An Interesting Take on MS-70 graded Moderns

Everyone thinks all the "common" moderns are common in high grade and bad articles like this one just encourage this nonsense. The common wisdom is that moderns are so common they are uncollectible but the reality is very much different. There are lots fewer '82-P quarters in Gem than '09-S VDB cents. You might say so what since the '82-P is common in circulation but most in circulation are ugly, poorly made examples from worn out dies and are covered in scratches and bangs. Next someone will quote pop reports that show the services have graded lots of Gem '82 quarters but they don't know that almost every one of them is poorly made from weak, worn, and misaligned dies.

So what do the bashers do? They talk about the high quality coins made for collectors. All they're really doing is showing that many moderns are so well made that most of them are MS-69 and MS-70. These people are no better than the publishers of the price guides that distort the markets and make it hard for new collectors to get a start in moderns.

This is what they want because they hate moderns and ridicule collectors for having the temerity to collect anything made after 1964.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Coinweek usually does a much better job keeping this kind of garbage out of print but some sneak through because most of the hobby are still modern bashers at heart.

This is akin to damning all classic coin because some BU bust half was found to have altered surfaces. It's like damning all classics because a quantity of a previously rare date turns up in some out of the way place. We all take our chances and spin the wheel and in the long run we're still all going to shuffle off this mortal coil.

 

And I took a CC BU Morgan dollar to a furniture store and they only offered me a dollar on it. The wouldda given me more in the OGP.

It looks like Edgewood Coin mostly sells Morgans so of course they pay more for OGP moderns. Most people and most dealers don't consider anything made after 1964 a real coin. I wager Robinson would agree.

 

I'm not a big fan of little differences in grades either and I can not support the current grading system that ignores quality and focuses almost solely on the number and severity of hits. This might be a good way to grade classics but it's a funny way to grade moderns.

But leaving coins in OGP is exactly what has made a lot of coins really tough. The packaging isn't stable and since the coins weren't collected they are no longer readily available.

 

"Finally, the market for MS70 coins as opposed to those in OGP is evolving. I recently attended the Baltimore Expo and had the opportunity to discuss this issue with John Robinson of Edgewood coin store in Florida. He told me that his company pays more for modern coins in their OGP than for slabbed versions, including MS-70’s, which surprised me. In his view third party grading is really only suitable for classic coins."
----------------

Anecdotally, this sounds like a strong case for OGP. However, one dealer does not make a market, especially if they are paying under spot.

I have also noticed that many of these dealers that say they won't pay for a 70, will still turn around and price them for a large premium (often more than even on eBay).

I'm not one to be enamored with the 70 grade, but I won't say it's worth less than OGP (unless the general market proves it).

 

I don't know, I don't much appreciate a high mintage, high grade modern, however, a low mintage, high grade modern commem unc silver dollar has its appeal. Take the Boys Town unc dollar, for example - a blast white, strong strike, with a no problem obverse field 70 is a much more desirable coin than a low end 69, those marks in that large field hurt the eyes. Of course I buy the empty OGP to keep with the slab.

 

I paid a few bucks for the OGP material for the 2014 Kennedy silver set and gold half and the three 2016 gold commemoratives. I bought the coins in the aftermarket in 70 grade, but figured it wouldn’t hurt to have the boxes in case they are ever sold. Anything I buy direct from the Mint stays in Mint boxes.

 

I would also like to add that buying a 70 for under mint issue price isn't necessarily a case to support that OGP sells for more. Often the mint price goes down over time (due to high supply, low demand, etc...). In many of these cases the OGP can be bought for even less than the 70.

Edit: in my opinion, MS/PF 69 slabs are where the deals are for moderns. If you are collecting the coin, you can find these at prices below OGP (OGP may trade higher since it still has the possibility of grading 70...although the 69 could just as easily grade 70 if cracked and resubmitted [not something that I advocate though]).

 

Every ten years or so they dust that one off. It must have been a slow week at Coinweek. Generally, I don't like moderns. The craftsmanship is horseship(sp?).

 

Indeed!

To each his own. The reason I like moderns so much is the quality is so poor that it makes the search for nice specimens a challenge.

I don't especially care for many of the designs either but time has a way of softening opinions on things like this. Those designed by committee will always be poor but many of the others will be considered good art in fifty years. Cluttered maybe, but good.

 

I don’t bash collecting moderns, but I do bash collecting top-pop moderns. They are horrible investments as the population numbers can only increase. Plus, I’d be willing to bet that 95% of these collectors cannot tell the difference between a 69 and a 70. They just buy the slab for their registry sets without caring about the coin inside. The coins themselves cannot hold their value on their own; they require a TPG blessing to get anywhere close to what top-pops go for.

 

Again, this goes to the heart of the word "modern".

Just because a coin was made after 1965 does not mean that it is collected only in MS-70 or MS-69. It doesn't mean it is common in high grade. Many moderns don't even exist in UNC far less in Gem. Many moderns that are exceedingly common in F are very scarce or unknown in true Gem. No modern made for circulation exists in MS-70. Sure the pops can go up but far far far more moderns are being lost everyday than classics. This is an obvious fact. Very few '09-S VDB cents are lost or degraded every year but countless billions of almost every modern is being lost, destroyed, degraded, or otherwise removed from the total pops or from existence.

I strongly agree that paying large premiums for "invisible" quality is a poor idea. But if a collector can see the difference between a 69 and a 70 who am I to tell him he shouldn't collect it or he is certain to lose money. Fancy slabs and the like are more likely bad deals but again, what's wrong with collecting rare slabs with coins in them. Here I would warn that the risk is high but who can predict what future demand might arise.

Let people collect what they choose. Yes, a friendly warning is not necessarily inappropriate but these warnings should be specific. Saying most 1982-S quarters exist in a very narrow range between PR-68 and PR-70 so paying significant premiums for higher grades is highly risky but saying "modern pops can only increase" is simply wrong and misleading. Try finding a solidly struck 1982-P quarter!!! This date might not even exist in true MS-65 and telling people moderns are a money trap is just as bad as the publishers who treat this as a common coin in their price guides. Even PCGS which grades many inferior specimens of this date in MS-66 and MS-67 lists the MS-65 as being worth less than the wholesale price of a BU roll for the date!!!

It is all these baseless warnings and baseless pricing that is keeping the rarity of many moderns from being widely known.

But they are starting to be collected by the grass roots. People are buying the coins and wholesale pricing is increasing. The hobby might not wake up to this until it is almost over but it is happening despite the warnings and the bashing. It is happening despite the desires of most in the hobby.

 

I did not say that

Nor did I say this

Examples? Name a modern US coin that does not exist in UNC. I doubt that there are “many”.

You are comparing apples to oranges. A lot of the classic US coins were “lost” while they were just circulating money. Same thing is happening with moderns. The rate at which a certain type of coin is lost stagnates over time.

I never tried to force collectors to only collect a certain thing.

Strike is irrelevant to the numerical grade until you get above MS-66.

Some moderns are money traps. Try new releases and proof sets.

Prices of top pop coins have been falling over the past decade. I would not call that baseless.

“Pricing” is based on actual sales. Again, not baseless.

 

'64 clad quarter
'71-D DDR 25c
'72-D DDR 25c
'76-D DDO 25c
'77 type "d" reverse 25c

There are "many" others. There are lots more that might not exist in Unc but these are pretty sure ones.

Coins are coins. Moderns are newer than classics by definition. They have on average different attributes and characteristics.

So ugly moderns can get high grades because they are mark free.

I believe you're probably right and as long as people use the word 'some" I don't have a problem with it. It's when people tar all moderns with the same brush and use the word as a synonym for "trash" that I have a problem with it. It's also when people suggest a coin that they can't understand is uncollectible or assume that buyers don't know what they're doing.

I was referring to baseless pricing. Not all modern pop tops have fallen.

Then why are there wholesale prices for coins in AU higher than the price guides for the same coin in Gem that might not even really exist in well made and pristine condition? Why does the Redbook guide list the '82-P in chBU for less than ugly coins sell for on eBay?

 

I don’t count varieties and errors when I refer to a modern issue. I was referring to entire issues (such as ALL 1971 D Quarters), as that is what is collected in registry sets. Plus how many of these are sitting around unattributed? Probably many.

This is like saying there are many bust half issues are unknown in UNC, even though every year has many known uncirculated examples. How many 1829 half dollars are there in UNC condition? Lots. How many O-120 1829 halves are out there known in UNC condition? Zero. How many are out there waiting to be discovered? Who knows. Classics are the same in this regard. Name a rare variety and you are bound to find several unknown in UNC grades. Both were made for circulation, so there is nothing inherently special about the examples you gave.

That still does not change my point. Plus I do not see how your logic correlates to countering my point. It is completely non-sequitur. Yes they are newer and different, but they are used for circulation just the same. And coins get lost when they are just used for circulation, less so as they get older and replaced.

Yes. That is how it has been for decades.

Because the Red Book is not a reliable price guide.

Because the price guides are outdated or a price was assigned before the rarity was truly understood. The Cherrypicker’s guide is full of examples of such.

 

It's not only circulating moderns suffering high attrition but also the few coins that have been set aside for the future. Since most are worth little they do not get proper care.

Some fairly common varieties were allowed to enter circulation because they weren't even identified for many years. People didn't even look at moderns to notice they had different reverses. So even something that had a mintage around 80,000 like the type c reverse '72-D quarter will be virtually unknown in Unc and scarce above VF.

 

I could probably speak for 90+% of collectors when I say I have never heard of this variety, nor have I searched for it. It’s scarcity in the populations probably stems more from a lack of searching than a lack of existence. There are probably a couple tucked away in BU rolls that will never be realized for what they are. That does not mean they don’t exist.

 

No.

It doesn't work this way with moderns.

The classics that survive are primarily random so any given coin had about an equal probability of survival today when it was produced. Today there is almost no randomness in what survives from the 1970's or the clad quarter era in general. Most of the coins that were saved in rolls originated among the few dealers selling the coins. These were located in western Pennsylvania, Greencastle, Indiana, and smaller sources in Ohio and California. For the main part any coin that wasn't released in these areas do not exist today in rolls or bags. Most of the coins that do exist were released in mint sets and only one major quarter variety exists in mint sets; '81-P type "d".

All other varieties are scarce or rare and might not exist in Unc. Keep in mind though that I can't speak of other collectors and this disregards some f the varieties that were distributed in PA like the '80-D type "d" that appears in Arlan Kramer's rolls.

You also need to consider that the biggest sources didn't even distribute an entire $1000 bag (4000 pieces) of dates like the '69-P quarter. There was no interest and the few who did collect just used mint sets. 1969 quarters from mint sets still in the packaging (500,000) are now ruined by tarnish. Most of the rest have been spent or lost in fires and floods.

This means even common varieties like the '84-P type "d" quarter are very elusive in Unc. None appeared in mint sets and few people saved rolls. Despite accounting for 30% of mintage this coin isn't often seen better than a beat up VF. 1984-P quarters got beat up very quickly because they had very low rims to protect the design. For most practical purposes the coin is possibly non-existent in true Gem and hard to find in chBU. It's hardly rare in MS-60 but most of them are unattractive and few collectors have ever desired unattractive coins. I'd guess 5 or 10 in Gem, several hundred in chBU, and a couple thousand in Unc. The coin is still not in any sort of demand just as a '70-S cent in Gem has little demand unless it's the sm dt. PL '70-D half dollars have no real premium unless they are high grade as well despite accounting for only ~1% of a mintage of 2,000,000.

Across the board in moderns we find rare coins that weren't in demand the day they were made and they still aren't. The article that prompted this thread is part of the reason and the other parts are bad price guides and bad third party grading. There is a widespread belief caused by modern bashers and people who don't collect moderns that they are all common. Q David Bowers even once suggested they are as common as grains of sand on the beach.

 

They ARE common. The varieties are just an excuse to make some more special than they are. VAMs and Newcomb varieties are the same way. They take coins that are otherwise uninteresting, assign a rarity rating, and you suddenly have a “different” coin that is more “special” than the rest.

 

...And there it is. "All moderns are common" as explained by someone who owns no moderns and couldn't spot one without a date on it.