see the classics decline and moderns soar. I absolutely believe that. 60+ potbellied white guys with bolo ties and subscriptions to Arizona Highways, (our dads and us) ARE the "endangered species" of the 21st century. We're already "dead", we just haven't fallen over yet.

The most bearish part of collecting is so-called collector grade classic coins. The top end can more than thrive catering to the Mark Cubans of the world, so that part's immune. But I see the part of the market that has been supported by us as heading to Hades in a hand basket.

 

I'm 27 and love classic coins. I am beginning to specialize in seated quarters as my 'serious collection'.

So how do I fit into the mix?

One of the number one reasons people will say about coins and their allure is the HISTORY associated with them. Both the imaginative and the actual. For instance we can wonder about a a coins travels, but we KNOW about its manufacture and need for production.

With that being said, what you described above translates to me that people will no longer appreciate history. And THAT I just don't see happening any time soon.

I agree that there will always be variances in what's popular, but to make the stated opinion above ignores the larger picture.

Most of us collect coins to either gain financially at some point or to observe and protect our history and heritage. Sure the teens of today might be wrapped up in their video games, but to say those fundamental mentalities of appreciation for art and history will change is ridiculous, it hasn't in over 5000 years.

 

Funny you would put it quite that succinctly, because it leads me to two comments.

1) The functional or practical end of the large-scale appreciation of history is PRECISELY what I believe is just around the corner. In fact, I think it goes far BEYOND a lack of appreciation, all the way to large-scale disdain, at least to the extent it could, and I believe WILL, hollow out the core of what has been the mainstream of numismatics. Your current and still mainstream "normal" appreciation of history, I'd suggest makes you the "double negative" of a mutant among the mutants, hence contemporaneously (for a limited time only) still normal.

2) I am utterly immune from ANY argument that includes appeals to "it's been that way for 5000 years". Why? Well, just for starters, marriage has meant exactly one thing for 5000 years, and now seemingly over a metaphorical weekend the institution has been fundamentally altered significantly at the political and cultural behest of the very same generation that is the topic at hand. I don't find my thesis as "ridiculous" as I do "self-evident". Underestimate the significance of the Digital Generation at the risk of your own relevance.

Yes, I am aware of the historical risk of the tempting belief I'm stating herein that "this time it's different". Yet how can we not believe so, when we reflect on the momentous changes we have seen, and observe that not only is the pace of change maddeningly fast, but also that the rate of change, AND the rate of the change in the rate of change are increasing (1st through third derivatives are all positive)?

No, to me, it is the belief that the 5000 years of history contains enough metaphorical "pull of gravity" to counter a technological revolution that exceeds any metaphorical "attainment of escape velocity" that strikes me as ridiculous.

We used to say the first generation makes the money, the second spends the money, and the third studies art history. What I'm suggesting here is nothing less than there will soon be essentially zero demand for schools of art history. I'm aware how radical that sounds. I still believe it with every fibre of my being.

That funny sound in the background is the death rattle of the academic study of the Liberal Arts and Humanities, and I write as a 1977 graduate of one of the finest Liberal Arts and Humanities schools on the planet.

 

So we are going to completely turn away from two major human traits in an instant? For 5,000 years we have had some sort of 'coin' collector, and some sort of appreciation of history.


Even today's 'soft' society still focuses on art, which draws upon history.

It's not going to change enough in our lifetimes to really worry about.

What you are saying amount to the similar argument of we will eventually be a cashless society. Go say that to a drug dealer or any independent person, or any 'criminal' who practices tax evasion. Cash will always reign supreme.

The idea of marriage hasn't changed at all. Two people committing to one another and spending their lives together hasn't changed due to the gender of the parties involved. The idea is still the same.

PLUS there is plenty of evidence showing that many cultures have no clue what marriage is in the terms we claim today. Bad example.

 

Wow, why do you insist on trying to shove words in my mouth by replacing my "trend" observations with absolutes? That's not terribly academically honest, is it now? As you stated the query, the answer is "Duh. No." But if you allow me to alter your query to return it to the parameters in which I originally argued it, then the answer is "Yes, precisely that." I expect the mainstream of numismatics that has held up the hobby for the majority of my life to economically implode, and not that long from now, either. The long term trend, EXCEPT AT THE VERY HIGHEST END, i.e. the uber rarity end with material auctioned by Sotheby's and Heritage and Stacks Bowers, is completely bearish, and not just by a little. That high end knows no apparent upper limit, and should we start to observe one, Katie bar the door, the utter implosion of the collector market will have been well underway.

As to "our lifetimes", nothing could matter to me less. For a variety of medical reasons, my lifetime could just as easy end 5 minutes from now. NOTHING I've done in numismatics for the last ten years has been for me, but for my son, who loves numismatics, but in a manner the you's, and Matt Dingers and Dougs would scarcely recognize. His chief driving motivation in his collecting endeavours in neither art, nor history, nor science, nor even profit. If I were forced to name it, it might best be called "irony". So I practice numismatic irony in my acquisitions, because it's not about me, it's about him. A legacy is much better when its nature is informed by the recipient. It's something we do together. I don't shove a 1963 ethos down his gullet.

By the way, there are extremely serious individuals trying to abolish cash even as we write these paragraphs, and they are gaining steam.

Also, you seem to have conflated marriage and cohabitation. It's a common error. You won't be the last to make it. Most of the other people making the error are judges, justices, and legislators.