Franklin set....What's it worth?

They could be mint state, but the folder can take away luster over time. I have many silver coins put in blue folders UNC from mint sets 40 years ago that now the mint luster is gone. As for price, it is what someone will pay.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If I recall correctly I remember reading somewhere the non Bugs Bunny 55' is apparently actually scarcer than the Bugs Bunny version.

 

A week ago 13.75 times was a great price for any junk silver. Today it was 14. My lcs does not charge more for halves. Franklin's in better circulated condition are very common.

The set I'm looking at looks to be about half uncirculated. Half AU. Maybe 4 coins look XF. Essentially the asking price is about 22.5 times face. I don't think I can justify it at that price. BTW, I just found out he paid $425 for the set back in 2003.

I'm just not a collector. I'm not ludicrous. I'm a stacker. I can buy xfs and Aus anytime right now at 14.

 

I will agree that you can buy XF-AU Franklins @ ~2.06 x Melt, as I've been liquidating my common date quality Silver collection @ less than that.

Now that you know what he paid for his collection in 2003 when the average Silver price was $4.85/oz., you'll know that he paid ~5.56 x Melt for his set. Your statement of purchases for XF-AU was ~2.06 x Melt, or ~37% of his cost/oz. Silver. My "Grey Sheet" current dealer wholesale quoted price is appreciably greater than that.

I personally consider the argument for your "set" value pricing as ludicrous, and will buy all that you/lcs can supply. I just wouldn't offer a "friend" that price.

My "ludicrous" advice/statement is worth exactly that for which you paid. It's not intended as an affront, just a difference of my "friend"s value to me.

JMHO

 

I'm not trying to hurt his pride but one thing is clear. He overpaid for the set back in 03. That doesn't mean somebody should overpay today. ...which is why I don't like paying collector prices for something very common.

The set does have the semi key dates. It certainly has some value over 14x.

Looking at ebay, sold listings.... UNC sets have gone from $350 to $650.

 

As an objective "Devils Advocate", in fairness to your "friend", since you referenced eBay sold listings, there are numerous recent SALES above that which your friend paid. Here are 2, I believe within the last week:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1948-1963-F...922128?hash=item2106ea0a50:g:dycAAOSw8-tWagsu

There's 1 anomaly that I found at your low suggested price of $350, which is approximately ~50% greater than that which you proposed as a fair price, still less than Dealer "Grey Sheet" wholesale current suggested price. Although you may have found some bargains, I believe you'll find that your suggested price is appreciably below current Prominent Dealer offered prices for "Random" circulated coins, e.g.:

http://www.apmex.com/product/5296/90-silver-franklin-halves-10-20-coin-roll-avg-circ

I suggest that numerous aforementioned facts may belie your statement: "I'm not trying to hurt his pride but one thing is clear. He overpaid for the set back in 03."

I reiterate: "Please don't offend your "friend" with that offer/statement".

Enough Said, as I may be incorrect, JMHO

 

You make some good points, and I will consider them. The set in your link appears to have coins in way better condition than his.

But, I can buy (and I do) average circ. Franklins every day of the week at my LCS for 14xs. All common dates, nothing less than fine or I don't take them, sometimes I get AU Proofs.

I will pass on the set.

 

Must start by posting the Franklin set as it resides behind the bar. (Go Mets!).


I don't see harsh evidence of over dipping. It may have just been an affect of my original low resolution photo & the plastic in front of all the coins. Here are a couple close-ups taken with my phone camera.



There are other Capital holders on the walls behind the bar:

 

If that set is over-dipped, please send all your over-dipped sets to me at ...


By the way, I'm into Capital Plastics holders too, but I prefer the black backgrounds.

 

I think that they look very different in the latest images.

I tried to couch what I said as "is it just me"...

 

It's my fault - I'm a blast white fan and a toning skeptic. [Note: "skeptic" is being used here in place of far more inflammatory language I'd prefer to use here.]

The OP's set (the one he shows) seems to suffer from what I call "Whitman album rot". I see it a lot. I don't know exactly what the culprit is - the plastic slides (?), the album itself (?), other environmental factors (?).

 

does anyone else see the surfaces I was referring to?

 

I see something on the 1949-D obverse - a grainy looking field.

 

Yes, I saw some graininess on the coins in the original photos which I don't really see on the coins in hand.

If you mix tequila with a splash of Grand-Marnier, lime & ice, the the coin surfaces become much more pleasant to look at.

 

Imo that grainy look is extremely common on early Franklin's combined with extreme polishing of the dies if you obverse the fields closely. Seems like it was mainly done to remove clashes, not sure why the mint clashed so many dies with the Franklin's though. Or perhaps it appears that way because they did everything possible to keep dies in service back then versus having to replace them.

 

The new photos lack the graininess of the first. Good job. Excellent coins.